[rbg81]

Funny--if we are in WWIII, how come we keep reducing the number of active duty troops? In WWII, we had half the population and 8M in the armed forces. The truth is we can't win WWIII and have mushrooming entitlement spending at the same time. We've got to make a choice.

[jeltz25]

Great point. In WW2, fully 10% of the population was mobilized and under arms. By comparison, in this war, less than one tenth of one percent, or .001% is mobilized and under arms.

If we raised a military of even 3-5%, let's say 10,000,000 and really committed ourselves full throttle, we could rid ourselves of this vermin once and for all in under a year.

[dsc]

"In WWII, we had half the population and 8M in the armed forces. "

Not on the morning of Sunday, December 7th, 1941. Comrade Rooseveltsky's Secretary of War boasted that he had "cut to the bone, then kept cutting."

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The current situation is not a World War yet, and the American military only grew into the millions after the United States got into the second World War.

While the number of active troops currently could be a bit small, they could be augmented by technology.

[redgolum]

The truth is we can't win WWIII and have mushrooming entitlement spending at the same time. We've got to make a choice.

Most will choose entitlement and a reduced dihmini tax. And I am not joking.