This isn't smart; this is crazy (at least when applied to the United States).
Britain may have decided that it doesn't need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can't really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.
However, the only reason NATO members can cut their militaries down to levels below what's necessary to defend themselves is because the United States is doing the defending for them.
Make no mistake: I'm all in favor of quick-strike forces. I strongly support the National Guard and our various Reserve forces. I understand the role of the Air Force and the Marine Corps and of various elite troops within the Army and the Navy in working as force multipliers.
However, a certain amount of critical mass is necessary to occupy and hold territory, as we're finding out the hard way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a limit to how effective local troops are without decades of training, and when we essentially bribe local forces to do work for us, we run the risk of creating well-armed (if not well-trained) troops with only ephemeral loyalty to the goals and mission of the United States.
Some people think large armies are obsolete. Go tell that to the South Koreans who are facing the threat of North Korea, and behind them, China.
My brother-in-law was in the South Korean Special Forces. I may know more than a little bit about the benefit of highly-trained elite troops and of airpower to deter and if necessary to defeat a large traditional army such as that of North Korea. But anyone who thinks that an active duty American Army of 100,000 personnel can work needs to realize that isn't even enough troops to deal with the North Koreans, let alone a concerted attack by China or one of the other second-tier powers in the world which would be greatly emboldened by an evisceration of the United States military.
Some people will say an active duty army of 100,000 could work if coupled with a strong National Guard and reserve units, as well as a smaller but armed-to-the-teeth Air Force and Marine Corps. If we could follow the Israeli model of rapidly mobilizing huge reserve units to supplement a smaller active duty force, it might work. But we'd have to prove it by totally destroying an enemy who decided our smaller active-duty military wasn't an effective deterrent and decided to try their luck. I don't want to see something like that happen if Iran, North Korea, or even some tinpot dictator in Latin America decided the American military was no longer an effective deterrent to their ambitions.
Right now, we're still a major power but if we reduce our military, it wouldn't be long before someone else would come calling with the idea of taking what is ours since we can't defend it any longer. Think that's not the case? Go back and look at what caused the second World War. Hitler sensed weakness in Britain and France and pounced on the chance to expand. That's the best known case of this idea that military weakness, even if it's just a perception, invites war, but it's a well known maxim and has been proven time and time again.
We don't have the guts to use nukes now, so we have to have a large conventional military. That's just the way the world works.
‘Britain may have decided that it doesn’t need to protect itself anymore and can rely on the United States for its protection. Considering that most of the rest of NATO has long since decided to mooch off the United States, I can’t really blame the British parliament for deciding to follow the lead of the rest of our allies.’
Bollocks. We havent, we dont, and wont need to mooch of you.