There is an interesting issue coming out from this usual bashing kind of thread.
The U.S. projection in the world.
It's excessive?
Granted that the old great enemy has become almost a pet friend waiting for the next dollar-cake, there's only one nation with the capability to be a threat, military speaking and terrorism apart: China.
But actually China has only a small projection capability, and only out of is own borders, more, China have some interest to remain in a "almost-no-aggressive-stance" because a growing part of it's economy is based on production and commerce in low-tech mass produced items with the western world.
Europe cannot be considered a possible enemy (aside the opinions of some posters here
), looking at the interconnection between the econimics.
South America is completely under control of the USA.
Middle-east, well, while the big rich emires keep control of their respective countries, and have an advantage in the Oil commerce, no danger can rise from there, unless Israel do something mad, involving the bigger ally in something weird.
Afrika it's too busy starving.
The only remaining reasons are the U.S. interests in economical protection, and the "rogue states".
But for theese 2 menaces it's not needed an amount so huge of forces as US actually have around the world, a more thin, well equipped and higly movable force can be employed more efficiently, mantaining some smaller garrison here and there.
A lot of posters here point to the amount of taxes that can be saved by reducing the army, but there's a consequence that I dont see discussed here:
The "war" economy.
Have you an idea of how many people have his income related with the "US projection"?
Not only the soldiers, but a lot of producers, some example?
Boeing, Microsoft, Ford, all the bigger factories have a big part of their income with the military market, and I can only imagine the smaller ones.
It's something that need to be considered.
Food for tought
