Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
wm,

The absolute comparison is more relevant because we are more likely to see limited and "small" wars in a globalizing international environment dominated 24-hour real time media, all-volunteer armies, and the growing "distance" between the civilian population and the country's wars. The distinct advantages of an all-volunteer force is that it requires less political support to deploy and obeys orders even in the absence of popular support. But what has happened in the United States is that the defense economy is now wildly inefficient, with significantly higher costs for substantially less output. "Small" wars now cost more than "big" wars. How much are "big" wars going to cost and can we afford them if we're already bankrupted by "small" wars? This has been labelled the "defense death spiral" where the procurement and replacement cycle continues to require more investments but fields less equipment per generation. This is particularly true for aircraft and warships. And this in turn pressures cuts in personnel and training, reducing combat power all around. Not to mention competition with other domestic agendas and social programs.
You're really cherry-picking points here. We, for instance, haven't been fighting "small" wars as we have in the past. Our entire procurement and development system was geared for "big" wars, and developed its habits in rehearsals for wars that never came. It also has a great deal to do with our insistence on revolutionary weapon development as opposed to something more gradual (limited number of test systems evolving from something that worked as opposed to extended "super system" development cycles that produce wildly expensive systems that are focused on one or two specific, usually big war missions that may not be relevant by the time the system is fielded). Does everything have to be mutil-role or stealth? Likely not, but that's how development works these days.

All-volunteer armies are the norm for the United States. This shouldn't be hard to grasp. Would a conscript force actually contain adventurism? People always say so, but I'm not aware of any real studies that demonstrate this. It's nice to say, but the policy class will still see a tool as a tool and would certainly structure any conscription system to exempt their peers (need we remember that "universal health care" isn't really universal, as Congress and others still retain their own, superior systems).