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).
Bookmarks