Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
...This has all been made possible by a tremendous budget which currently outstrips the next ten countries combined.
Which in turn is caused by the fact that the next ten nations in line are unable (due total population) to spend that much and elect not to spend more than they do because we are able to spend that much.

We have spent a relatively small amount of GDP (not a good measure but one that is convenient) on Defense through out our history and not all that much more, as a percentage of GDP than most of those other ten nations.

The budget crunch you accurately cite is due to the increasing amount spent on social welfare by the Federal Government. I'd simply point out that such spending is not the Federal role, it is a State role and the Feds are doing it because our arcane tax system gives them about 60+ % of all government revenue while they expend less than 40% including some but not all of that social welfare and 95+% of the defense expenditure. The difference is transferred to the States and local authorities via grants and transfers -- a woefully inefficient system that wastes scads of money. Were the tax system revised to provide the right amounts at the right level of government and thus better transparency on what amount is spent for what purpose, we might make more sensible decisions. However, Congress will not like that, they prefer the opacity...

All that to point out that the money angle is not as simple as the size of the defense budget.
Rather than having a conversation about national budget policy...
Pretty hard not to -- as it is at the heart of your query. It and the various impacts budget and other, of our idiot Congress are really the crux of your post and the drivers of defense policy.
That is not to say their hearts are not in the right place, but frankly, they have come to rely on the American military and have cut a very deep 'peace dividend' which they cannot easily recover...The final possibility is the traditional American reaction of Isolationism. Even cutting our military involvements overseas, America can still probably be safe(ish).
True on the allies, true on isolationism which almost certainly will not occur in spite of some pressures but not true on more troops, less tech. I'd argue for significantly fewer -- but far better -- active troops plus a larger, well equipped and trained Strategic Reserve force...
In the end, if the US's military capacity collapses under the weight of its financial profligacy, how do you thing that will change the wars she fights? Do you believe there will be more wars or fewer (between all countries)? Can groups like the UN and NATO survive without the US? What about less powerful countries? I am interested to know what this forum thinks.
Not likely to occur; Decreased budget will probably make little real difference in methodology; No major change in the number of conflicts but a generally slowly declining number of State on State wars; Yes, they can survive but I doubt it'll come to that -- if it does, look for the UN (-the US) to declare war on the US. (If the EU doesn't beat them to it); Don't understand the "what about less powerful countries" issue?