[Beetle01]

(1) People like you are so shallow and uniformed it's shocking. In the days just before WWII, and during the war. It would have taken a week to steam from Pearl Harbor to say the Solomon Islands. Things were much slower then. In our day, aircraft with enough ordinance to blow the Solomons off the planet can be there in less than a day. Warfare in this day and time is infititely faster as is the threat deadly. The unprepared in this day, won't have time to gear up industry to manufacture war machines, including aircraft and naval vessels ala WWII. If we find ourselves unprepared for a China say, once the sword is placed to our neck all we could do is bow.

IMO, we have leaned way too heavily on the concept of MAD. If we will face a significant threat, and we will, hard and fast choices will have to be made. All this surgical and humane warfare of late, where we try to spare those we consider to be innocent of making war against us, will go by the wayside. Rules of engagement will go from the presently imposed, don't fire unless fired upon, to total nuclear destruction in the time one can make a phone call.


(2) The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about was the blending of governmental and arms manufacturing leaders. Such an ill advised merger of the elite would necessarily drag the military into government and take on similar ramifications for the common man. The result would be something like the governments of Iraq, Iran, Russia, Cuba or the like. One day you get the nice Saddam Hussein in a suit, and the next you get the mean Saddam in military uniform. And, instead of folks like the CIA, and the FBI being careful not to violate your rights, you would find yourself slammed into the back of some truck on the way to detention or worse.

Not denying the concept of a central bank is probably not good.

1.) In what possible scenario could we have a sword to our throat that having a 5 million man military would prevent? You speak of a plane loaded to the hilt, in what scenario would we not know that thing took off and is headed our way that having more men and women on the ground holding guns would prevent? We would still have satellites, radar, interceptor pilots, and air defense weaponry. Our chances of stopping that attack are the exact same.

No potential enemy has close to the Navy Japan had in WW2, nor could they even get close enough to launch an attack. That would still be the same with less men on the ground holding guns.

Any type of all out war scenario that you seem to fear, is still going to require millions of civilians to be trained. By millions, I mean tens of millions. Having an already extremely large standing army is not going to change the outcome of that war.

The only other option is to have mandatory 2-3 year service within 6 years of being out of high school. This would help prevent your scenario, and would also prevent situations like Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently our Army is a volunteer service. Those people chose that profession, they know the risks. This whole hoorah of we keep you safe and defend freedom is complete BS. I am less safe and less free than I was on 9/12/2001.


2.) The Union of defense contractors and military leaders exists, it is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about. Your comparison to communist states and dictatorships is flawed. The MIC has a huge impact on all facets of out military including intelligence and policy decisions.