# US standing army **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 20, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472 "2016-09-20T23:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/1 "2016-09-20T23:49:51Z")
In 1914 Woodrow Wilson opposed the creation of a standing army saying that the US had never had and never will have a standing army. It was the practice of the United States until the end of World War 2 that the military would increase in size to fight a war and then after the war it would shrink to it’s small peacetime size. As a former soldier I think we should return to this policy. Having a large standing army waiting to be used is an invitation for politicians to use it. We would be much better off if going to war was a difficult thing rather than an easy thing. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/2 "2016-09-21T00:17:21Z")
I agree with this 100%. Politicians keep a huge military under the guise of defending our country. IMO, the Coast Guard is the only part of the military that has actually done this at any point after WW2. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/3 "2016-09-21T00:22:14Z")
How are you going to convince all these people to quit their regular jobs? That happens in the Reserves now, and it’s pretty disruptive. Are you going to just keep some officers and drill sergeants around and then draft a million people away from their jobs? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/4 "2016-09-21T00:46:37Z")
I agree that the current size and disposition of the US military owes a lot more to congressional reelection planning than it does actual threat- and requirements-based defense planning. But it remains the case that a country does need to size & equip its military to deal with the threat. When the potential range of enemies have no standing army and would take 6 months to raise one, you can afford to have a similar caretaker service. When the would-be enemies have professional standing armies and all the modern tools you’d be better advised to have similar. When the enemy can launch a devastating attack that would destroy a big hunk of your economy and most of your government in 30 minutes flat it might be useful to have the same capability available on the same timeline as a deterrent. And as a live combat force if deterrence fails. IOW … The nature of \*conflict \*hasn’t changed since Og & Grog faced off with a big rock & a sharp stick umpteen millennia ago. The nature of \*warfare \*has changed utterly since my Dad was a kid watching WWII unfold on Saturday matinee newsreels. Advice that made good sense in Wilson’s day is utterly inapplicable today. ===== Completely different point: Mobilization is an exponential-growth effort. 1 company trains two which train four which train eight, etc. WWI actually went from pre-war tension to hot war largely because of crisis instability: Everybody was poised to mobilize but had not done so. The moment anyone started a mobilization everybody else had to respond with their own mass call-up within a day or so or else be inevitably overwhelmed 5 to 1 a month later. Plus … once any hastily mobilized force was assembled, it had to be used within a month or so or the costs of maintenance plus the economic and operational disruption from all those citizens who were suddenly soldiering instead of citizening & working became overwhelming. As soon as you had a mass-mobilized force it became “use it or lose it” for reasons internal to your own side. Not even considering what the would-be enemy is about to do to your hastily assembled and utterly untested force. Bottom line: Small tripwire forces in need of mass mobilization are crisis-unstable. That’s not actually a smart way to build your international system. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/5 "2016-09-21T00:50:33Z")
Disagree. The pain of going to war with a poorly trained military will not be borne by politicians. This idea punishes the wrong parties. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/6 "2016-09-21T00:56:33Z")
Three words: Task Force Smith. The size of the military is up for debate but if a large scale conflict occurs it is not possible to mobilze and train a significant section of the populace. In the past the government also knew that they had the draft to rely on to fill the rolls. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/7 "2016-09-21T01:20:51Z")
drewder is quite right in his history, the United States would raise an army for war and then go back to the smallest possible force after it was over. Indeed, the military was reduced substantially between 1945 and 1950. What changed in 1945 was that suddenly, we were the most powerful nation on earth, confronting a threat (Communism) that, in the opinion of many of that time, threatened our ‘way of life’. Great Britain and France, who had been the bulwarks (militarily speaking) of the Western world for so long, were wrecked and in no shape to take on new challenges. So (to a certain extent, kicking and screaming), the United States found themselves with worldwide military commitments and the need for a large, permanent armed force. Not that this was always popular; the A-Bomb was going to protect us in the 50’s (until those damn commies stole it!) and Korea and Vietnam were fought mostly by draftees. Even today, the number of soldiers (Army) in uniform are slowly (but steadily) reducing in number. See here: [U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers](http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014) So, IMHO, the military didn’t change so much as the political world changed to require a large peacetime force. IMHO as always. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/8 "2016-09-21T02:11:31Z")
> [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](#): > > Not that this was always popular; the A-Bomb was going to protect us in the 50’s (until those damn commies stole it!) and Korea and Vietnam were fought mostly by draftees. Even today, the number of soldiers (Army) in uniform are slowly (but steadily) reducing in number. See here: [U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers](http://historyinpieces.com/research/us-military-personnel-1954-2014) > > So, IMHO, the military didn’t change so much as the political world changed to require a large peacetime force. > > IMHO as always. YMMV In Vietnam draftees accounted for 25% of the total forces in country and about 30% of the casualties. 30% of those involved in the Korean conflict were draftees. In contrast about 66% of military in WWII were draftees. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/9 "2016-09-21T02:18:35Z")
The modern world requires you to have large standing forces. There is no longer the time period needed to raise large armies as in the past. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/10 "2016-09-21T03:41:40Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > The modern world requires you to have large standing forces. There is no longer the time period needed to raise large armies as in the past. Well unless you think Canada or Mexico is going to attack us a strong Navy should be able to repel anyone from invading our shores. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/11 "2016-09-21T03:44:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Disagree. The pain of going to war with a poorly trained military will not be borne by politicians. This idea punishes the wrong parties. That’s the whole point of militia training. If each of us between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to have a rifle and do monthly training there is no reason to think we’d be poorly trained. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/12 "2016-09-21T04:23:24Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Well unless you think Canada or Mexico is going to attack us a strong Navy should be able to repel anyone from invading our shores. Russian bombers take hours. Russian and Chinese ICBM’s; minutes. It takes years (decades) to design and induct new weapon systems and incase of a contingency which requires use of force, it would take too long to wait to build up an Army. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/13 "2016-09-21T04:31:11Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > Well unless you think Canada or Mexico is going to attack us It’s happened before. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/14 "2016-09-21T04:45:43Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > That’s the whole point of militia training. If each of us between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to have a rifle and do monthly training there is no reason to think we’d be poorly trained. I support 100% conscription, requiring everyone to have 3 months of basic training at an early age an a week or two of brush-up every year. No “tours of duty”, but an entire country with the skills at hand to fight off the invaders. And, of course, the larger fraction of basic training will be non-martial, so that we would all be trained to deal with fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and so forth. If you have an entire populace that may be called up, you have to do a whole lot better than “_He has WMDs. Yellowcake. Really, I mean it._” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/15 "2016-09-21T04:47:37Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > That’s the whole point of militia training. If each of us between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to have a rifle and do monthly training there is no reason to think we’d be poorly trained. Among the many problems with this, it unfairly penalizes the poor, who can much less afford to take time away from job and family. Does this proposal come with guaranteed child-care for single-parent militia-members? Also, to be frank, I don’t want all Americans trained to obey orders. That offends my libertarian spirit. (I don’t like mandatory public service for high school graduation, either.) Americans should always feel free to say “Pfui” to figures of authority. A lot of us fought pretty hard to get the draft discontinued in this country. Now you’re suggesting every god damn one of us be drafted. To hell with that noise. ---
**Author:** ![harmonicamoon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/65b543/32.png) [@harmonicamoon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmonicamoon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/16 "2016-09-21T06:29:27Z")
It has all changed. Today, we just need a bunch of drone pilots. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/17 "2016-09-21T11:19:15Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > That’s the whole point of militia training. If each of us between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to have a rifle and do monthly training there is no reason to think we’d be poorly trained. 99% of military jobs are much more complicated than that. If you don’t think so go to a combat film site like Funker 360 and see how easily poorly trained “soldiers” in the middle east get slaughtered. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/18 "2016-09-21T11:31:54Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > That’s the whole point of militia training. If each of us between the ages of 18 and 45 was required to have a rifle and do monthly training there is no reason to think we’d be poorly trained. Wait - in order to not have a standing army, you want to compel tens of millions of citizens into militia duty? That cure is worse than the disease. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/19 "2016-09-21T11:35:03Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > In Vietnam draftees accounted for 25% of the total forces in country and about 30% of the casualties. 30% of those involved in the Korean conflict were draftees. In contrast about 66% of military in WWII were draftees. Much thanks, ignorance fought. I guess being draft-eligible in the early 70’s shaped my opinions on that. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2016, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472/20 "2016-09-21T12:31:53Z")
A standing army costs less money and fewer lives than the wars it deters. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-standing-army/766472.md?page=2)