The table is here
I expect that’s true. Going into the Gulf wars, Saddam’s troops outnumbered our own. Yet our military made short work of his. The differences were in technology and skill level. As I heard some captain say right before Gulf War, Phase I, it was “World War I fighting World War III”.
That is why the volunteer standing force is so important. They are better trained and more willing to fight for their nation than any force previously fielded by the US. You can’t grab the average high school graduate or college student and make them into soldiers that will perform any better than soldiers we had in Korea or Vietnam - and I don’t think anyone wants to fight wars today the way the US did back then. My father was drafted and sent to Korea immediately after basic training. From all acounts (and from his medals) he was a good soldier. But he admitted that the training his grandsons received in the 1980s was beyond anything he had in the 1950s. And the specialized training today is beyond anything that was done in the 1980s.
Back when the draft was discontinued, it seemed to some likely that it would reduce the fighting ability of the armed forces. Now, there is little doubt that numbers mean something. A good part of the effectiveness of Iraq War Phase II was lost when Turkey would not allow transshipment of U.S. troops when and in the way planned. But even so, it seems clear that quality in armaments and troops counts for a lot more than sheer numbers alone.
I think the number of troops not only indicates greater technical and strategic ability but also demonstrates that our country values human life. Other countries are sadly very willing to provide cannon fodder because of their (lack of) values. During WWII the Japanese troop was nicknamed the denomination of the lowest coin because the country didn’t value their people as individuals.
thank you for the link. very interesting.
You also need to take into account the number of military personnel providing support services versus active fighting personnel. We privatized a lot of jobs formerly performed by our military personnel and, in addition. In addition, in many countries, military perform police and other functions not performed by our military. You need to compare apples to apples.
The US millitary may be smaller than that of China but it is vastly better trained and our millitary equipment makes China look laughable as they operate old Soviet tanks and MIG’s.Thanks for posting those numbers. The way some posters made it sound, I was starting to believe our forces outnumbered all the other forces in the world combined.
Have you forgotten 9/11/2001? We were pretty strong back then and were still attacked.
As, opposed to the “green” industry that doesn’t make anything that works? Tough choice…
Can we have a big AMEN for the most spot on comment in this thread? Every military expert is in agreement that the Boy Scouts are right…BE PREPARED. And even if you are prepared, all bets are off once you encounter the enemy. It is strength, not pacifism, not diplomacy and not happy talk that prevents wars.
We can do both. The millitary needs to spend smarter however.As, opposed to the “green” industry that doesn’t make anything that works? Tough choice…
You are wrong about that. We were woefully unprepared for 9/11 and to fight a desert war. The military had difficulty finding boots much less jets and helos that could withstand the horrible dust storms and extreme heat. Don’t forget Clinton had reduced defense spending, i.e. the peace dividend following the end of the Cold War and Soviet threat.
Well if you know the future, then you are truly a miracle in disguise. We don’t know WHO we may fight. We do know that there are many countries that are potential enemies, some that are clearly enemies and there are always the small splinter groups. Imagine Iran getting a nuke? Imagine Pakistan going totally off the reservation? Imagine Putin wanting the USSR to re-emerge as a super power?