Is this the best answer to "Should 18 to 30 year olds be required to go into the military?

First, lets review what we agree on.

1) We want the US to be as strong as it can be in the world,

2) We want the US military as strong as it can be to support US interests throughout the world,

3) We want as many people as possible to CONTRIBUTE to the strength of the US military by being in active service

4) We want to supply those troops with the best available hardware to maximize their fighting strength

So, let's agree to this, because what I'm about to say next, flows from these goals, based on actual knowledge;

First, The United States has 298 million people, according to the CIA World Fact Book, and of those approximately 54.6 million males and 54.7 million females are fit for military service. This is age 17 through 49 - not 18 through 30 that you suggest. If we pick those people 18 through 30 - we have a total population of around 90 million people total, half male half female, not the 134 million reported by the CIA. So, your proposal reduces the total.

There are 4.18 million US citizens reaching military age anually. Why is this important? That's how many kids can get killed each year and allow the US to fight indefinitely at this rate. Since death rates are about 1 in 20 in battle, this means that the US could field about 83 million people in combat and sustain it biologically. Even so, that's less than the number you think we should have in arms right now!

The US military $440 billion each year supporting 1.5 million active troops. To support 90 million troops would require at least 60 times this amount, or $26,400 billion! Since the US economy is $12,700 billion, and the US budget couldn't support it. Actually the $440 billion already spent is 3.7% of the US budget, and about 50% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. So, we could double the military to about 3 million from the current 1.5 million, and not cut into welfare and other non-discretionary spending. (We still need police schools and the like) But we'd have to raise taxes to field even more troops! Which is possible, but how much? Well, there's a thing called the Schumpeter Limit - which Ronald Reagan's advisors were well aware of. IF the government spends money, it MUST take it out of the private sector, which REDUCES wealth and makes the US WEAKER! So, that's a box we can't get around really, by the laws of economics. The Russians tried to get around this limit, and it killed their economy and ruined them as a great nation. We'd be fools if we didn't pay attention. So, its unlikely that we could ever usefully put more than 7 million people in the field on economic grounds.

The best ages for fighters are generally speaking between 18 and 25. Why? Because under 18 and over 25 physical and mental abilities are less than at this age, and a fighting person outside this age range actually REDUCES fighting ability for a group.

Furthermore, humans have a biological dimorphism. Males are bigger and stronger and more agressive than females -on a biological level. This is accentuated by social conditioning. Now, I've known some females who could kick some males asses, and win, but if we select for size, strength, and agressiveness, be they male or female, we will end up with about 30% of the people who are available by age - and we can even extend that a little if we mentally and physically test those that are +/- 3 years around our 18 to 25 year old filter - based on ability - even so, we're not going to get more than 15 million people in the armed services and maintain tip top fighting - and that's more than DOUBLE what we can support given economic constraints.

Furthermore, not all people are mentally and physically fit to fight. Requiring the military to take ALL folks, in any age group, therefore REDUCES our fighting ability by requiring the military deal with those of less ability.

Also, not all people are MOTIVATED to fight, and so, are unfit for this reason. A person who is mustered into service and not motivated to be there, can easily become a HUGE liability to a fighting force! Ever hear of FRAGGING? This was a problem in Vietnam BECAUSE there were so many people there against their will. We don't want that for our present military force.

Finally, as a free society our military MUST live within that society as a good citizen. The military plays an essential role in all societies, including ours freedom loving society. For this they should be honored. But they must also be good citizens. This means that the US military more than others, is strongly affected by public perception and public opinions. And, conscription creates a strong reaction in a significant minority of folks, and that minority can grow to a majority if the US is engaged in a long conflict, with large numbers of young people dead and injured, who didn't want to be there in the first place, and are now mourned or supported by their families back at home who also didn't want them there. We learned all this in Vietnam, when there were HUGE protests against the war. Not at the outset, after the Gulf of Tonkin, but after a few years of grinding war with no end in sight.

So, BECAUSE we want the best fighting force possible, we should first and foremost MAKE IT DIFFICULT to become a member of it. Secondly, we should only take the BEST and make service in our armed forces not a requirement, BUT AN HONOR that only a very few are selected to fulfill. And then, we SHOULD SPARE NO EXPENSE in training and outfitting those who fight on our behalf. Finally, we should publicly promote and glorify our fighting force so that ALL WANT TO APPLY - BUT FEW ARE SELECTED! This is how we get the best fighting force possible.

Now, there's another point to consider. The USA exists in a world of 271 nations, possessions, and independent territories. Those nations produce over $47,500 billion in wealth, against the USA's $12,100 billion in wealth. Those nations have 6,227 million people compared to the USA's 298 million people. Combined these nations could field over 3,000 million people against the USA, and each year they could afford to lose somethin like 80 million of their fighting youth in combat! Of course, like the USA, they're more constrained by the cost of training and weapons, but generally speaking the cost of weapons for most of the rest of the world's armies navies and air forces are about 1/3 the cost of US materiel. Why? Because the US fighting equipment is the best, and gives us far more than 3x the advantage in the field. Even so, if more than about 20% of the world's population decided to attack the US, and the US had no allies to back it up, the US would quickly succumb to such an attack - EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE US CITIZEN COULD BE BROUGHT TO FIGHTING READINESS. This is why the US State Department and the US Intelligence community and the US economy are so important for the continued dominance of the US in the world. And it also provides an important lesson - WE SHOULD PICK OUR FIGHTS CAREFULLY, and WE SHOULD WHENEVER POSSIBLE, WORK WITH ALLIES IN ANY CONFLICT as George Bush Senior did in the first Gulf War. This isn't weakness, because the US in terms of numbers is fundamentally weak, we are less than 5% of the world's population, but consume over 25% of its resources. That's the power of free enterprise! But it puts us at a disadvantage in military numbers. So, we must adopt policies that use use our military to best effect by picking our spots! This is best achieved through careful analysis of extensive intelligence gathered from around the world, and using statecraft first. Its difficult, its complex, but its the only way we can stay on top in a complicated and big and powerful world. We're the most powerful nation in history. We can do more for our military. Filling their ranks with unmotivated, unintelligent, and poorly trained and supplied and paid troops - is not one of those things we need to do. We could usefully double our force levels. We could usefully quadruple our expenditures. We could promote the military so that everyone of a fighting age applies. But we also should pick the very best, and spend considerable effort training and motivating them to BE the best, and then outfit them WITH the best equipment and support possible. This is the MOST we can do. Conscripting 90 million people would create a HUGE nightmare for the military and actually reduce our fighting effectiveness, especially at today's level of funding. Fielding more than 3 million soldiers would sink our economy, and that would reduce our fighting effectiveness. So, your question promotes a foolish notion that actually reduces our fighting effectiveness.

Source(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/military_of...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schumpeter...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fact...