I think many here forget, or maybe never realized, that the Cold War was not won just by training, technology and readiness. It was won by the side that could
appear to sustain the arms race longer than the other. It has been said that the USSR was functionally bankrupt as early as the late 1960s, they just weren't prepared to admit it until Gorbachev came to power. I believe even the most casual perusal of the accounts of the US government during the final years of the Cold War show that the game of economic brinkmanship was a dangerous business.
....
We can not afford the military that we have now, let alone one ten or twenty times as large. ......
We do not even take care of the veterans we have now. The foster a vet program is being eliminated for lack of funds. But the Navy is getting new carriers and the USAF new bombers...
I'm so glad a native born American stood up and made the first point I quoted above. As the "Johnny come lately" around here, I have often been told "Oh, you don't understand..." when I have questioned the ability of our country to pay for the military it has and the massive procurement programs that are ongoing.
When I left the UK the military there were in the middle of several expensive equipment procurement debacles. For decades the answer had been to shrug and say, "Oh well, these things always end up more expensive than originally quoted". Finally, the UK government realized that this was no longer sustainable. The new reality was that if the costs of a project got out of hand, the Ministry of Defence and the contractor had better get things back on track or the project was gone, simple as that.
The level of government debt here may have brought us to a similar tipping point. The military industrial complex will fight like tigers to prevent it, but you cannot keep on paying for stuff when doing so makes you broke. That is the stark reality of the 21st century, priorities must be decided and that means certain things won't be purchased and costs will be cut in many painful places (like base closure) to afford new equipment, capabilities and to service existing commitments.
Speaking of existing commitments, the second point I highlighted from Gator's post is a perfect example. The VA services a vast number of people to whom we owe a great debt. That commitment must be met before a single round of ammo is bought or the first piece of a ship's keel laid down. Without doubt, VA benefits for new recruits will likely be less than previously based on costs. Again, welcome to the new reality, MONEY IS FINITE.