So, when some large military power cuts off shipping lanes in the Pacific, we'd, what, threaten to nuke them? That's a better state affairs than what we have today?

Conversely: what goes does a standing army of 1,127,801 people do you if your adversary has nuclear weapons?

I'm not a military strategist, and I know this isn't really an area where logic wins, but I like thinking of these scenarios at a top level anyway.

OK. Assume China cuts off shipping lanes in the Pacific. They position their naval fleets in some aggressive formation over major lines (likely blockading Taiwan or something). Assumedly, they have to sink a ship or at least fire shots and take one captive. The U.S. and Japan respond by moving their forces into aggressive positions threatening China. The situation either A. ends when China or the U.S. back down or B. accelerates into military conflict. The conflict is either small, likely involving only SEALs, drone/tactical strikes, or another group of special forces, or full scale, involving (initially) a Pacific strike group fleet. The only logical progression of a full scale military conflict between two nuclear powers is nuclear warfare, at which point it won't matter how big either standing army is. Again, some assumptions, but not unreasonable.

The same scenario without a large standing army has no "standoff." The "standoff" is MAD from nuclear weapons, and understanding on all sides that military action that threatens any nation's "security" will quickly go from tactical to nuclear.

I suppose I just see the massive standing army (special forces not included) like I see air superiority fighters. There's really no scenario where they are necessary for the defense of any modern nation.

> The conflict is either small, likely involving only SEALs, drone/tactical strikes, or another group of special forces, or full scale, involving (initially) a Pacific strike group fleet. The only logical progression of a full scale military conflict between two nuclear powers is nuclear warfare ...

It's not quite as black-and-white as that, as illustrated by the history of the second half of the 20th century: The U.S. and USSR engaged in several proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, arguably Central America), but never came close to nuclear war.

(Neither the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis nor the 1983 Able Archer scare involved a war, and the Korean War of 1950-53 was apparently started on Kim Il Sung's own initiative to the surprise of the USSR, although there have been reports that Russian pilots flew North Korean MIGs in air-to-air combat with U.S. planes; when China came into the war in November 1950 it wasn't yet a nuclear power.)

> there have been reports that Russian pilots flew North Korean MIGs in air-to-air combat with U.S. planes

Stalin was careful enough to enlist pilots as "volunteers", suspending their official service in Soviet Army for the duration of mission.

The adversary has nuclear weapons because you (assuming you are a citizen od the US of A) have nuclear weapons.

I wish this was a picture so I could submit it to Cute Overload...

Because it is cute or because you find my comment ridiculous?

Because we subsidize world peace (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-22/india...). Maybe it's a business we need to get out of, but at the moment, the reason Europe, etc, get away with spending so little on defense is that they can count on NATO, and the U.S. basically carries NATO.

NATO's record to keep the world safe and peaceful is nothing short of a disaster. Arriving too late with too little is often how NATO's interventions can be described. Laughable at best, and in return people end up hating NATO for their lack of timely action to save lives.

The purpose of NATO isn't to keep the world safe. The purpose of NATO is for Europe to outsource its collective defense to the U.S., specifically to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. It worked, at tremendous cost to the U.S.