> the US troops that have for so long enabled European
    > governments to spend money on healthcare are now just a
    > thin, semipermeable membrane between Russia and their
    > safe, little garden

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Also: France, Germany, UK and Italy spend as much combined as China does, ignoring the rest of the European countries.

Also: your fantasy that European healthcare can be afforded due to American military spending is offensive, wrong, and appears to be a bewildered reaction to "How are we the only rich country who have screwed up our healthcare provision so badly?"

I'd say sorry you were offended, but i find your frustration comical, so i guess i will say thank you instead.

And the standing army thing is ... odd. Related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

As i see it happening, if there was a land war it would be fast and devastating in a very pointed way. Arguably suicidal incursions into city centers by specops chaps and gung ho paramilitary types using drones and wire cutters and wearing all manor of different uniform or guise. Then it is the blitz. This advance must occur before and effective air assault can be made.

All this to say it would go from peace to war in a matter of minutes to hours depending on your position. I don't see the Army of the Union responding very well to that.

This is all off topic really though, because i am more interested on the perspective of life through the war. That is why i asked. My answer changes like the wind.

So, what would you do?

AFAIK, the only European country that doesn't fund a standing military (besides some of the microstates, like Andorra) is Iceland.

Every OECD country, and probably every country in Europe outside of the OECD, as well, spends less -- and this is true whether in total, per capita, or per GDP -- than the US on healthcare, because they have systems that are more efficient than the system in the US.

That said, I very much believe that 1) the US would quickly fill its 2.5 million troops needed, but also that 2) we wouldn't ever really need them.

To point 1) our military force is already insanely large, to the point that military recruiters turn away (or at least, don't rabidly pursue) recruits that aren't supremely eligible. They could probably get half of the 2.5 million needed just by calling back would-be recruits that are 'on ice', meaning, they're passively being recruited, but there are more qualified applicants ahead of them, so the US just keeps them in contract limbo.

To point 2) the US military is large. It would take China actively recruiting (or secretly expanding) their eligible-for-service and rapidly training them before there was even a real potential for being outmanned.

That said, if China were 'fully engaged' they've got ~600 million persons eligible for service[1], and could likely overwhelm the US in a full on assault, if that was their only objective.

This is a fun (though perhaps dated) military force comparison chart that illustrates overall, potential and other types of manpower available to nations: [1] - http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp

I think you are not taking into account the real necessities and logistics of an actual war. The cost of the Kerfuffle on Terror would be a pittance, both in lives lost and in wealth use, compared to a shooting war in East Europe.

I would also make the argument that all humans are cousins, meaning we are all one family, meaning a draft in any or all countries is a big deal, but i bet i would be called crazy.

So would you do your 2 years Social Service or hide/ignore or leave?

Our foreign policy has been, to put it gently, sloppy of late, and I have a hard time imagining that the kind of response you're describing as necessary isn't going to be seen historically as a "gross overreaction".

So, the best I can answer at this point is "unlikely".

Also, is there really any point in being cannon fodder in a nuke fight?

Besides, I think your analysis is a bit mental.

US troops that have for so long enabled European governments to spend money on healthcare

The US government spent more on healthcare per citizen that the European governments do, even during the Bush years. You then spend a shit-ton more privately. It isn't the existence of US troops that enable European governments to provide healthcare. Providing healthcare this way is just cheaper overall.

I think it is a good thing, by the by, i just wish more Eurofolk were aware of how intertwined our countries are. Often times, it feels as if all that ever gets talked about is the 'bad' the US does, and the loudest tend to be the biggest beneficiaries of the 'evil' empire.

US active serving personnel - 1,369,532 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

EU active serving personnel - 1,453,028 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

edit - one thing to keep in mind is that although US expenditure is 2.5 times larger than the EU, much of that historically was spent on weapons rather than troops as it was directed towards trying to bankrupt the USSR by the meta-game of convincing them to play the game of arsenal oneupmanship, while having deeper pockets.

or

Losing Humanity

or

我們贏了

Why?

I feel like at that point, any objections to serving under the Evil Empire would be supplanted by the greater possibility of winning, and thus surviving under them.

Also, Denmark.