Con_Alma wrote: I want it to be more than strong.

How would you define that?

^^^^

I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.

Con_Alma wrote: ^^^^

I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.

That's expensive. I think I'm perhaps more isolationist, and I'm not particularly fond of dumping out billions to keep up bases all around the world. I think I'd fit in great with the pre-WWI mindset.

If the Russian bear weren't growing again in Eastern Europe, I'd agree and say we should be shifting base resources to meet more likely threats like N. Korea, Iran and Pakistan. I'm still not sure that wouldn't be a better idea than the status quo.

Isolationism, though, I think would be a very dangerous policy. I think the world needs -- and benefits greatly from -- an engaged America.

It's not necessary to have bases all around the world in order to be the strongest military.

Where the military is present at and located is more of a strategy/tactic than a measurement of it's strength.

There is no doubt having strength through power is expensive. Should it continue? I don't know. Do I want it as stated? Absolutely.