the US will not fall within next 150 years. It simply has:
1. A power-house of an economy.
2. The world's most powerful military. (by a long shot)
3. Complete control of the world's oceans
4. No powerful opponents. (China is in no place to oppose the US)
And, the population crisis isn't even a crisis at all.
The United States has a population density way below that of the worlds average and can support far more people than it already has.
...........no. Just because you spend the most on your military doesnt mean its the best in the world, china has the largest military in the world and some of the most cutting edge technology yet they spend less than an 8th of what we spend on are military, in fact the US's training standards are far lower then they where during ww2. The army's attrition rate was 22% during WW2, now its just 6% largely to accommodate the women and overweight people, infact the US military has the lowest PFT scores in the world, the USMC is the only exception. also are military hardware is about the same as it was at the end of the cold war.
but i find if funny that you say we dont have any powerful opposition, yet China and Russia have larger and more powerful armies then the US. hell china would even have to attack the US they could ruin us monetarily because they own 70% of are debt. which is another thing, you talk about this powerhouse economy yet are economy is declining faster than the Chinese's is growing with nearly 10% of Americans unemployed. (i honestly think the percentage is higher).
@blah, no israel has a very small army, well equiped but small. as they have less then 400,000 soldiers keep in mind israel has a population smaller than london's. and 75% of the IDF is conscripts.
for Cogs
ok well let me break it down for you, the chinese own 79% of are national debt, right which would be about 12 billion USD. now i ask you whats going to happen when debt becomes so much that china refuses to lend us anymore money. but its as xrain said the US could fix this problem by saying the money doesnt exist but this would open up Pandora's box and the dollar would take a massive dive off a bridge.
there isnt a navy to match the US, because Russia and China build anti ship missiles that can crack a ship in half from hundreds of miles away. why waste resources on a large naval fleet when its going to get raped by anti ship missiles. the same goes for MBT. MBT is losing its place on the battlefield because why spend millions of dollars on a modern MBT when a javolien or other forms of anti tank missles can destroy it and can be fired by a single infantryman. that is why the UK has stopped producing MBT's in favor of lightweight APC's and armored fighting vehicles like the warrior that can fire TOW missiles.
@xrain, attrition rate isnt how many troops you call to service, its how many dont make it through boot camp. the reason the attrition rating was so high was because training was tougher and longer than it is today, DIs could actually hit you and make your life a living hell, which was a good thing because a soldier that goes through hardships during boot camp is less likely to break than one that hasn't, the US has issued special cards which allow you to stop and take a break, and they also get special privileges like going off base. i would know i come from a very large military family.
well after the cold war the russian military/ government has adopted a conservative mindset they dont waste money on weapons programs like the US they just improve on the weapons they have, example the t90, the t90 is a direct descendant of the t72. instead of making a new tank the russian just upgraded there older tanks to modern standards. but the vast majority of US hardware is cold war 1980's tech as well the only real thing that has changed is the basic infantryman's loadout, that is because the US hasnt really had a need to make something better as their not in a weapons race with the soviets anymore. but the term "force multipliers" is just military term as you said it doesnt really mean anything, because we dont have a really technological advantage over the Russians because nothing has really changed since the cold war. the US and other countries like to show off these "future weapons" but think of it how many of those actually see service or even use for that matter.
but getting back to topic, the population crisis will work itself out. most likely their will be huge viral outbreak. or as i said the world economy collapses and millions of ppl will starve. nature always seems to find a balance.
I am well aware of what attrition rate is, I was attempting to say, since you were pulling people from a larger demographic during WWII. So naturally you would get an increase in unacceptable recruits. You are correct on the other hand, I am sure the requirements for what is required has gone down, since naturally they want a fully appointed force without resorting to conscription. Another thing you may not have considered is we have had significant gains in training effectiveness since WWII, so some of the decrease in Attrition rate might be due to a better capability to reform rectruits.
I would use the term "Modern Standards" somewhat gingerly when in reference to Russia's equipment. They have certainly been updated, but Russia still very much likes the tried and tried and tried and tired and true method. Main reason for this, is they do not have the same scale of a technological research base to vastly upgrade all of their platforms.
As far as US equipment goes, some of our military equipment descends from the 40's - 50's, some of it is from the cold war, and there is also plenty of new developments (read: drones). Like the Russians we also hold to tried and true methods when we can, but we also are actively developing new technologies. I can promise you that a vast majority of the avionics and sensors, are not from the cold war. We might use many of the same airframes as we did in the cold war, but many of the components would not be recognizable compared to the 80's version.
Force Multiplier is indeed a buzzword, but we had a technological edge over the Russians for most of the latter half of the cold war, and while the USSR collapsed we didn't experience the same hardships they had. We might not have the same fervent motivation as we did when we had to "Beat the Commies" We definitely haven't stood still. So trying to tell me that we have done nothing technological wise, except for sit on our ass and twiddle our thumbs since the cold war. It would just be a fallacy.
Heck with the rocket launch I worked on last November, its mission was to launch a prototype military comm satellite to vastly improve battlefield communication. Reducing the need for the helical antenna on a mountain, and a 30 lbs comm package, to a small handheld radio.
actually are training has gotten worse to the point anyone can pass boot camp, back when my grandfather was in the army they had to hold water buckets out in the hot sun for an hour, from what my cousin and uncle have told me even the most overweight or skinniest person can pass the physical fitness test. i remember my uncle told me they had a fellow that only did 15 push ups then was allowed to take a break because of his weight, before doing the rest of his 50 push ups.
well all the russian platforms have been upgraded to modern standards. there have been alot of new stuff the russians have put into service, like the new BMP-4, the t-95 MBT (still in the test phases), the kornet missle system. even the trust AK series has been brought into the 21st century with the ak-100's series the point im making is russian military projects didnt end after the cold war just the west doesn't really report on it because NATO doesn't buy Russian.
actually not much has really changed, the preditor drones is really the only successful aviation project the US has funded, the F-22 was an epic failure, and the f-35 is a money pit. in terms of armored vechiles the striker is the only new vehicle which even that is just modified LAV-25. in terms of new naval stuff, not much has changed either aside from some of the new ships being commissioned like the USS George H.W. Bush. really the only thing that has changed is the infantry load out, and some new electronic like new sensors and radars etc. me being a military analyst, i can say this for certian 80% of what are military has now, my father used when he was in the first gulf war.
thats not really true, the US and USSR technically equal in terms of technology speaking, because when the US made something good the russians made something better, and when the Russians made something good the US made something better it was a constant cycle of countering the other sides weapons. it is true the US one the cold war because the USSR coudn't maintain its military industrial complex, but the US is starting to show signs of buckling because a war economy isnt sustainable for long periods of time. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex which is why he reduced the military under his administration and cut military spending because even after WW2 the US was spending way to much money in the defense industry im not saying the US hasnt done anything because that would be a fallacy, im saying not much has changed since the cold war.