How do you think a country should manage its military force?

I think an army should only be volunteers, since they're risking their lives. And we should keep a standing army sufficient to protect ourselves, since you never can predict the action of another country. Beyond that? It's hard to say. Should we sit by while a people are run down and destroyed? Or is it up to them to defend themselves, since the attackers think they have a right to do the attacking? Who are we to judge? I suppose nowadays there are "global rules" that people can be judged by, but this wasn't the case in the past.

Generally I like the way that the US Military is set up. A standing army of professional soldiers, officially for "defense", with a reserve militia for times of war. Drafting would be necessary for replenishment in times of war.

Daver : can you clarify the diff b/w army and militia, I'm honestly ignorant of the diff.

I flipped a bit since that last drafting survey. Maybe Heinlen has a point.

the correct answer is: it should manage its army well. If a country doesn't have an army, and someone else does, you are inviting an aggressor to stomp on you. it shouldn't be necessary, but unfortuantely, it is.

Obviously, this was inspired by the draft survey. Thanks to jjg for his help on this. Praise him if you like it; blame me if you don't
Volunteers only, please. I picked every type of army except mercenaries. Armies capable of projecting force are only necessary if the country has treaties which could require their use. Otherwise, keep your own country safe and don't go mucking about with others.
**One other thing: with certain tools of modern warfare (e.g. jet fighters, tanks), it is necessary to maintain a standing army if you wish to use these tools effectively. I would not want people with perhaps 80 hours of training per year flying fighter planes...
**Atzilut: Essentially, the difference is that being in the army is a full time job. Being in the militia means you are called upon as needed. It's very similar to the difference between regular firefighters and volunteer firefighters.

I'm sorry; I don't understand the distinction between a standing army and an official militia. Would anyone care to enlighten me? ***If only all questions could be answered before they're even asked!

A standing army is a dangerous thing. Maybe one large enough to coordinate the militia and a couple special forces teams for power projection (primarily assassination).

The usual definition of a militia is all citizens (traditionally just men) capable of coming to the common defense who are not part of a standing or professional military. Some say the National Guard is militia, some say it's a standing army. The US legal code defines the National Guard as the organized militia and all other men between 18 and 45 as the unorganized militia. The media define militia to suit their current story.

Armies are important, a necessary evil. I think volunteer-only armies don't work (people only freely choose to fight when cornered, and then it's too late - drafts save lives). Dab's right, having a large standing army is a dangerous thing - military coups are common in such cases. Even in America, Eisenhower (former Army General and President), in his farewell address to the nation warns: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." This disturbs me - a man who had lived his whole life inside the military warning everyone about them.

For all that I find modern libertarian thought to be fundamentally flawed, I am fond of the expression concerning the defense of liberty (paraphrased: liberty must be defended with four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge) and think that unofficial militias to effect political change are acceptable in situations where the other options are unavailable.

A standing army of volunteers, with everyone else in the militia. I do approve of mandatory training (in Sweden if you are not trained for the armed forces, you are trained for resistance militia).

I checked some contradictory options, but my thoughts on this are really contradictory, so, it's my best response.

Projection of force into another country should be for peacekeeping purposes, or to assist an ally in defense, as opposed to aggression.

I think there's something to be said for the Israeli technique, where everyone has to serve for 2(?) years when they turn 18. But I can definitely see problems with that idea too. And certainly nobody should be made to use a weapon of they object to it. There's plenty of jobs in the military where you never have to threaten another human. I know, I had one!

trained flying monkey death squads are the future of warfare

What's the difference between an army and a militia? Many of these are "it depends" so I didn't check them. I suspect volunteers make better soldiers than draftees, though in an emergency you do what you gotta do. I have nothing against projecting force but don't think it's a requirement for every country. On the other hand, a country incapable of its own defense is impractical. I don't object to universal-service, particularly if you let people use their actual skills, though again don't think every country should do it.