I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
I'm hesitant to even say this because it sounds so callous and naive, so with apologies in advance: how would one maintain a superior military if that military isn't involved in any aspect of combat for long stretches of time? To use a sports analogy, could you build a Super Bowl capable (American) football team if none of the players or coaches have done more than watch football on TV and played lots of flag football scrimmages amongst themselves?
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
Between WWI and WWII, the US didn't get in any "hot practice". (Which is what I think you're talking about?) That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know. Nor did it stop us from fielding a formidable military. The new technologies at the time were wielded by us to deadly effect. Carriers and tanks in particular. We didn't just sit around and get really good at digging trenches and moving dreadnoughts around.
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
> That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
> why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
Because at the end of WWII, there was a general recognition that oceans were no longer going to protect us. We would either have to participate in worldly affairs on an active basis, or eventually be destroyed, if not conquered.
Given that we would be forced to 'participate,' with isolationism no longer being an option, it was logical enough for us to strive for domination.
That actually worked pretty well, considering that we were the only genuine superpower left on earth at the dawn of the 21st century. It worked until our enemies figured out how to attack us from within by playing a literal Trump card.
It was that way for most of our existence (and empire building). The whole world police thing came after WWII.