You could probably cut defense by 10% relatively easily without hurting capabilities, if you actually had buy-in from the pentagon, rather than them trying to m

You could probably cut defense by 10% relatively easily without hurting capabilities, if you actually had buy-in from the pentagon, rather than them trying to make the most visibly painful cuts to get it reversed. I actually think we could cut by 50-75% over time and receive the same net benefits, by changing force structure, reducing "optional" missions like going to war in Iraq, and fixing the acquisitions process. You would be reducing capabilities at that point, but not in ways which hurt national security. It would take a while due to retirement and medical obligations. I'd be willing to listen to someone who wanted to cut 90% ultimately. That would require fundamentally recasting the US military as a wholely domestic force, with a much slower reaction time to new threats, but might ultimately be preferable if the world becomes more peaceful.