It seems to me that countries with powerful standing armies have not been been the parties to bet on in conflicts that fall outside of the niche in which that a

It seems to me that countries with powerful standing armies have not been been the parties to bet on in conflicts that fall outside of the niche in which that army was created. They either have sufficient excess of power to maintain that army in relation to the rest of their expenses, and so lack significant threats to test their armies against and see where they could improve in a manner clear enough to overcome the political interests of those who've tied themselves to that particular model of military force. Or, they don't - and the weight of funding the army drags down the education and wealth on which the creation of new technologies relies. It happened to the British, it happened to the Chinese, it happened to the Russians, it happened to the Romans, it happened to the Egyptians. It's happened to almost every empire that has at some point enjoyed a large standing force and then had the context that made it make sense change. What's important seems to be the industrial capacity to quickly create a military force, a culture that allows you to integrate the average man into the command structure, and a core of well trained professionals to head that structure. But the idea that simply investing in the military will provide us with security is not one I'd subscribe to. It seems to me that, historically, they've been the parties to bet on only within the niche in which they evolved. Outside of that niche, it seems better to bet on the upstarts - those with a reasonable industrial capacity or the ability to acquire one, along with a desperate enough position to go for what works and sufficiently well educated people to see the next few steps. I'd expect this effect only to become more pronounced as technology advances faster. tl/dr: People find something that works, and stick with it until it fails - not until it becomes illogical. Funding something creates momentum for that thing in ideological and logistical terms, and military force is not entirely fungible. If you need to adapt to a challenge in a particular area, having funded something for a long time is not necessarily a Good Thing.