The United States appears to be substantially free from threats that require a great deal of military expenditure or “balancing” behavior. A conflict like World War II is extremely unlikely. For a country like China armed conflict would be extremely costly, and Chinese leaders seem to realize this. The military requirements for containing and deterring Iran and North Korea are limited. Humanitarian intervention with substantial military forces is unlikely due to the public’s low tolerance for casualties and aversion to nation-building. Concern about nuclear proliferation is justified but overwrought: experience suggests that when countries obtain the weapons, they “use” them only to stoke their national ego and to deter real or imagined threats. Russia’s Crimean seizure notwithstanding, Europe seems to face no notable threats of a military nature, the Taiwan/China issue remains a fairly remote concern, Israel’s primary problems derive from the actions of sub-state groups, and terrorism mainly calls for policing and intelligence work. Little military capability is then required for U.S. security. It may be prudent to maintain some rapid-response forces, a small number of nuclear weapons, and some capacity to rebuild quickly in the unlikely event that a sizable threat eventually materializes. There is risk in substantially reducing the military, but experiences in Vietnam and Iraq suggest that there is risk as well in maintaining forces-in-being that can be impelled into action with little notice and in an under-reflective manner.