Do we need an army?
A more fundamental question is "Do we need an Army" in the sense of armed forces who, at the end of the day, are there to kill people when the government orders.
Yes, there may be a need for defensive armed forces, and for a bit of UN peace-keeping. But perhaps by moving to a Defence and Emergency Force we may ease some of the problems. Having a body of trained people with equipment ready to handle extreme situations is essential for any country. In the UK we have floods, there could be other problems in the future. Other countries need outside help. It may be that a core of professionals backed up by part-time volunteers ( a la T.A.) is the way to go. But do we, as a country, really need to be able to kill thousands of people on the other side of the world at a moment's notice?
By having a Civil Emergency and Defence force we can make use of their skills all year round. If there isn't an emergency they could be working on public infrastructure projects. The Medics could deliver health programmes, at home or overseas. The techies could be doing something worthwhile.
Our massive and useless aircraft carriers could be re-purposed as floating disaster relief bases, able to travel to areas hit by flood, fire, hurricane, disease or war, and provide an instant base for relief services. And probably won't be such an easy target for a single hostile missile or explosive-laden trawler.
The pay for techies probably wouldn't be as good as in the private sector, but many people are happy to work for the job satisfaction and earning 'enough' rather than buckets of dosh helping bankers become richer by screwing the poor (or whatever). If money was all that mattered to people where would Médecins Sans Frontières be?
<lennon>You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...</lennon>