This message was self-deleted by its author

[Gormy Cuss]

621. Good or bad isn't the issue under discussion here. The discussion is about cost.

Up thread I referred to a modest increase. I made no reference to increasing bombs, rockets, et cetera, even though from a realistic standpoint there would be more use of equipment like tanks,ships and planes with a larger force. One could argue that the current stock would still be sufficient for a peace time operations even as the number of personnel increased dramatically.

The same can't be said for small arms, thus there would likely be a modest increase in weapons costs (modest in terms of the current dollar amount spent for all weapons.) More weapons for training are an unavoidable additional cost, for example.

I don't budget for military operations but I've done many budgets for expanding workforces. Adding people costs more than just the cost of labor and benefits. It has implications for equipment, space allocation and other overhead and administrative costs.