World War II was an unusual case, though. Every war since then has been a relatively limited one in the sense that no one on the home front really made any kind of sacrifice or even any substantial contribution to the war effort. In World War II, as much of the country's productive output as possible was dedicated to the war effort. Civilian consumption was strictly rationed, and the population actually went along with this. People gardened and learned to get by with less because every gallon of gasoline they didn't burn, every tire they patched up instead of replacing, every bit of food or cloth or wood or steel that you didn't needlessly consume could be shipped off to the front lines and contribute to victory. Every dollar you saved could be invested in war bonds. There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory.
If you were able to get that level of dedication out of the population again, you could scale an effective military force in very short order the way the US did in WWII. But that just isn't going to happen again for any foreseeable conflict.
Contrast this with how Americans were told to support Iraq 2 and Afghanistan: "Go shopping."
The best possible policy for peace-loving American's to adopt would be a "no war without conscription" law. This seems counterintuitive, but it is my believe that when Senators' and Presidents' and CEOs' sons lives are on the line, they'll think twice before using force. As it stands, to them it's like risking the lives of a few hundred thousand Wal-Mart employees.
Here's an interesting story of a potential future US President who didn't survive WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Jr.
His younger brother took his place doing that whole presidency thing.
May I recommend a listen to Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvwQmxLaknc
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...
But not before World War II started... Notice that you called it the WWII draft. U.S. involvement in WW II did not start with Pearl Harbor.
In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles.
Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
It would have been better simply to be ready.
Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
The peacetime/domestic benefits were considered secondary.
The M4 Sherman tank design began about 1940, although it followed closely on US light and medium tank designs from 1935.
If by "prior to involvement," you mean 3 or 4 years prior, you're probably right. Most of the design and development work was done to supply the British well before 1941.
Further, the Great Depression not withstanding, and certainly by 1941, the US had the strongest economy in the world.