Over $100 billion is taken from people at the point of a gun for recruiting efforts to find and hire people who will then be paid by money taken from people at the point of a gun. You're welcome to demonstrate how taxation is not backed by the threat of or actual use of violent force.
My mistake for misquoting you about nations always existing. That was my bad for misreading your statement, and I'll walk that one back. However, the entire tone of your statement is that in order to ensure the security of people, we need armies. Voluntary exchange and consensual interactions is far more preferable except to people who want to use force to harm others, so this is not the only solution, nor is it the preferred solution. There is no reason the world must operate in this fashion, and honoring people who engage in or support the most murderous enterprise in human history does nothing to advance us past that point. Why continue to honor people that carry out an endeavor that multiples human suffering, rather than pressing for a better solution?
The ASVAB works on a ranking basis, with different scores necessary for different professions. Those with greater general aptitudes (higher scores) qualify for more jobs. Those with lesser general aptitudes (lower scores) qualify for less jobs. Based on this understanding, the job with the lowest cut-off score is the one that qualifies the greatest number of people, meaning it requires the least skilled labor. In the same way that qualifying to flip burgers doesn't make you smart, qualifying for infantryman doesn't make you smart either. I'm even willing to concede your point that the majority of people in the Army aren't knuckledraggers (since I'm my own counterpoint in this case, as were a number of people in my unit), however having such a low threshold for people who are in the most morally responsible position breeds inequity. You know what commands really like? Privates that do what they're told, when they're told to do it, and how they're told to do it. Trust me; I learned from experience that no one in charge likes a private that actually takes initiative.
I'm also not going to honor the "sacrifices" that people impose on themselves. I don't expect, nor do I want, anyone to honor me because I imposed hardships on myself. It doesn't take courage or dedication to keep serving even when one realizes how awful the Army really is; it takes the threat of a dishonorable discharge that will make you unemployable to a large number of people. That encourages other people to do stupid things, like sacrifice time with their family, miss their children growing up, become a stress-addled mess, destroy their relationships, become heavy drinkers and smokers, and a host of other horrible end effects that I've witness first hand or been guilty of myself. If anything, I should be a cautionary tale, as should everyone else who serves.
That's nothing to say for the fact that serving in the military means serving the political ends of the people in charge. Orders that violate the UCMJ are more than likely immoral, but orders that do not violate the UCMJ are also possibly still immoral. I'd argue that serving as the enforcement arm of US foreign policy is immoral in and of itself, and I fully accept my responsibility for being part of that prior to realizing what a racket war is. Indoctrination is a hell of thing, I guess.