Resolved: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear armed ICBM force

R1: CounterplanPro incorrectly but understandably assumes that my CP refers to the planned reduction from 94 to 60 bombers. I didn't give an exact number because a) Pro's numbers were vague. b) There are large variations in cost projections of nuclear technology which is shown by how imprecise Pro's source is with its estimates. I'll clarify the CP here:Bomber force costs about twice as much as ICBM. Reducing a triad leg in half won't halve cost. To get the same benefits as Pro (without counting LRSB), we'd have to cut the number of Bombers by MORE than half. With 60 Bombers in service, my plan could result in retaining around 15-20 Bombers at half the price. The exact number is difficult to predict due to the nature of nuclear technology but my CP's solvency doesn't depend on needing more than a nominal force.Concede that Minuteman follow-on is needed. Pro gains no cost-impacts from this. Pro case advocates forgoing follow-on while I advocate forgoing LRSB. The cost savings are comparable. NNSA cost savings apply to both of us. To conclude, a significant reduction in the Bomber force (to less than half) to halve the cost gets me the same cost benefits as Pro, including NNSA and every other cost.Perm fails:A) Cross-apply my C1 on ICBM being hard to destroy, low value targets. With only the subs and a nominal force of Bombers, we move close to having a Monad and will lack diversity of forces.B) Lack of diversity leaves US without a hedge against advancement in Anti-submarine warfare (ASW). The small number of Bombers that we will have left are vulnerable to same weaknesses as submarines: high value targets at base, liable to accidents. It only takes one genius advancement in anti-sub technology (ala Atom bomb) to expose the underwater world. While current submarine stealth technology is ahead of ASW, historical precedent has shown us that it oscillates.C) Implementing both plan and CP leaves US without the bulk of its nuclear teeth. The mere threat of ASW advancement will be enough to cause unrest among US and allies regardless of whether ASW is actually advancing. Apply Pro's evidence on US allies relying on US nuclear capability and it can't be hanging by a thread solely dependent on the belief that ASW has not advanced. CP if solvent is a reason to reject resolution.DA1: Conventional warA) Gulf War: B52s role limited. Used as tactical fighter aircraft. The nuclear role emphasized long range, low-altitude, centrally planned strikes against fixed targets with little to no communication. During Desert Storm, B52s required tactical fighter support and were used against mobile targets. Changes of the assigned targets required frequent communications to update plans. B52s were inadequate for the demands of Desert Storm's conventional missions and not used to its full potential. [10]B) Reconnaissance: Using Bombers for reconnaissance in the South China Sea is laughable. Reconnaissance was conducted by Bombers equipped with cameras during WWII. Today, the strategic role has passed to satellites [12][13] and the tactical role to drones [12]. The US also has dedicated reconnaissance aircraft such as the U-2 and the SR-71.C) Anti-shipping operations: Conventional Attack Submarines are specifically built for tactical missions, including sinking ships and subs, launching cruise missiles, and gathering intelligence [14] not to mention Aircraft carriers can deploy a variety of fighter aircraft [15].D) The only advantage of Bombers is the longer range which is significantly mitigated by aerial refueling. A small force of Bombers is sufficient for long range missions inland such as Afghanistan when working in tandem with fighters. E) Pro's source says that the B2 will last till 2058. Re-evaluations for new aircraft can be done after 2045 outside the scope of the 30 year timeline tacitly agreed to for this debate and after other triad legs are modernized so costs are spaced out. "Experts" will always question reliability of fleets. Pro doesn't cite who. Other aircraft have successful 50 year service, B52 is no exception. B2 is relatively new.F) Link to the global economy impact tenuous. Won't collapse merely because one nation (USA) doesn't have Bombers in the South China Sea. Other weapons do the same job.G) Bomber's role replaceable, not integral to US security. Large number of Bombers unnecessary for conventional warfare, waste of resources. US conventional security ensured by fighter aircraft, attack submarines, ships, drones, and satellites. Non-nuclear bombers are WWII relic. DA2: PoliticsNon-unique. Forgoing modernization of ICBM and in fact, eliminating them altogether will affect domestic support for the New START treaty as well. This doubles if we do both plan and CP. Another reason to reject Perm.R2: Nuclear TerrorismA) Nuclear terrorism is caused by terrorists stealing fissile materials to create weapons. Every instance so far has been of that type. Terrorism is not caused due to morale problems. The bases are secure enough that one person going to sleep will not result in terrorism. Pro's link to terrorism is non-existent and misleading.B) ICBM security has actually improved in the past 70 years. There used to be no Permissive Action Link (PAL) and the codes were all set to 00000000 [24]. With the introduction of PAL, with encrypted firing parameters, and anti-tamper systems not to mention being located in secure air force bases where employees can't just allow their "unsavory friends" inside to hijack missiles, ICBMs are safer than ever. C) Gang leader, isolated example. Counter-example: USS Miami destroyed in ARSON by dock worker [16]. D) Morale problems caused due to the frigid winters at the Minot Air Force base which is where Pro's drug scandal occurred [18]. Non-unique to ICBM. Morale also low because soldiers drive to missile sites in freezing weather. Being remedied by issuing winter clothing [19]. Turn: Pro's source says modernizing ICBM can solve morale problem. R3: Third WheelA) Deterrence only works when adversaries are rational. Must prepare for nuclear war with irrational opponents. Pro doesn't refute evidence that not all nuclear war will end in MAD merely calling it absurd. B) Rebuilding ICBM from scratch wastes time and resources. Resolution advocates destroying silos and facilities as well.C) Backup needed to hedge against breakthroughs in ASW when subs may not be a deterrent. ================ My case: Why we should keep ICBMs ================C1: Diversifies riskA) Submarines can be destroyed at sea. Any adversary that develops a breakthrough in ASW poses a risk to submarines. ASW has been advancing with time. The MH60R Romeo ASW Helicopter can find, track, and destroy all modern subsurface threats [22]. In fact, the United States Navy aims to "deny enemy submarines an offensive capability by maintaining the ability to destroy them, if and when required, at a time and place of our choosing." [23]B) Nuclear submarines and Bombers can all be destroyed by conventional weapons [21]. The ICBMs are the sole triad leg that REQUIRES that the adversary use nukes. What if submarines are tracked and destroyed by conventional means by either terrorists groups or unstable nations? If it takes decades to rebuild, we need a backup. Bombers don't serve that role well as they are vulnerable to the same weaknesses as submarines.C) Pro drops ASW, and the similarity of Bombers to submarines. Both are prone to accidents, and unprotected. ICBM are different. They are protected differently, and are a hedge against ASW. Without ICBM, the security of our nuclear arsenal and of the US will be compromised.C2: BufferA) Pro ignores that there are only three air bases, and five submarine ports compared with 450 ICBMs in protected silos requiring a two to one attack or 900 nuclear warheads. Subs at sea if tracked don't exhaust opponent's nukes. This is unique to ICBM. B) This argument is nonsensical. Without ICBM, our adversaries can directly attack US cities, military bases, and centers of industry. Using up nearly all their warheads to carpet-bomb fortified silos in the middle of nowhere means those warheads are not available to be used on cities.C) Nuclear climate change is a different threat from direct bombing. It doesn't result in instant death. People can evacuate to unaffected areas and adapt their lifestyles to survive. The impact is survival of Americans and the chance to rebuild. Without ICBMs as buffer, we could potentially be wiped out by a similar scale of attack. C3: Reserves A) My proposal was to store ICBM in secure underground bases where military and political leaders have access to them. ICBM are secured with PAL and require multiple people enter the code so terrorists can't threaten someone into launching them. The threat of US leadership launching nuclear weapons when most have been destroyed is a good deterrent from further attack.B) While some nuclear wars may cause extinction, not all will. People still live in Hiroshima. A larger scale nuclear war might cripple redevelopment but is nothing like Pro's implication that time, space and matter end once nuclear weapons are fired. C) Mankind has survived for tens of thousands of years through Ice Ages, the Plague, and numerous threats. We will rebuild our cities. We will improve our environment. We will reclaim our territory. Extinction of humans in a nuclear war is very real possibility but is far from certainty. But we must be prepared. And we must have back-up plans. ICBM are that backup. Sources[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...[21] http://tinyurl.com...[22] http://tinyurl.com...[23] http://tinyurl.com...[24] http://tinyurl.com...