The Military of the United States Should Be Radically Restructured (Read on for Details)

Thank you, TheIdesOfMarch, for allowing me to take this debate. Your general claim is that the United States does not need a strong military. You try to justify this claim on the fact that the US is 1) surrounded by an ocean and 2) has a nuclear deterrent. Both these views are obsolete and dangerous. The first justification has been an argument for isolationism dating back to the founding of the country. While it may have been a reasonable argument in 1808, it is no longer reasonable in 2008. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor showed how small the oceans got in the face of a modern navy, and the technological innovations of the last half century have only served to make the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans even smaller. Your second view is beyond dangerous. To relegate the defense of the United States and her interests primarily through the threat of nuclear annihilation is a return to the MAD doctrine. It is morally wrong to jump straight to nuclear holocaust. A strong, conventional military would give the President more options than either surrender or nuclear annihilation. In addition, you speak of the great costs of maintaining the military as "unsustainable". Last budget, 4.4% of the GDP was spent on defense, this is against the 8.7% on medicare, medicaid, and social security, a number that is going to rise exponentially when the baby boomers retire (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com...). Baker Spring said, in the same article, that the US economy could easily handle 5%. Perhaps, the real word that my opponent wanted to use instead of "unsustainable" was "unwanted". It is interesting that, in his proposals, my opponent advocates the scaling down of the US military while at the same time, advocating an increase in US peacekeeping operations. How does he intend to make the US a potent peacekeeping force, a force that would need to have the ability to occupy a country, much as we are doing in Iraq, when it has been handicapped by a lack of spending. Jim Talent, of the Heritage Foundation, says that "even a foreign policy emphasizing peace, human rights, foreign aid, cultural diversity and international cooperation depends on American power as a stabilizing influence." (http://www.heritage.org...). It is quixotic to believe that the US can maintain peace in the world on a skeleton army, and it puts our brave men and women in unestimable, and unnecessary, danger to through them into battle without the proper gear. Finally, I would like to ask my opponent where he gets the guarantee for the "benefits" of his proposals. For example, during the 90's, America cut her military spending, and the actually military to half, while at the same time, stepping up peace keeping operations. However, this did not seem to coincide with an increase in national goodwill. The countries that do not like us now, will probably not like us even after we scale down our military. The countries that are dependent on our military for support, will leave us and find a new protector, a protector that could be hostile to US interests, such as China or Iran. In short, there will be no increased goodwill, but, at best, no change in the status quo, and, at worst, a decrease in goodwill. Secondly, my opponent assumes that the only type of war in the future will be asymmetrical war. My question to him is, does he think that there will be no wars between nations in the future? Does he not think that there could be a possible clash between the US and China over Taiwan, or North Korea over South Korea, or Russia over The Ukraine? This is an extremely naive view, and brings to mind the blindness that many in the public had to Adolf Hitler and his ambitions. And finally, on what guarantee does my opponent has that nations will decrease their military spending if we decrease ours. This is naivete on par with the Kellog-Briand Pact. Does my opponent seriously think that, because we stop arming our troops, ruthless dictators will stop arming theirs? Where is the guarantee or historical precedent for this? When the US cut our navy in World War II, the Japanese built up theirs. When the US cut defense spending the 70's, the Soviets increased theirs. In short, my opponent cannot guarantee any of the benefits of his proposal. My opponents view is, unfortunately, anachronistic. It belongs more to the isolationsists of the 1920's than the current geopolitical reality of the 21st century. America is a global power with a global responsibility. Without a strong military, the US would abandon its allies and interests in the world to ruthless dictators who despise liberty and rights. Indeed, siginficant cuts in the US military leave the US vulnerable, especially in a world where the traditional geographic boundaries have been overcome by techonological innovation. As a nation, we must buckle down and do whatever it takes to keep freedom safe in a world where the dangers of totalitarianism looms so large and threatening.