The American military budget should not be reduced

I will first defend my case, then attack my opponent"s case. Against my first contention, my opponent stated all I proved was that the US had a larger military than Russia and China, not that the US military was over equipped. I feel I do prove that. In my case, I state the fact that we have 17 more aircraft carriers than both Russia and China, all of them more advanced than Russia"s and China"s. This shows that Russia and China cannot hope to threaten our interest for any extended period of time. The point being here, that if the US had, say, 15(or less even) aircraft carriers instead of 19 thus saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually and billions of dollars in building costs, [1] wouldn't change the fact Russia and China still cannot hope to threaten our trade routes and other interests in a conventional manner for any period of time. By using these statistics, I feel they prove that the US is over equipped for any threat Russia and China pose. Analysis of statistics along with other data is the only way we can prove if the US is over equipped or not, and this is what I did in my first contention. However, I clarify my position in the rebutting of my opponent"s case. My opponent also asks, "If our military members are already spending a lot of time deployed, then do we have the capabilities to reduce our military by a significant amount?" Not only can you link back into the rest of my contention 1 to prove that we do have the ability, it is further proved that the USN only has 2-4 carrier strike groups deployed at any one time. [2]. We have at least 5 to 10 times the carriers the US Navy itself deems necessary to have deployed to protect America"s interests. A similar story is told in the air force. Thus, a budget cut is validated. Against my contention 2, my opponent stated that while the US military inefficient, so is the rest of the government, and implied that all government organizations are equally inefficient. First off, just because we cut something does not mean we should spend it on another government organization. We have a rather large national debt that needs to be paid off, and cutting the military"s budget is a way to help do that. Second, my opponent assumes all government organizations are equally inefficient. I call this into question. There are bound to be organizations with more capable leaders that are more efficient. I mean, I generally do not see FEMA or the department of agriculture wasting as much of their budget as the military with the f-35. In case you do not buy this, let us say the government managed to get more efficient, thus increasing the efficiency of the US military. The money would either, A. Stay in the military or B. Go somewhere else. Because my opponent did not prove that the Us military needs a larger budget, he must now prove that government, or more specifically, the US military, can NEVER be more efficient. This is going to be hard for him, especially because he did not specifically respond (thus conceding) to the argument in the second contention that states by cutting the military"s budget it gives them less room to waste money, and this will force the army to adapt to be more efficient. While I am under no illusions that this will lead to a complete removal of inefficiency it is bound to help. If he doesn"t sufficient disprove that the US military can become more efficient even though cutting the budget makes them more efficient (Again, he dropped my argument that stated that), then I have fulfilled my burden in proving that we can afford to cut the US military"s budget. Now on to my opponent"s case. Essentially his case boils down to this: While the US has a very large military, it is necessary to secure economic security against threats. We need such a large military because we need to protect our vast trade network. While my opponent is correct in the fact that we need to protect our interests, the current Navy we have far exceeds that goal. Link back into my case where I prove that Russia"s and China"s navy and air force cannot hope to be a major nuisance to our economic interest beyond not trading with us. That is mainly from a statistic based perspective though, so let us look at a map. If Russia declares war on us (and thus NATO), the only realistic way for them to avoid the NATO controlled straits is to go North through the Barrens sea. As said before, the UK alone can take care of that threat the Russians pose. Even if the British are busy with something else, it would not be hard for one or two aircraft carriers battle groups with submarines as scouts and satellites as better scouts to protect shipping. If China were to declare war on the US, the most they can really harass the shipping around Japan and Korea. Again, Japan alone with its navy can probably defeat the Chinese Navy. But if they are predisposed, one or two carrier strike groups can probably take care of the Chinese navy, and probably not even that many, considering the enormous number of air bases around the Pacific. This is all assuming, of course, that China or Russia decides the best course of action is to be a minor nuance at best to our economy, and assuming the Chinese or Russian navy does not get effectively wiped out by US aircraft, missiles or countries allied with the US in the first days or hours. The point being here that the US Navy does not need 19 aircraft carriers, it needs about 5, especially considering the strength of her allies. Similar things for the Airforce. I would also like to shed doubt on China"s or Russia"s ability to effectively reduce trade given the current shape of their navy"s. If, according to my opponent, we need 19 aircraft carriers and the complement of destroyers and cruisers, to cover our sea lanes, how can China or Russia hope to achieve the feared 90% disruption to our economy, (Again, besides not trading with us). My opponent seems to concede to this in his fourth to last paragraph. He states, "You see countries like Russia, and China do not have these global capabilities. They simply cannot afford them. China's GDP is half the size of America's and Russia has a GDP smaller than California. This puts them at a significant disadvantage. If such a conflict such as the Tanker War were to happen again, they would struggle to do anything about it." My opponent admits Russia and China lack a global reach, even lacking the ability to protect their own trade. I fail to see how they can be a serious threat to our shipping if this is true. My case only considers a war with the two biggest military powers that can threaten our interests, smaller ones, such as North Korea, would pose an even smaller nuisance through conventional methods unless my opponent can think of some other relevant country. He also mentions the tanker war. I would like to point that there are only so many ships you can fit into the Persian Gulf without it being redundant. This is the same case for defending straits or trade routes. Essentially, by having such a large navy, the US military basically has about a dozen carriers and dozens of other ships in reserve, because there is no point in ever having that many, or close to that many deployed in peace or war. There is also no point in having so many ships in reserve. To prove this, link back to my source that states that the US only has 2-4 strike groups deployed at a time. The fact that China and Russia has such a weak navy and air force combined with the fact that the US has allied with navies that outmatch both China and Russia, further combined with the fact that the US has air bases all over the world, make it extremely unlikely that the US will ever need more the one or two carriers pulled out of reserve. Therefore, a cut in a few USN ships and a corresponding budget cut is in order. [1] http://www.rand.org... [2] http://www.defensenews.com...