The United States military should be reduced in half.

Thanks, Con.Bringing many troops home would significantly decrease military personnel, and thus save money on weapon supply and pay outs to soldiers (salary, benefits, etc.). As for investing in "brain power," we could save money by considering the power/utility of weapons we choose to invest in, as well as the quality of training rather than the number of our soldiers (think Israel without conscription). A professional, well-equipped and well-trained force will defeat a bigger, not as advanced army that's 10x its size. So, we need to apply a better allocation of resources. I have NOT "conceded my case" by suggesting we improve our method and scope of research. I've suggested being more efficient by focusing on the right things. We need stability in modernization programs along with clarity in technology forecasting in order to promote a real and substantial return on research and development. The future points towards smaller, but more lethal force packages under one-star officers designed for missions of limited duration and scope - not mass armies created for territorial conquest and occupation.TIME journalist Douglas A. Macgreggor says to save money we should "Reduce redundant command-and-control overhead and establish Joint Force Commands. Standing up permanent Joint Force Commands in a reduced number of regional combatant commands bring together the aerospace, naval and land warfare expertise from the four functional areas: ISR, Strike, Maneuver and Sustainment in one command" [1].European settlers did not set a precedent for American imperialism just because they (wrongfully) barely considered Native Americans human. Con misrepresents history when he suggests we went after Native Americans only after the Revolutionary War which is obviously not true. Besides, this doesn't prove hegemony has always been our goal nor that it should be. Considering there hasn't been perpetual peace, either our best efforts have yet to achieve it, or it doesn't work. We're involved in several wars right now.The main cause of WWII were the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles post WWI - a treaty based on President Woodrow Wilson's 14-point plan. In choosing to appease Hitler, the LON did fail; however, not because of the U.S. The LON couldn't utilize its main weapon of asking member countries to stop trading with an aggressive country, because A) they could still trade with non-member countries, and B) when the world was hit by depression in the late 1920s, countries were reluctant to lose trading partners. Moreover, the League had no army of its own, and could not respond quickly to stop an act of aggression [2]. The U.S. couldn't save the day. It's abusive and unrealistic to suggest that every injustice could have been prevented if only the U.S. had done a little more global policing on tax payer dime. Additionally, Con hasn't proven that it's because of our policing there hasn't been a WWIII. More realistic explanations for that include the nature of warfare and its potential repercussions post atom-bomb. Furthermore, let's consider the two things that would have most likely caused WWIII: the war in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis [3]. Both of these directly involve American interventionism, and both were avoided by the U.S. scaling back its military presence (Cuba removed the missiles facing the U.S. only after Kennedy agreed to remove missiles in Turkey as part of a deal struck with Khrushchev.) In fact, Kennedy himself opposed Pax Americana [4]. The US distributes $14B annually in military assistance which can and should be scaled back. Taking sides overseas has led to far more problems than it has benefits, even if not at first glance. History has shown that the US has many times taken the wrong side with detrimental effects - eg. the creation or facilitation of terrorist groups [5]. I pointed out that NO MONEY = NO MILITARY to which Con replied our economy is growing. A 3% rise in the GDP does not even begin to put a dent in the economic turmoil this country is facing. Here's a link to our current national debt at over 16 trillion dollars [6]. Con says he "fully agrees" that war impoverishes us, yet supports militaristic expansion which includes acts of war (see: Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.). Con has mostly dropped ALL of my economic contentions, saying only it would be inappropriate to cut the military in half because we are not cutting "entitlements" in half. Not all spending is created equal. Extend my arguments on how we can and should put military spending toward better uses.Con says that expecting other countries to fund their own defense would cause an arms race. There already IS an arms race [7] and it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the U.S. could ever stifle that on a global scale. Con's solution is to wage an arms race against the entire world, by expecting the U.S. to single-handledly be the most dominant by FAR in order to achieve Pax Americana. Even at our MASSIVE current size, many political scientists deny Pax Americana has been achieved-- we lack the economic and militaristic prowess. While Con says military spending is at historic lows, he ignores that our military budget has closed to doubled in the past ~10 years. I also explained that after the collapse of the USSR, we found out that the Soviet threat to us was greatly exaggerated. This is relevant because so are most of our other so-called threats. Our military spending then didn't have to be that high. I also explained that past spending doesn't justify how much we should spend now - especially when that takes into account two world wars. Extend all of my arguments regarding the military oppressing U.S. citizens. I've outlined policies specifically pertaining to the military and not the FBI or Homeland Security as Con suggests (eg. NDAA). Con confirms the existence of the MIC and says it's a good thing! That is absurd for all of the reasons Eisenhower warned: it wastes taxpayer money fabricating or exaggerating a need for defense supplies specifically to make war profiteers rich - not because there is an actual need.Con says "world peace is achieved through hegemony - no more opponents." It is unrealistic to assume there can EVER be "no more opponents." The only way that would be feasible is if you had a single world-government. In that case, the military would need to protect the government from the people. Con ignores the dangers, abuses and probable futility of eternally seeking to expand your miitary at all costs.Con wrongfully claims I have dropped my contentions from R2. I did not. That round crafted a case explaining the size and scope of our military. Con accepted those arguments (thus I did NOT drop them), and instead defended the size and scope of the military. My R3 attacked his defense. I gave multiple examples iof how we could maintain a balance of power in the world with a smaller military. I also explained how we can circumcise our opponent's economically, culturally, and politically. Con never denied this or challenged any of my suggestions. Keep in mind it's too late for Con to respond to any dropped arguments.There is no mission statement indicating our goal or desire includes being the world’s police, peacemaker, or trying to advance our culture or causes around the world. Instead, our military is supposed to be for common defense of our security and liberty. If we are not being legitimately threatened or attacked, we can absolutely scale back our operations. Significantly reducing the American military into a coherent, far more affordable operational framework is essential to rationalize modernization, as well as extract greater capability and advancements from the existing force. The best way to enhance national security, promote our economic interests, and provide moral leadership is to get our own economy in order. We should and perhaps must cut military spending. >> Sources located in same link from R2/3 <<