The United States military should be reduced in half.

At the end of round #3, my case was affirmed. PRO did not contest that military spending is at record lows, and that we live in a time of relative peace. I will extend ALL of my round #2 and #3 arguments.As PRO is making arguments in the final round - indeed a LOT of arguments, I will also do the same instead of a traditional closing.- PRO's statements in quoted italics- Sources con't from rounds #2, #3Rebuttal1) "A professional, well-equipped and well-trained force will defeat a bigger, not as advanced army that's 10x its size." What PRO fails to mention is that losses are minimized by use of OVERWHELMING FORCE. Against a force that a military cannot win, capitulation is the common outcome. This is why Saddam gave up after only 38 days in the Gulf War. This reduces casualties on both sides and minimizes the horror of warfare. 3,664 civilians died in the Gulf War. [29]If we take PRO's suggestion, we will NOT command an overwhelming force. Our military will become subject to unreasonable expenditure, higher casualties, and prolonged conflict - we may run the risk of not winning a conflict. Such misguided thinking is EXACTLY what Rumsfeld as SecDef recommended to Bush/Cheney, [7] and because of that, we have the legacy of the War in Iraq. [6] The civilian body count from the War in Iraq is now OVER 100,000. [30]2) "I have NOT "conceded my case... The future points towards smaller, but more lethal force packages..." Software engineers are some of the best and highest paid jobs in America. [18], [19] ANY talk about developing cyber-security will point to a LARGER, MUCH LARGER military budget.3) I agree that we "should "Reduce redundant command-and-control overhead and establish Joint Force Commands." However, the savings from doing so would be minimal. Per PRO's source, cutting 10 four-star commands down to four would save the military about $1.5 million in personnel costs, a LOT less than a drop in the bucket - each O-10 (4 star general) earns less than $200,000 per year. [20] PRO's source does not quantify any financial benefits, and for good reason - THEY ARE MINIMAL.4) "European settlers did not set a precedent for American imperialism..." Correct. They set a precedent for EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM. i.e. IRRELEVANT.5) "Con misrepresents history when he suggests we went after Native Americans only after the Revolutionary War which is obviously not true. " PRO is misrepresenting history - before the Revolutionary War, there was no concept of "We the People". We belonged to Europe, we belonged to THEM. AGAIN, IRRELEVANT.6) More mad-libs, again, my comments in bold:"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 I.E. THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LON). In choosing to appease Hitler, the LON did fail; however, not because of the U.S BECAUSE WE WERE ISOLATIONIST, WE DID NOT BELONG TO THE LON. The LON couldn't utilize its [SECONDARY] weapon of asking member countries to stop trading with an aggressive country...THE LON'S MAIN WEAPON WAS PEACEKEEPING VIA THE MILITARY MIGHT OF ITS CONSTITUENTS, AND IT WAS MISSING BY FAR ITS BIGGEST CONSTITUENT, THE US. Moreover, the League had no STANDING army of its own, and could not respond quickly to stop an act of aggression... NEITHER DID THE UN...EXPLAIN THE UN'S MILITARY PRESENCE IN KOREA [21], AND DURING THE GULF WAR.[22] IT WAS ALMOST ALL US MILITARY PERSONNEL. The U.S. couldn't save the day." YES WE COULD HAVE, BUT WE DIDN'T DUE TO OUR ISOLATIONIST IDEOLOGY.7) PRO, on WWIII: "let's consider...Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis [CMC]..." To think that Afghanistan would have caused WWIII is ridiculous. What about Vietnam? That was much bloodier and much more interventionalist on our part, yet no WWIII. Had we relented in the CMC, the USSR would have called our bluff on our nuclear deterrent. They would have become emboldened, and would have had NUCLEAR MISSILES AIMED AT US 100 MILES OFF THE COAST OF FLORIDA. PRO IS ADVOCATING INSANITY HERE.Kennedy's foreign policy was a shipwreck. Kennedy prosecuted the Vietnam War. [23] Kennedy CAUSED the CMC via the Bay of Pigs - hostile militant action against Cuba. [24] Of course such a misguided President on foreign policy would oppose Pax Americana - Kennedy WANTED an arms race - this is evident in his prosecution of Cuba and Vietnam. Thankfully he regained his senses by preventing WWIII via CMC, a war that history would have remembered as KENNEDY'S WAR. Kennedy died, and LBJ carried Kennedy's Vietnam legacy and was crucified over it.8) "...our current national debt at over 16 trillion dollars..." Then cut entitlements. They are less necessary than the military, yet WE SPEND FOUR TIMES AS MUCH ON ENTITLEMENTS THAN WE DO THE MILITARY. [25], [26], [27]9) "The US distributes $14B annually in military assistance..." This is less than 0.3% of the military budget. [28]10) "Con has mostly dropped ALL of my economic contentions..." PRO HAS no economic contentions. Mine are clear:"US military spending is at historic lows.""...global military budgets are at unprecedented lows."11) PRO's unsubstantiated assertions about the MIC were addressed in round #3.12) PRO's "extend arguments" via NDAA is a strawman. The military is not responsible for the domestic atrocities conducted by the FBI and Homeland Security.13) "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. " PRO has just defined hegemony for me. "In that case, the military would need to protect the government from the people. " No, the government IS the people - WE THE PEOPLE. We live in a democracy, not a fascist totalitarian state. We will need a small police force, yes, but not a military. This is the end goal, but until then, the military is a necessary evil.14) "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." PRO does not contest CON's assertions of the size and scope of the military. Again,"US military spending is at historic lows.""...global military budgets are at unprecedented lows."PRO dropped this, and thereby conceded most of her case.15) "I gave multiple examples iof [sic] how we could maintain a balance of power in the world with a smaller military. " ALL REBUTTED. Advocating balance of power is what led to WWI. [31] I am advocating OVERWHELMING FORCE via hegemony...a force WE CAN AFFORD, a force that results in lasting peace.16) "Keep in mind it's too late for Con to respond to any dropped arguments." PRO has dropped so many of my arguments that it's clear who has met BoP, and it is not PRO. 17) "If we are not being legitimately threatened or attacked, we can absolutely scale back our operations."a) I have advanced a real world scenario that conforms to realist theory - my opponent has nothing but wishful thinking. b) I have demonstrated how this has resulted in a unparalleled peace, and how by unreasonably scaling back our operations, a GLOBAL ARMS RACE WOULD BEGIN. 18) "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."I agree that we can make our military more efficient, and PRO's suggestions about combining commands and reigning in foreign military assistance have some merit. COMBINED, THESE TWO PROPOSALS MAKE UP LESS THAN 0.3% OF THE MILITARY BUDGET. [28]I have nothing to add. My case is substantial. I have met BoP even though BoP is not on me. PRO has no countervailing theory, and cannot articulate a realistic scenario. I expected PRO to argue the anarchist's case, but she has not. Therefore, PRO HAS NO CASE.Extend Rounds #2, 3 assertions. MILITARY SPENDING IS FINE AS IT IS. VOTE CON.Sources:http://debate.org...