The American military budget should not be reduced

I didn't know if I was going to have internet access for the next 2 or three days or not, so sorry if this seems a little rushed. Anyways, thanks for responding. The US military is a crucial force in protecting America, her citizens, and her allies. However, today, the US military is over equipped for any conventional forces it may face, and is woefully inefficient. Therefore, I advocate for a cut in the US military"s budget. I would first like to make an observation: Pro advocates that ANY cut in the military budget is bad, therefore if I prove even a small cut is warranted then I win the round. (Within reason, if I prove that the US military should fire some guy and then cut the cost of his paychecks from the budget, that does not count) Moving on to my case. Contention 1: The US military is over-equipped for conventional threats. The main conventional threats that face the US militarily are Russia and China. Their individual military compositions are listed below. Russia: http://www.globalfirepower.com... China: http://www.globalfirepower.com... And then we have the US: http://www.globalfirepower.com... Naval strength: There isn't much competition here. If you ignore the patrol craft, the US numerical dominates not only each individual country, but also both of them combined. The US navy is much, much more advanced than those countries so the difference in combat capabilities is even greater. The most important thing here is the number of aircraft carriers. Modern naval combat is dominated by aircraft carriers. However, Russia only has one left over from the cold war, and China only has one it bought from Ukraine as a offshore casino before refitting it to be an aircraft carrier[1]. The US in the meanwhile, has 19 highly modern aircraft carriers, with more being built. This is almost 10 times the combined force of the 2 countries. (This is only numerically. More than likely a single USN aircraft carrier equipped with a proper air wing can take on both China's and Russia's carriers and win). [2] While aircraft carriers are vital in order to project the force of the US military, and protect her interests and trade routes, 19 is too much. Therefore decommissioning one(or several) of them is in order, along with perhaps other ships in the navy. In a war, Russia and China can't possibly hope to be more than a minor nuisance for more than a month against the overwhelming odds that face them, and the US and her allies will easily be able to defend against any surface incursions against trade and economic interests.(Though, if preserving the economy is number one priority, avoiding war with china entirely is the number one concern because no matter how hard we try, we can't make them trade with us while we are at with war them). This will not significantly change if the US decommissions or sells a few of its surface ships. Air: Again, not much competition here. Not only does the US have more planes than these countries combined, we also have much better aircraft, such as the F-22, arguably the best air superiority aircraft in the world. In fact the US has so many aircraft that the US military has the first and second largest air force in the world, the air force's air force, and the navy's air force.[3] The victor in modern ground and naval combat is largely determined by air superiority, which the air force can EASILY acquire given proper logistics, which then means the US also has increased superiority in the ground and sea. A reduction in the number of aircraft, especially in the air force branch of the military, is in order given the massive technological and numerical advantages to the point of being redundant. Land: While I have problems with the Us military's ground forces, they are mostly lie with inefficiencies, which I will get to later. The finance given to the army and marines is fine for the most part, and cuts should not be focused here. Clearly, the US has a MUCH stronger military than its two main conventional threats combined, and this doesn't even take into account the fact the Russia and China are at odds with one another and one would probably join the side of NATO against the other. In addition, the US is not the only major military force capable of opposing these countries. Japan alone can stand up to China"s military.[8] The military of the EU is capable of holding off the Russian military [9](Numerical advantage in Russia is offset by technological advantages in the EU military and better funding). A cut in the number of planes and ships the US military has would not significantly impact the ability of the US military to project force abroad and protect America"s and her allies" interests. For these reasons, a budget cut is acceptable. Contention 2: The US military is woefully inefficient. In addition to the redundancy, which has already been discussed, there is also outright inefficiency. Examples can be found in projects such as the incredibly wasteful F-35(and arguably unnecessary, thought that could be a whole other debate). This project has wasted billions of dollars.[4] [5] This is only an example of the waste of the US military, and it shows through many other examples, a few of which are here:[6] [7]. By cutting the US military's budget, the money can be used for more productive ends. In addition, a reason that the US military can afford to be so inefficient is because it can afford to. By cutting the military"s budget the US military can no longer afford to be this horribly inefficient, and therefore it will adapt to be efficient. Simply cutting down on the inefficiencies could save billions of dollars without even reducing the size of the military. For this reason, not only does my opponent have to prove that the current size of the US military is practical, he also has to prove that the US military needs to either be larger, or continue to inefficient. What would a plan to cut the US military look like? Obviously, we cannot just say to the military all of the sudden that 20% of their budget is cut and wish them good luck dealing with the massive disorganization that would cause. Cuts need to be gradual. VERY gradual. Like 1% or .5% per year until some desired budget is achieved. By making it gradual it gives time for the US military to cut down on waste as to not impact the actual force of the us military, or to plan out what aspects would be cut down, and minimize the effect on the organization structure of the US military. What would this money go to? Anything really, healthcare, NASA, poverty, reducing the national debt, lowering the burden on taxpayer, ect. Something more useful than committing billions of dollars to redundancy and/or inefficiency. For these reasons I support the reduction in the budget of the military. [1]http://nationalinterest.org... [2]http://www.militaryaerospace.com... [3]http://nationalinterest.org... [4]http://www.foxnews.com... [5]http://www.nationalreview.com... [6]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [7[http://harvardpolitics.com... [8]http://www.businessinsider.com... [9]https://en.wikipedia.org...