The United States military should be significantly reduced in size and scope.

Once again, Pro demonstrates ignorance over military affairs by citing weapon systems she probably hasn't read about.We have all the advanced stealth technology...This is simply not true. Here are pictures of the Russian T-50, the Chinese J-20, and the Iranian Qaher-313. All are reported to be of stealth fighter designs comparable to the American F-22 and F-35.1)Russian T-50 http://upload.wikimedia.org...2)Chinese J-20 http://resources2.news.com.au...3)Iranian Qaher-313 http://theaviationist.com...We have 16 aircraft carriers.Only ten are the Nimitz class that actually carry fighter aircraft. The rest are smaller amphibious assault ships that primarily transport marines, helicopters, and jumpjets. Of the ten actual aircraft carriers, only 1 to 3 are ever out port at one time due to shore training, maintenance, and current levels of funding. We have 8,700 Abrams. Not according to this source http://en.wikipedia.org... (only about 1,500 of the noteworthy M1A2s). 8,700 actually represents the number of M1 Abrams built and sold to the US and other countries since the 1970s. Meanwhile, Russia and China combined have over 3x as many MBTs as the US does http://www.globalfirepower.com....There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.AFAIK, the US military has only three attack helicopters in service (where AH = attack helicopter). They are the AH-64 Apache (619 in service), the AH-6 Little Bird (51 in service), and the AH-1 Cobra (153 in service) http://en.wikipedia.org.... All of them combined do not add up to 6,400 attack helicopters.The U.S. has access to weapons the rest of the world does not, including but not limited to the MQ9 Reaper Drone, the Laser Avenger and ADAPTIV cloaking. In addition the AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun, the PHASR Rifle, the TASER Shockwave, Black Knight Tanks, Active Denial System, Laser Avenger...AFAIK, the only one of the above weapons systems in actual service is the MQ9 Reaper. Everything else is either still waiting to be procured or is in the R&D testing phase (I don't have time to cite these, but please Google them yourself). It is entirely misleading therefore, to say that the US has access to these systems when none of them are in operational service with the DoD.enhanced sniper riflesWhat does this even mean?!? If some Call of Duty noob starts attaching a bayonet to the end of a scoped rifle wouldn't that technically count as an "enhanced sniper rifle" too?once again more nuclear powerPro forgot to research the implications of America not having MIRV upgrades to its ballistic missiles (see previous round). The major implication of this is that MIRV missiles carry MULTIPLE warheads. America currently does not have any MIRV missiles still in service (http://allthingsnuclear.org...) but China and Russia still do http://www.businessinsider.com.... This means that Chinese and Russian missiles can carry up to 10x the number of nukes that American ICBMs carry. Simply having more missiles then the competition therefore, does not mean having many more nukes. Our 700+ billion dollar defense budgetThe published estimates for the Department of Defense fy15 is actually $581 billion http://comptroller.defense.gov....Pro has also never provided a study from the DoD that showed that Americans became less safe as a result of military interventions in Iraq & Afghanistan (round 2) The above examples overwhelmingly prove Pro's profound ignorance of military affairs and demonstrates that America's military prowess is not nearly as dominant or invulnerable as she has claimed it to be. If we are to actually maintain our edge, it is absolutely vital then that we maintain current funding of the military.Economic ReasonsPro has advocated that we should cut funding of the military in order to stop waste and combat the debt. Yet at just 3.8% of GDP, 20% of the Federal Budget, and #3 in overall spending behind social security and Medicare, defense spending is not at all responsible for the current national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Meanwhile Pro can also not claim that the debt is the DoD's #1 security issue (as she did in R2) because her source came from former JCS Chair Mike Mullen in 2011. The current JCS Chair (and head of the Pentagon) is actually Martin Dempsey (http://en.wikipedia.org...).However, I can show that the DoD is the nation's #1 employer with over 718,000 civilian employees (http://www.defense.gov...), while big time defense programs (like the F-35) can often provide jobs in over 40 states (https://www.f35.com...). Defense companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing provide 100,000s of high paying jobs to the US economy as well as an assortment of other benefits; such as research into new computer technologies, robotics, aerospace, communications, and new methods of constructing and developing energy efficient infrastructure. For Pro to say that defense spending, is more or less "wasteful," is incredibly naive and there are plenty of other wasteful government programs that should be addressed first prior to ever touching defense; such as training mountain lions to run on treadmills (http://www.forbes.com...), and 3D pizza printers for NASA (http://www.foxnews.com...).Furthermore, Pro's claims of trillions of dollars of waste by the DoD are interesting because 1) she has admitted private contractors were at fault (not the DoD) 2) she has hidden the source for the trillion dollar waste claim --see if you can locate her link for source #10-- and 3) her claim for source #11 is a bold face lie. However, I am personally glad to hear that Pro has alluded to fact that the DoD publishes its own public reports on waste & corruption - because unlike other wasteful govt departments (like Medicare & Medicaid who require a 3rd party government accounting office http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...), it demonstrates to me that the DoD is accepting responsibility and taking action. Security ReasonsAs I've argued for in all previous rounds, an immediate 33% cut by Pro would be disastrous to US military readiness. Ongoing Sequestion cuts have wrecked the military miserably and have resulted in one of the oldest air forces, weakest navys, and smallest armies on record (see my first round sources). Even with a smaller reduction of $81 billion (shrink to $500 billion budget), the US military would still be risking nearly the equivalent loss of funding for at least one whole branch of the military. This would not be not be a simple "pick and choose" savings solution as Pro would have it, but a permanent across the board downturn that will indiscriminately slash 1/5 of America's military power (loss of one branch). America has no strong NATO allies to back it up on the world stage, and now is not the time to be cutting defense when threats from ISIS and China continue to rise, Iran and NK continue to build nukes, and Russia is patrolling the shores of Florida (http://www.bbc.com...). US military commitments to Japan, Korea, and Europe are there because no other country in the world is capable of providing the military strength and nuclear forces necessary to deter huge military threats from Russia and China. America is indisputably the leader of the free world and what happens in other regions matter a great deal over here, and America must lead when international organizations like the UN Security Council have proved incompetent at enforcing international law or peacekeeping. Furthermore, deterrence only works when the US has a military that is so strong no other nation in the world would dare challenge it. Our current US military strategy (Full-Spectrum Dominance) shows that the one of the best ways to reach our deterrence goals and prevent threats from taking place is to invest significantly in weapon technologies across all areas of the battlespace, leaving no crack in the armour for enemy to ever take advantage of. And as the Cold War might have proved, one of the best ways to stop the threat of an arms race, is to win it.Moral Reasons.Of all the hundreds of agencies and thousands of govt programs being funded today, the Constitution of the United States priorities only two of them for the federal government; general welfare and the common defense. It is therefore time Pro and everyone else in the federal government got their funding priorities straight - defense is vitally important because security (as Pro even admitted in her first argument) leads to peace and "prosperity." The honorable men and women who serve this country bravely by wearing the uniform serve us directly by serving overseas and preventing threats from ever reaching America's shores. Thousands have sacrificed their lives selflessly simply so that we have the ability to sleep safely at night, and for that reason and more, they deserve the best equipment and highest level of support. It is not wrong to say we support our soldiers, our rights, our prosperity, or human freedom around the globe, and by giving the troops our thanks and tools and funding they need to succeed we accomplish all four. Our freedoms and way of life is never something we can afford to lose. -I thank Pro for a very competitive debate. Please vote for the best arguments.