The United States needs to increase funding to its nuclear program

You have failed to address several of my previous main points, and therefore, I would like to quickly restate these points that have gone un refuted: firstly, the training and welfare of our employees is important, and as I said before, we need to be training them for the future, not keeping them in the 60s. These vital updates can only take place with increased funding. Second point, we cannot place the fate of our great nation in the hands of unreliable and laughably dated technology, and final unrefuted point, other nations are surpassing us in nuclear power, and we must act to preserve the national power and sway we worked so hard for, before it is too late. In response to your arguments about funding "cyber warfare" or other things instead of the nuclear program, I would like to point out that these arguments are completely, and 100% unresolutional. This entire debate is based around the specific wording of this resolution: "The United states needs to increase funding to its nuclear program". Literally nowhere in that resolution does it say anything like "the nuclear program is the best use of surplus funds" or "the nuclear program should take presidence over all other parts of the military" , the resolution simply states that the united states needs to increase funding to its nuclear program, therefore the entirety of the arguments made in your paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are totally irrelevant to the resolution and the debate, and should be completely disregarded by the judges. In regards to your statement that " I may argue that we should fund all parts of the military", you are trying to take apart and interrogate me about an argument I haven't made in this debate, and never even intended to make. In regards again to cyber warfare, I point to the fact that this debate has nothing to do with if the nuclear program is the best use of funds, it simply is about whether or not the united states should increase funding to the program. Therefore this continued argument about funding cyber warfare is again, totally unresolutional. Lastly, just one nuke, is not very threatening from the standpoint of Russia or china. For example, say I'm china. Not only do I have literally 190 times more nuclear missiles than you, I also have the support of Russia, AMM's and other deterrents. Even if you managed to hit JUST ONE of my cities, I would be able to cripple every peice of important infrastructure in your country in under fifteen minutes, and you would be completely out of missiles. This is not about "Game Theory" this is about real live warfare. When other countries flaunt their growing and superior nuclear arsenals, we cannot get by by skimming off the very minimum. This is not only about North Korea or Iran, and neither is this debate. The US has other enemies. We must take the necessary and proportional action, in order to secure our nation's safety from said enemies , and that action is to refund and reinvigorate the nuclear program. This debate has really boiled down to three points: -Our staff and equipment needs to be updated -Our arsenal is dated and rusting -Other, dangerous, countries have surpassed us in nuclear might ie.(china) I point to these three pivotal arguments, of which my opponent has successfully refuted none, and all of which I have backed with solid evidence. I point to these arguments which are the center of the debate and we see that I have won all of these points. This and my rebuttal of all my opponents arguments, is why I believe I have won this debate today, and why I urge a PRO ballot from the judges in today's debate. Thank you -FJK