The United States military should be reduced in half.

In the last round, Con never talked about our real or perceived threats-- to what extent they allegedly exist and can cause harm, nor whether or not the U.S. military would be able to defend itself adequately against these threats even if it was reduced in size by half. We can. To begin, my opponent talked about realism and hegemony. Con must prove that hegemony is and should be our goal. At our country's inception, the intention was for the U.S. to maintain policies of non-interventionism. Our aim was to avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This policy is founded on the notion that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. Hegemony directly contradicts this notion by encouraging imperialism. Imperialism is detrimental. Obviously, it has a history of creating slave systems of dominant nations via military prowess. Further, imperialism goes hand in hand with racism (nationalism), xenophobia, culture wars, etc. all which serve as an incentive for terrorism. Moreover, the us vs. them mentality stands only to support an elite, ruling class of war profiteers. If war were not profitable, it would not be pursued. It is only profitable to particular groups: those in defense industries such as arms; companies contracted with or by the U.S. government; etc. Meanwhile, it makes us less safe. Con hasn't challenged the argument/source documenting that our foreign policy and militaristic occupation is fostering terrorism and anti-American hostility. In his article 'War: Who Profits and Who Pays,' Brad Miller explains "The people support the wars because the [Federal Reserve] can facilitate the borrowing of trillions that will be someone elses" problem... But what most Americans don"t realize is that they are impoverishing themselves now and enriching a few now because they are supporting the Federal Reserve"s devaluing of the dollar, which is causing the inflation that we are all feeling today. The average citizen doesn"t profit from war. It impoverishes us. It doesn"t make us safer; it actually makes us less safe." In the same fashion, Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine at the time of his death proclaimed "The general public shoulders the bill. And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations" [1]. War isn't good for most people. The human (mental, emotional) element of harm is unbearable. Expecting countries to be more responsible for their own defense would not necessarily cause havoc as Con contests. This is blatant fear mongering-- the kind of shameless, detrimental propaganda that politicians have relied on to maintain the ridiculously unwarranted size and scope of the military up until now. "All you have to do is tell [the people] they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Nazi Hermann Goering on bringing the people to the bidding of their leaders [2]. This has been done and repeatedly warned about throughout history [3]. Con says that cutting the military is what REALLY would cause an arms race, saying that I was foolish and misguided for noting that we currently have and are encouraging one now. This confuses me, because earlier he said that we need to acknowledge via Realism the reality that an arms race currently exists. Hmm. Clarify-- are we currently fostering an arms race, and is this good? Con scoffs at my brain power suggestion despite agreeing with me. Our primary defense will continue to develop as a high tech industry which would thrive in both the state and private sector. Computer technology, software development, coding, cyber security, etc. are all fields highly prevalent to our defense. In that case, the U.S. should focus less on acquiring more, expensive weapons, and policing the globe quite literally like a Risk map as my opponent points out. Instead, we should focus on developing the "brain power" of being able to dominate through figuring out better, more advanced weapons far more efficiently. We also need to be smarter about our weapons and what kind of warfare we impose. Perhaps we would be better off circumcising our opponents economically- by hindering their trade, culturally- by creating dissonance both internally and externally, politically- by strategizing ways to stifle their growth and success, including creating alliances (not necessarily militaristic in nature) with other nations, etc. Perhaps even biochemical warfare... Moving on. Con didn't at all address the massive economic burden our defense budget has placed on the U.S. As I explained, this is not only an immoral burden, but quite literally ruining America's economic standing in the world. We simply can not afford the size and scope of our current militaristic endeavors, which is undoubtedly gravely detrimental to our financial standing. This is THE biggest threat to our security and livelihood. Con cannot ignore this, nor simply gloss over the fact that we could be saving or investing this money toward more worthy causes. More importantly, NO MONEY = NO MILITARY. This alone negates my opponent's entire case. If our economy collapses, or takes a serious economic hit as we are on course to do, our security would be severely threatened and any romanticized, unwarranted Patriotic notions of Pax Americana would be laughably inconceivable. Con also dropped how the military is being used to oppress the American people, emulating signs of fascist-lite policies that are harmful to our rights and security from our own government. Extend. Moreover, Con ignored the argument regarding the Military Industrial Complex. The reality of its existence is paramount to my case. The vast majority of U.S. military actions in the last ~20 years have had little to nothing to do with protecting us from enemies, potential or otherwise. Instead, they've been an attempt to justify the existence of the MIC in a world where America has no legitimate enemies, so it must create some. After the collapse of the USSR, we found out that the Soviet threat to us was greatly exaggerated. My opponent tries to make it appear as if it's some amazing argument in his favor that defense spending is at "historic lows." The reality is that this isn't important, as it obviously doesn't justify past spending and I've already explained the cause and effect of that growth. This point is irrelevant regardless of how bold or large the font is in which Con chooses to type it in. Con must explain who our enemies are today and to what extent they are dangerous. To suggest that we ought to imagine the worst case scenario and continue to build up our arms recklessly with no intention to ever stop or slow down (as my opponent implied) is absurd. We cannot ignore the reality of this financial burden, and its overall impact on our national security and global foreign policy as well as impact on the entire world. That would be irresponsible, embarrassingly immoral - frankly unacceptable. We have other ways of maintaining a balance of power, including but not limited to focusing on our economic prowess (which mandates cuts from the military), being more proactive in peaceful engagements rather than ruling through force and militaristic dominance, investing in computer technology and the sciences rather than man power where it DOES concern our legitimate defense, and adopting more fair and reasonable alliances (eg. not alienating every Muslim country by blindly supporting Israel), etc. Cutting our military does not mean cutting defense [4]. The resolution is affirmed. SOURCES: http://debate.org...