The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force

== Rebuttal == (1) Con's sole contention is that removing one of the wheels of the triad would weaken the triad considerably. This is objectively false, as demonstrated under my C3. The only purposes of the triad are deterrence and second-strike capability, for both of which the ICBM's aren't required. My source 14 clearly establishes that SLBM's act as a much stronger deterrent and have greater second strike capability. So ICBM's are unnecessary. This forms the whole of Con's offense (the rest being largely defensive), so vote them down right there. Con also says they are the easiest to operate, but *turn* that -- the "easy operation" causes very low chances of de-escalation, so provide less chance of preventing nuclear war if such a scenario arises. Extend contention 3 which fully refutes Con's case. (2) The other arms of the triad don't have nearly as many security threats as the ICBM force. The problem of security lacks inherency insofar as SLBM's and bombers are concerned, because the military has faith in them. Extend subpoint B of contention 1: the problem is *inherent* to ICBM's as the Air Force doesn't care much about them to revamp security features. Con doesn't demonstrate that the problem exists with SLBM's and strategic bombers as well, and has no evidence. Extend all the warrants regarding ICBM security and nuclear terrorism. Con doesn't prove that "a submarine being hijacked by a pirate" is sufficient to warrant a significant security threat to SLBM's and doesn't show that the security is so bad. (3) Con drops the budget crisis which will result from the ICBM force and will result in the eventual discontinuation of the ICBM force *anyway. * But such a sudden discontinuation will reduce nuclear deterrence: it has to be slow and prepared. So the discontinuation process should begin before the onset of budget crisis which is inevitable. This renders all of Con's offense irrelevant since the budget crisis will force such changes occurring anyway. Don't allow Con to refute this point now because debate convention dictates that new arguments in the final round should be rejected. == Underview == Resolution: "The USFG should eliminate its nuclear-armed ICBM force" My burden, as Pro, is to affirm the resolution by demonstrating that such an elimination would pose a net benefit to the US. Con's burden is to show that keeping the ICBM force poses a greater net benefit and the plan poses a net harm. I have fulfilled my burden, while Con has failed to fulfill his burden. I argued three contentions: (1) the ICBM force has poor security and is vulnerable to nuclear terrorism, (2) there are very high costs (up to $1 trillion) to revamp the outdated force, which will result in budget crisis and hasty discontinuation of the ICBM force to save the costs, having detrimental effects to the nuclear deterrent, and (3) the SLBM force and strategic bomber force are much more important than the ICBM force, which is irrelevant to deterrence and second-strike capabilities. The first contention's harms were proven with multiple examples, and I also showed that the problem was inherent to the status quo. I used reliable estimates to justify the problems from the second contention. I proved the third contention by showing that ICBM's don't allow for easy de-escalation, and showed that they lack flexibility. Con's objection to (1) is weak because he hasn't demonstrated with any evidence that SLBM's and strategic bombers face similar security threats. Con completely drops (2). Con also drops (3) which essentially refutes Con's case. In contrast, Con's contentions are weak. Con argues that (1) eliminating the ICBM force reduces the capabilities of the nuclear triad significantly, and (2) ICBM's are much easier and more efficient to operate than the other wheels of the triad. I refuted (1) by showing the complete lack of warrant, and also demonstrated that ICBM's lacked significant second-strike and deterrent capabilities. I also refuted (1) by extending the budget crisis contention. I refuted (2) by showing the lack of any warrant for the same, and turned it with de-escalation. Debate convention dictates that there can be no new arguments or new responses made in the last round, as I don't have a chance to respond. Conclusion: The small impact from easy operation is the only impact Con has left in their case. I have impacts of a budget crisis, nuclear terrorism, and prevention of nuclear war (via de-escalation) among others, which have mostly been dropped, and mean the saving of a lot of money and possibly even millions of lives.