The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

Con only claims Japan is not part of SEA in their final round, the “military spending has been constant” and “Chinese aid” arguments appear only in their last round. Pro lacks the space to address these arguments, Con could have brought these arguments up earlier but chose not to. Out of fairness to Pro, the judges ought not consider these arguments. Briefly: Japan is relevant for its reaction to SEA whether or not it is part of the region. Pro has consistently defended an increase - including adding carrier groups and other naval deployments, adding 2500 troops to Guam, and rebalancing with a focus on SEA. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Pro provides multiple reasons why increasing US military capability is beneficial. First, it increases the ability of the U. S. to assist in disaster relief in the region. Second, it allows the U. S. to fight piracy and decreases the likelihood of a major terrorist attack in the region. Finally, it counterbalances China, deterring potential Chinese aggression AND reassures countries like Japan that are beginning to escalate their own military balancing of China- preventing the risk of nuclear proliferation and war Con offers only defensive arguments that center around why the problems Pro lists are fine without the US. However, Pro will always win SOME risk of harm, e. g. there is always SOME risk that SEA will escalate to nuclear proliferation. So even if you buy Con’s arguments (which you shouldn’t), vote Pro just to be safe. Con offers no argument or evidence for how increasing military capability will cause harm while Pro provides multiple arguments for benefits of increasing capability. Aid: The U. S. provides 23 times the amount of aid that China does, and military capability is crucial to disaster response because of its unique ability to move thousands of people and tons of supplies. This is empirically proven by the successful response to typhoon Haiyan. Disaster aid not only saves lives and rebuilds nations, but builds U. S. soft power and improves relations between nations. Piracy: SEA is a global piracy hotbed at risk of seeing a piracy resurgence. A major terrorist attack in the region could have devastating economic consequences. Con argues that piracy is decreasing, but Pro has shown how piracy is shifting to regions that local authorities are less able to monitor- increased US presence has been historically successful in the Gulf of Aden and could be successful in SEA as well. China: Con does not deny the huge military buildup by China, but says that it's a constant percentage of the rapidly expanding Chinese GDP- but the balance of power doesn’t track GDP, only military capability. Con argues that the U. S. military expenditures are a larger percentage of GDP than China's. That is because the U. S. is a global power with worldwide defense obligations, while China is a regional power. Con cites as evidence of non-aggressive intent Premiere Zhou Enlai's 1964 Eight Principles of aid. This was the product of Chairman Mao’s propaganda mission, and not a reliable guide to Chinese policy either then or now. Con did not deny that China made no claim to Senkaku Islands prior to the discovery of fossil fuel resources in the 1960s, nor do they deny the military build up near Taiwan, nor the multitude of territorial claims China has with India, the Philippines, and Malaysia. Multiple flashpoints exist for Chinese miscalculation and the start of war in the absence of a firm US deterrent. Con claims historic nonproliferation agreements will prevent conflict, but ignores current events that show Japan reversing historic trends of anti-militarism by building up forces. Historic trends are changing due to perception of a more aggressive China. This perception makes conflict more likely and requires the US to balance China.