The United States military should be reduced in half.

- PRO's statements in quoted italics- Sources continued from round #2Rebuttal 1) "In the last round, Con never talked about our real or perceived threats..." See #14.2) "U.S. military would be able to defend itself adequately...if it was reduced in size by half. We can." How so? I can't address this if you have no argument.3) I will address PRO's next point by altering her assertion (my additions in bold):"At our country's inception, the intention was for the U.S. to maintain policies of non-interventionism IN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS. WE INTERVENED IN NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS ALL DAY LONG VIA MANIFEST DESTINY. [9] Our aim was to avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense VIS A VIS EUROPEAN POWERS BECAUSE WE WERE TOO WEAK COMPARED TO THEM (War of 1812, we started it, Brits burned down the White House). [10] This policy is founded on the notion that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another EUROPEAN state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination BECAUSE NATIVE AMERICANS DID NOT ORGANIZE AROUND STATE STRUCTURES AND WERE TOO WEAK TO RESIST OUR BURGEONING MILITARY MIGHT. [9] [PRO's IDEOLOGY] directly contradicts this notion by [DISCOURAGING] imperialism." As soon as self defense after Revolution was no longer an issue, we went on the offensive. We nearly committed genocide against Native Americans in order to expand our borders from coast to coast via Manifest Destiny. Once our borders were secure and we became strong enough to challenge Europe directly, we did, during WWI and WWII. Then we went to Asia and set up bases in Korea and Japan. This is realism. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN IMPERIALIST POWER.I have just proved "that hegemony is and should be our goal." It has ALWAYS been our goal.4) "Imperialism is detrimental..." I concur. "States are but a necessary evil." - Thomas Paine [11] What would occur WITHOUT the hegemonic impulse would be a GREATER EVIL.Case in point: WWI. After WWI, we did NOT join the League of Nations. [12] We became isolationist. [12] Europe suffered from a power vacuum caused by the collapse of Weimar Germany (invasion of Ruhr). [12] Without a hegemon to fill this vacuum, the Nazis were born and filled this vacuum themselves. A GIGANTIC ARMS RACE THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN AND THE HOLOCAUST ERUPTED FROM OUR PACIFISTIC AND ISOLATIONIST POLICY. The end result was the worst war the world has ever seen. Both isolationist idealism [12] and Democratic Peace Theory fail to explain the rise of Nazi Germany ("The Ruhr crisis strongly disconfirms democratic peace theory" [13]) and the threat it posed. Realism explains this succinctly. One prevents such tragedy via the hegemonic impulse.World wars have not happened since, because we have moved our armies into Europe directly. We are the world's policeman now.5) "The average citizen doesn"t profit from war. It impoverishes us..." I fully agree. It is clear from my round #2 statements that I do NOT advocate war, I advocate hegemony. To the extent that hegemony can be achieved peacefully, such as through events like the Arab Spring, [14] it is the more optimal outcome than war.6) "Expecting countries to be more responsible for their own defense would not necessarily cause havoc as Con contests..." Wholly misguided. If countries became "more responsible for their own defense", their own defense spending would increase. To the extent that a country increases defense spending, so its neighboring countries would also increase defense spending. AN ARMS RACE WOULD BEGIN.7) "...earlier he said that we need to acknowledge via Realism the reality that an arms race currently exists." I never said this. I have used the phrase PAX AMERICANA repeatedly - The American Peace. PRO did not bother to quote me and is being careless or deceitful here. I quote myself:"US military spending is at historic lows.""...global military budgets are at unprecedented lows."THEREFORE, There is no arms race currently.PRO has not contested these facts AT ALL. 8) PRO, on cyber security: "...the U.S. should focus less on acquiring more, expensive weapons, and policing the globe..." Absolutely misguided. The threat consists of conventional AND cyber-security threats. BOTH kinds of deterrent are necessary.9) "...we should focus on developing the "brain power"...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." PRO is advocating military research here. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT SHE IS ADVOCATING AN INCREASE IN THE MILITARY BUDGET TO DO SO. SHE IS CONCEDING HER CASE HERE.10) "More importantly, NO MONEY = NO MILITARY." Our economy is growing. [15] Spending cuts hit the military as well as entitlement benefits. These cuts are appropriate. PRO's suggestion that we cut military spending in half is NOT appropriate. We are not cutting entitlement benefits by half.11) "Con also dropped how the military is being used to oppress the American people, emulating signs of fascist-lite policies..." Incorrect. I found this WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE. MY OPPONENT HAS A BEEF WITH THE FBI AND HOMELAND SECURITY, NOT THE MILITARY. [16]12) "Con ignored the argument regarding the Military Industrial Complex [MIC]." No, I EMBRACED IT. Military spending is at historic lows. Our military is stronger, better, and faster, and we do it with a smaller percentage of the economy and fewer people THANKS TO THE MIC AND ITS RESEARCH CAPABILITIES.13) "After the collapse of the USSR, we found out that the Soviet threat to us was greatly exaggerated."a) The Russians are now again a threat. [17]b) Had we moved in (peacefully or otherwise) after the collapse of the USSR, we would have neutralized this potential threat before Putin took power in 1999. Instead, we were treated to this fiasco (see video).Think about how distracted Clinton was because of the Lewinsky scandal, and how much more focused he would have been on our foreign policy WITHOUT the scandal.http://www.youtube.com...14) "Con must explain who our enemies are today and to what extent they are dangerous." Our enemies lie outside our borders, as I drew up in round #2 and PRO left uncontested. I've already explained the danger:No one, except your opponent, knows what your opponent is up to.Any sign of weakness on your part is an opportunity for your opponent. [2]15) "Cutting our military does not mean cutting defense." Yes it does. [1], [2]ConclusionWar is terrible.Realism avoids war whenever possible for EXACTLY the reasons PRO cites. For example, the Louisiana purchase and the Arab Spring advanced hegemonic goals without war. Recall that world peace is achieved via hegemony (no more opponents). [2]PRO does not offer a countervailing theory. PRO dropped most of her assertions from round #2. Therefore, my sourced and substantiated claims from round #2 and #3 are affirmed. Military spending is fine as it is.---I will [lastly] apologize for posting content in the comments section. It is common knowledge that we have exited Iraq and that all significant military expenditures related to that theater have been drawn down, therefore Iraq is irrelevant to the topic at hand. While responding to my opponent's question about Iraq, I noticed that we were no longer debating anything, and I began to treat her question as an honest inquiry. I ran out of room while responding, so I posted some extra info in the comments section. Again, my apologies if it was inappropriate.Iraq in my mind is the worst foreign policy disaster since exiting the League of Nations. It is the worst foreign policy decision made by the US in nearly 100 years. Both PRO and CON are in agreement with this sentiment, that the war in Iraq was seriously misguided.I hope the space I have used to post this apology will suffice to make up for my comments in the comment thread.Sources:http://debate.org...