Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its military spending.

A accept the challenge. I choose the side of Pro. From now on, whenever Pro is mentioned, it is me, and Con is my opponent.From what I understood, I am to begin constructing my case on round 1.The United States should reduce military spending, within the next five (5) years by about four hundred billion dollars ($400,000,000,000). My goals are:1. To improve American domestic life2. Improve American security, at home and abroad.3. Change the relationship between the U.S. and the international community for the better.The Plan:The United States government spends about $1.5 Trillion on the military. This includes all military-related expenditures, not just the budget of the Department of Defense. However, for the sake of the debate, I will use to the very conservative under-estimate of $800 Billion.This spending is about 4.35% of the U.S. GDP.For a comparison to other military powers, France the U.K. both spend about 2.2% of their GDP on the military. China, the emerging rival of the U.S., spends about 2.0% of its GDP on the military. Since America's GDP is the largest in the world, even if the US had a parity in percentage spending, it would still eclipse the spending of all potential competitors.Thus, US military spending could be safely reduced to 2.2% of the GDP, about half of the current 4.35%. In short, military spending would fall from $800 Billion to $400 Billion.Where would these cuts take place?First, overseas presence. The U.S. military, garrisons and war costs well over $200 billion. Of that, $100 billion are active military conflicts, such as the war in Afghanistan, and the other $100 Billion are spent on garrisons and military installations that are not in warzones. These numbers, need I remind you, are all conservative under-estimates. According to the Pentagon Overseas Cost Summary, only $20 Billion should be needed. By cutting unnecessary military bases, recalling the troops back the American mainland, over $200 Billion could be saved.(1)Second, nuclear weapons. Even if the U.S. wanted to keep a safe nuclear deterrent, we would only need about 500 nuclear weapons to do it. Cutting down on the stockpile to that 500 would save the U.S. another $100 Billion.(2)Third, obscenely expensive weapons programs run up billions in costs. This includes projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35 Lighting II, shown be under-par in performance demonstrations, as well as excessively expensive. Military contractors are infamous for making the most expensive equipment possible, with the least amount of competition possible.(3)Fourth, general lack of accountability and wasteful practices. It is impossible to audit the Pentagon, military staff is inflated, and the Pentagon will purposefully waste money so as not to have it's budget reduced at the end of every fiscal year.(4,5,6)The amount of money that could be saved easily amounts up to my recommended figure of $400 billion. It would take time to implement these changes, but five years seems like a reasonable amount of time, as historically demilitarization can occur quite quickly.Due to lack of space, I will continue on the purpose of my plan and why it should be done in my second round.Sources:1.http://truth-out.org...2.http://www.peace-action.org...3.http://www.motherjones.com...4.http://www.newrepublic.com...#5.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...6.http://truth-out.org...