The United States military should be significantly reduced in size and scope.

So my opponent's entire round can be summed up as one gigantic appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if its misused (http://en.wikipedia.org...). So far I've been forced to quote a lavish number of DoD studies and documents because Pro appears to be quite ignorant of current US military leaders, policies, hardware, statistics, or affairs. Three prime examples that I've corrected Pro on thus far have included DoD goals (explained through actual DoD mission statements and Full-Spectrum Dominance) a misleading quote from a fictional Rumsfeld study -that was traced back to left leaning anti-war websites,- and an article pretending to be from the Marine Times that Pro said showed that large DoD weapon programs were not being cut.If appeal to the truth makes me a Nazi (which Pro has unfairly compared me to) then by all means, I'm a truth Nazi.the U.S. military technology is still far and above the weaponry or capabilities of any other nation on the planet.Prove it! Pro's own appeal to authority to back this point up is a news article of five different weapons systems she probably hasn't read about, hasn't followed, and doesn't fully understand. They are; the F-22 Raptor, the F-35 JSF, the B-2 Spirit, the upcoming Ford Class carriers, and the Virginia class submarine. Here's the short-list of problems with each one of these systems:The F-22 = is too expensive, too few in number, and lacks several key 5th generation upgrades including a helmet mounted display, off-bore sight missiles, a cross-platform datalink to communicate with other planes, and an effective IRST platform to dodge incoming missiles and track other aerial targets. It has already been shot down in simulated Red Flag exercises with NATO rivals (http://abcnews.go.com...) and is now facing 5th generation competition with the Russian T-50 and the Chinese J-20.The F-35 = Pro has apparently bashed the F-35 enough, please see her arguments.The B-2 Spirit = there are only 20 active duty B-2 spirits in the world and each cost $1 billion a pop. They are too few, aging fast, must fly home to the states after every mission, and are too precious to waste in combat without a significant fighter escort.Ford Class carriers = are meant to replace America's nimitz class supercarriers. The problem with replacing a large ship with an even larger ship is that they become an even easier target for Russian anti-ship missiles and the Chinese Assassin's Mace.Virginia Subs = 11 attack subs isn't going to save you when the Chinese have hundreds more and newer ones that actually carry ballistic missiles capbable of striking Hawaii or Alaska (http://www.ibtimes.com...)In all honestly, I could have made Pro's point 50X better than what she has done; where I would have started with Full-Spectrum Dominance, explained to all that it is the strategic intention of the United States to be the technological military leader of the world, and then shown the amount of money, capital, and procurement the US has invested in making Full-Spectrum dominance a reality. Unfortunately however, according to Pro, the official military doctrine of the United States is a moot point and doctrines calling for large monetary investments aren't necessary in order to have the best military in the world - it would therefore be very hypocritical of her to justify it. Con cites military-man after military-man stating the military needs more money. How novel. Gates, Penetta, and Obama are actually considered "civilians." If Pro was more aware of how military affairs worked she would know that the military is run through civilian leadership.While expert military advice is certainly relevant....Wait, now expert military advice from DoD leaders is relevant??? I vehemently agree that we have an overstretched military...Right. And why again is the US military overstretched??? Let's examine this again:(please extend all prior sources)Air force planes aging? CHECKArmy and Marines undergoing 25% reductions? CHECK Navy fleet too small? CHECKNuclear deterrent about to expire? CHECKAn impending doomsday 33% spending cut by Pro on top of Sequestion. CHECKNow correctly if If I'm wrong, but given the facts above, one way to reverse an overstretched military is to actually advocate for increased funding, more soldiers, and more equipment. Yes, it might require more resources on our part, and it is arguing against the status quo, but at least its a solution that does not involve falling back and sacrificing US interests. First, I'm so glad my opponent brought up nuclear weapons ... We should allocate more resources there (where we already far surpass everyone else). As I've already explained US missile silos are in fact infested with rats, roaches, and sewage. Russia and China also appear to be modernizing their missiles (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...) (http://www.businessinsider.com...) But AFAIK, the DoD still hasn't purchased a new missile silo since 1991. Meanwhile we've had to scrap some pretty important upgrades to our ICBMs due to some rather one sided START treaties, the most important of which was Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRVs for short) which Russia and China are still unfairly able to keep. But If Pro knows anything about how a nuclear deterrent works, she'll be able to explain to the audience how loosing MIRVs effectively reduces the megaton yield of a ballistic missile anywhere from 50 to 90%. (Hint, it has something to do with the warheads). And the trillions of dollars that have been completely blown in regard to the latest F-35 fighter jetAhh the F-35. I love the F-35! Originally designed back in the mid 1990s as an affordable stealthy light weight fighter supplement to the F-22, the F-35 represents the pinnacle of more than five decades of aerospace development and technology, including; radar evading stealth, supersonic speed, extreme maneuverability, and the most powerful and comprehensive sensor package and electronic warfare suite of any fighter aircraft in history (1). But my favorite absolute favorite part of the F-35, and this will blow your mind, is that the sneaky little devils at the Pentagon have agreed to export it to other countries! The stragetic brilliance of this move, besides adding money to help pay for the program, is that the export version of the F-35 (which is significantly weaker than the non-exportable F-22) guareetes US air dominance for the next three decades, seeing as how the US defense industry will establish a worldwide monopoly on 5th generation fighter parts, training, doctrine, upgrades, and designs. All other country's attempts to development their own 5th generation fighters to compete with the US (or even a superior platform) are effectively put out of business before conflict even begins and must come back to the US for parts before ever taking on the US Air Force. Sneaky bastards!So much for Pro's model of DoD inefficiency!Con suggests I am "insane" for advocating budget cuts...Pro has not just advocated a budget cut.. she's advocated an immediate 33% cut! 33% of the total base DoD budget of $ 581billion fy15 is equal to $ 191billion (http://comptroller.defense.gov...). Yet, the Air Force total budget is $137 billion, the Navy & Marines is $123 billion and the Army's is $120 billion. The rest of the money is allowed to defense-civilian job sectors.So what's it going to be Pro? Should we decommission 420,000 army soldiers; all 10 aircraft carriers along with every destroyer, submarine frigate, and tugboat still in service; or how bout just 5,000 planes along with the nuclear deterrent? Have I mentioned that the DoD is also the nation's largest civilian employer? Let's just slash civilian jobs too while were at it!Even if you could spread the cuts out, the combined cutting effects ontop of sequestration would be a whopping 52% reduction on the DoD since 2012. Pro has not provided a clear plan at all how a drastic 33% cut would fit into a viable national strategy and not jeopardize military readiness at a time when the military is already getting pwned by $500 billion in sequester cuts over the next ten years. Meanwhile, wars continue to be fought and the rise of ISIS proves that even after a US pullout that terrorism and threats to America will still rise up. Pro's apathy to the complexies of national security strategy is irresponsible and reckless! Also its one thing to say that our soldiers should come home, but its quite another thing to say that they should all GO HOME! I would also like to suggest .. closing unnecessary military bases where we have strong allies and no significant threats - which is most places.Right, so after we've literally sent the troops home because of 33% cuts - what allies are we left with? Ah yes, NATO! Here's how well NATO stands up against to Russia and China. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).China: 2,285,000 active duty soldiersRussia: 766,000 Total: 3,051,000France 215,019UK 182,620 Italy 179,155Germany 182,620Spain 123,300Australia 56,552Total: 939,266Forgive me if I hid Poland and Canada from this list.There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances.Long distance: http://www.bbc.com...(much like most of the "support our troops" rhetoric) which is not remotely justified in reality. Strongly disagree.Apologies to Pro If I again skipped over arguments and forgot to include things like how fighting terrorists works - I ran out of character space :(