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

Re: The alleged Truth Nazi and Full-Scale Dominance It is completely false that I have compared Con to a Nazi. I quoted a soldier (who happened to be a Nazi) explaining how it is easy for political leaders to convince the masses to invest more in security, defense and war even if it it is not necessary. The analogy was noting the appeal to fear that is applicable to invoke nationalism and militarism among governments of any kind -- tell the populace that they're not safe, and denounce the nay sayers as both pansies and/or ignorant. Con has not disputed this; he's played into it and done just that. Nor has Con denied my reference to politicians presenting misinformation to convince the public to support a war and other defense investments, that in hindsight have been a failure on a cost-benefit analysis (for example, the Iraq and/or Vietnam wars). Thus Con is misrepresenting my position. I agree with the DoD's goals of deterrence and security. However I'm arguing that full-spectrum dominance is not necessary to achieve deterrence and security. Further I've argued that the amount of funding currently used is not necessary to achieve military superiority. Con's repetition that he has been "forced to cite a lavish number of studies" is irrelevant, as none of them have addressed the arguments I've brought up i.e. on ethics, political science, economics and the market. Certainly they have not addressed my biggest concern: waste. Re: U.S. Military ProwessApparently Con thinks arguing in a condescending tone implying my ignorance will somehow discredit my position in the debate. It's too bad for him that snarky ad hominem criticisms does not negate the following facts backing up my claim that the military has the best technology and weapons advantage to date: - The U.S. has 19 aircraft carriers vs. 12 operated by the rest of the world combined. This allows the U.S. to set up bases all over the globe and project power throughout the world. We have more aircraft than any other country, and once again more nuclear power... which is... huge [1]. - The M1 Abrams tank is the most powerful battlefield tank on the planet. China, the next biggest military power, has less than 500 Type 99 tanks that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams. - There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.- The U.S. owns virtually ALL of the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology including the latest sensors and information systems [2]. - The U.S. has access to weapons the rest of the world does not, including but not limited to the MQ9 Reaper Drone, the Laser Avenger and ADAPTIV cloaking. In addition the AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun, the PHASR Rifle, the TASER Shockwave, Black Knight Tanks, Active Denial System, Laser Avenger, modular advanced armed robotics, enhanced sniper rifles, etc. [3]. Because Con cannot deny or refute the obvious military prowess of the U.S., he attempts to divert the argument and say that without so much investment in our military, our superiority could not exist. Alas, previous investment in building our armed forces has given us the leeway to decrease our budget and scale back NOW, which is what I'm arguing. So yes, we can afford to cut our military spend going forward, and considering our massive debt, we should. Please extend all of my dropped arguments regarding our debt, the economy, the market and why we need to cut costs. It's too late for Con to respond to them.Military Waste and Pro's ProposalsFrom our 700+ billion dollar defense budget, a huge portion is spent on unnecessary overseas military operations. Only around $80 to $100 billion goes towards research, development testing and evaluation of weapons [4]. This is where we get all the newest and craziest weapons used in modern-day warfare. Ergo, if you want our military to continue upholding its prestige, then THIS is where we should continue to invest (again, Con dropped my argument regarding EMPs, guerrilla and cyber-terrorism being among our biggest threats, and it's too late for him to respond). We have far too many generals who have a ton of exorbitant and luxurious benefits. "Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel... says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are 'spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,' he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters" [5]. A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million - per general! That’s not even including their own salaries, which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation — and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial” [6]. Senator Tom Coburn notes that the DoD can reduce $67.9 billion over 10 years by eliminating the non-defense programs that have found their way into the budget [7], including but not limited to ridiculous seminars like "Did Jesus Die for Klingons Too" or "Training for a Zombie Apocalypse" [8]. Con must justify this lavish and massively wasteful spending not only on these seminars, but military operations like Green Sweep -- which he has completely ignored despite my frequent repetition. The Pentagon and DoD are NOTORIOUS for wasteful spending. They famously spent $640 on a toilet seat, and in addition at one point couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes [9]. Indeed like most troop worshippers, Con presents the military as an entity which should be automatically revered and unwaveringly supported with carte blanche tax payer dollars. However he has ignored my arguments on cronyism and military politics inflating the budget. Con expects us to accept every expense supported by the DoD. But according to a 2011 DoD report, The Pentagon has paid $1.1 TRILLION to hundreds of defense contractors and their parent companies that have defrauded the government over the past ten years [10]. "The Pentagon is the only federal agency that has not complied with a law that requires annual audits of all government departments. That means that the $8.5 TRILLION in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996, the first year it was supposed to be audited, has never been accounted for" [11]. There's little accountability for the waste, and worse, the DoD continuously uses the same defense contractors that have defrauded the government - yet Con expects us to trust and accept all of their budget proposals. Con did not respond to the problematic revolving door in politics which skews the military budget. On 9/10/12 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared a war on waste and bureaucracy. The Pentagon's Inspector General substantiated claims of corruption. Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games" and says the books are cooked, and have continuously gotten worse. In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers" [12]. This alone is about 20% of my proposed budget cut. According to Congressional investigators, the DoD spent an estimated $100 million for airline tickets that were not used over a six-year period and failed to seek refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable [13]. I could go on and on... and on and on... and on. But my opponent has never once and simply cannot deny the rampant and problematic waste that occurs in the military. He simply appeals to fear and emotion and suggests we "need" all of this money spent for our "safety." On the contrary, I have proven massive waste, inefficiency, lack of accountability, corruption and flat out lies that could all be addressed and allow us to significantly cut costs. So between a mix (you can pick and choose based on aforementioned rates and savings)- Cutting back on generals- Abandoning occupation in non-hostile territory overseas with no foreseeable threats- Forcing other countries to pay more for their own defense- Auditing the military and mandating accountability- Temporarily scaling back on certain weapon and machinery- Focusing more on particular warfare and threats - Abandoning frivolous and lavish spending- Eliminating the incentives or possibility for revolving door in politics encouraging corruption- Investing more in peace keeping and anti-war efforts, etc...the resolution has been affirmed. Vote PRO.[1] http://www.businessinsider.com...[2] http://www.military1.com...[3] http://www.businessinsider.com...[4] http://www.complex.com...[5] http://www.salon.com...[6] http://www.nytimes.com...;[7] http://www.coburn.senate.gov...[8] http://www.washingtonsblog.com...[9] http://www.sfgate.com...[11] http://www.truth-out.org...[12] http://www.cbsnews.com...[13] http://www.nytimes.com...