The Instigator
byaka2013
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
packers284
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The US Should Increase the Military Budget

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 497 times Debate No: 101447
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

byaka2013

Con

I am against an increase in the US military budget, and would like to see a decrease. My opponent argues to INCREASE, NOT TO KEEP IT THE SAME.
Rules: No ad hominem, misconduct, etc
Round 1: Simply type you accept
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and arguments
packers284

Pro

Bring it o Byaka
Debate Round No. 1
byaka2013

Con

Right- the current US military budget is about 597 billion, soon to possibly increase to 651 billion. According to http://www.globalfirepower.com..., the US has 8848 tanks, 41062 AFVs, 13444 aircraft, 1.4 million active personnel with 1.1 million in reserve. We have *12* aircraft carriers in service, where the rest of the world combined has 8 (in service)! I don't know if you are one to say the military is collapsing, but that is not true. The Stockholm IPRI (https://en.wikipedia.org...) tells us China has a 215 billion budget, yet this is the highest proposal of a budget for that country. Cut the US budget in half, and we are still ahead by more than 100 billion dollars. America's M1 Abrams, often called the best tank in the world, has a primary 120 mm gun and is capable of 45 miles per hour. America has never been invaded and is likely the hardest country to completely invade.

Why have such a high military budget when we obviously don't need it? The money could go to other things such as the environment, healthcare, and NASA. Trump has been criticized for his 54 billion increase, mainly because he cut a double digit amount of programs and institutions.

The facts are that we don't need this budget at such a high amount.
packers284

Pro

Yes the US spends more than our competitors like China. However this is necessary for several reasons. The U.S. maintains military bases across the globe. In order to uphold our presence worldwide these bases need our funding. Some may not like it but it is also undeniable the U.S. has a role as the world police and if our military was cut down it could result in a power vacuum with serious consequences. This is what happened in Iraq when Obama withdrew the U.S. military. A power vacuum ensued which gave ISIS its start leading to thousands of deaths and the fracturing of Iraq.
We live in a time of peace but the institutions that uphold this peace are less solid than they appear. Recent tensions in countless areas around the world all have the potential to start global conflict which would prove the high spending on U.S. materiel an asset than a burden. In the South China Sea, Ukraine, several regions in Africa, Venezuela there is instability which can spread to areas nearby. If this were to happen and the U.S. were unable to respond it would be morally wrong and lead to more deaths.
The left who supposedly cares so much about globalization and human life seems to contradict itself when discussing the military spending. The fact is the U.S. acts as a cohesive agent worldwide preventing war and instability. Yes, this costs money but much less than if the U.S. is no longer obligated but required to increase spending in an era of war.
Debate Round No. 2
byaka2013

Con

You seem not to understand that your logic applies to every other major country. China has a 215 billion budget. Let"s say they want to decrease it. The Chinese version of you would say, "But we need it for our military bases, etc." We have 800 military bases around the world, according to https://www.thenation.com.... Why do we need this plethora of bases? We could cut some down that are unnecessary.
As for ISIS, the Obama power vacuum did not strengthen ISIS. They were already doing what you said- you have to go back to Bush and realize invading and leaving a bunch of rubble causes the rise of militant extremism. Now, the US has always lived in a time of peace, basically.

The last time a major amount of foreign troops were on our land was in the War of 1812. Sure, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but this was Kamikaze with no ground invasion. https://www.youtube.com... confirms this by stating the chances of a full control of US territory is unlikely. We have more than 3 million square miles, lots of varying weather, and a few islands. Plus we only border 2 countries.

Also, having a budget of, say, 500 billion dollars (*only*) is not an inability to respond. By that logic, China and every other country is unable too. But you contradict that.

How does the left contradict itself? I see the right as that. The US does not prevent war- we advocate for it. Look at the Vietnam War, the Cold War, or more recently, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No, it is not much less than if we suddenly had to increase it- and even if so, we could make minor cuts to a few programs as necessary. Again, we don"t need it.

In conclusion, we should focus on allocating the net money from the mega high military budget to better things like NASA. the EPA. and universal healthcare.
Thank you.
packers284

Pro

Regardless of who started the war it remains clear ISIS would have had a much more difficult time gaining control of the Iraq's population centers had American troops been present in the country. The country was not ready for the U.S. to leave and the result is Kurdish, Iraqi, Syrian and Russia and the U.S. fighting in the middle East today. Ironically this drastically increases our military budget.You seem to miss the point. The U.S. does not spend as much as it does to defend the U.S. borders because the U.S. is relatively in-conquerable. Weaker and developing countries across the globe rely on our support to uphold the balance of power and prevent other military factions from taking over. Again referring to ISIS. It may seem like the U.S. has an excessive number of bases and personnel stationed abroad but these forces act as a fabric to make our military operate as effectively as possible and maintain the global world order. Arbitrarily decreasing the budget makes weaknesses in the U.S. military and foreign policy. You seem to be unaware of the result of the Cold War. By spending on weapons research the U.S. was able to bankrupt the Soviet Union and effectively win the Cold War. At the time liberal advocacy groups lobbied for reduced military spending. This, again, is an example of the left and their policies being wrong. Iraq as previously described is in a state of war because of the removal of American troops, and Afghanistan has not improved significantly since U.S. troops there left the country. Another reason the U.S. has to spend more than it should is because European allies in NATO spend less than the agreed upon 2% of GDP. Mattis recently discussed this with Von Der Leyen, and other Euro military leaders, but until the U.S. doesn't have to overspend to maintain NATO a decrease in budget could be hazardous.Across the board the government could be more efficient and it should be a goal for all federal organizations to reduce wasteful spending.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I may decide to change my mind about abstaining from voting if one of you can point out a flaw in my perception of this debate. So feel free to comment, and then message me telling me that you commented on this debate(I would recommend offering a link to this debate in the email).

I'm only going to remember to check this debate for a short while, I'm sure I'll forget to come tomorrow
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Also, if you want to comment about what I said, message me please. I won't get any sort of notification when you guys post comments on here, and the email option is not a good option for me. So, if you want me to respond to a comment you put in response to what I said, you'll need to message me.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I was going to vote, but I would put both of you as a tie so there's no reason for me to vote. I don't think either of you did a good job of arguing for your positions.

However, I do agree with con. I just don't feel they did a good job with it.

If I were to provide an RFD(which you don't if you award a tie, but whatever)
It would be this:
Pro argued for the need of the military spending for the many bases we have around the world, but didn't explain why we need these bases, so it seemed to be a weak argument. Con pointed to military spending of other countries, but a comparison showing that we spend so much more doesn't indicate we spend too much: there may be reasons for the spending more than other countries. Con also pointed out how much equipment we have, but didn't offer reason why this is an excessive amount of equipment.

Those were basically the main arguments you both had, and there wasn't much more substance to it.

All I can say is that if it was me arguing in place of con, I would point out that 100 billion of the dollars to military spending is waste, and that we should cut the waste. In addition, I would argue that we don't need the military bases in Europe, as we have no enemies there, so we can get rid of those bases and be okay. If any of our allies in Europe were to be invaded we can simply ship the troops there, and shipping is less expensive over all than having permanent bases over there.
No votes have been placed for this debate.