The Instigator
Darckshado99
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Eggeggegg26
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should we Decrease Military Spending in the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/17/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 119032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Darckshado99

Pro

Most importantly I want to define Military spending. This spending is simply anything from spending on veterans and Soldiers to the creation of their weapons and even to the creation of weapons-grade Uranium.

Ultimately, I see the idea of warfare nearly obsolete at this point. While there must definitely be some force to keep of bands of motivated people from invading, Invasions directly from other countries like Iran, North Korea, And Russia are very unlikely due to one reason and one reason Alone, Nuclear Warheads. Just as the gun changed the sword and shield warfare to one of timing, The invention and wide-spread adoption of Nukes has changed the game immensely. In the United States we have four-thousand active Nukes which are more than enough to destroy all the land on North America and still leaving about one thousand nukes. Ultimately if a war broke out, Its not a question that people would launch nukes in hopes to stop the enemy from doing the same.

At this point in the world, Starting a war would end the world, So instead of wasting money upon having one of the worlds biggest armies in the world despite the chance of a war being unlikely and even if there is, The fight will be over shortly after it starts. Instead wouldn't it make more sense to bring a majority of the military back home and support them for a few years and put them to a good use to society and advance technology and infrastructure.

Anyways, Lets be honest, If we are gonna get killed off as a race then its not gonna be from a war, Its more likely to be from A. I. Or a Super Bug.
Eggeggegg26

Con

Before anything else, Let me first redefine Military Spending. Military Spending is not just for the creation of weapons and the allocation of salaries, Of incentives and such to the soldiers and to the veterans. It is also for conducting research to continually improve military technologies that will serve many purposes in and out of combat such as advanced jet planes that can be used either in fighting the terrorist or in escorting the commander-in-chief. It is also for maintenance and other operations within the institution itself.

Now, Why is over 50 percent of US national budget to military spending justifiable?
The first point is, Maintenance and operations need approximately $258. 277 billion as of 2010 which is roughly 42 percent of the military budget.
That is to say, Decreasing the budget for the military means letting those 4000 active nukes(according to you)-which are actually around 6800, Not 4000- turn to waste. A B61 nuclear bomb, For instance, Costs 20 million dollars to maintain; the US has around 400-500 of these which is a grand total of approximately 10 billion dollars exclusively for refurbishing this particular kind of nuclear bomb. I have mentioned that the US government is estimated to have 6, 800 nuclear weapons at its disposal and every single bomb needs to be maintained and calibrated periodically for it to be useful and safe when we call for their "help". Why don't we just dispose of these bombs since they are costly to maintain, You might ask? Well, Disposing of these bombs is problematic. There are two reasons for these. First of which, It is more expensive to dispose of nuclear bombs than to create it. Disposal of nuclear weapons requires special facilities for it to be successful and safe. As an example, The United States build Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina. Its annual operating costs are now expected to be $543 million. The second and last reason is, It is very challenging to find a place for the disposal of such weapons(Nobody wants another Chernobyl, Right? ). The most common material in nuclear weapons is plutonium. Plutonium is highly toxic to humans. It emits radiations that can cause organ failures and radiation illnesses like cancer. So, It is difficult to find a place that is willing to harbor this dangerous element. South Carolina, For instance, Charges Washington 100 million dollars per year as a compensation for letting the government build the Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility.

The second point is the advancement of technological weapons of countries that oppose the US is a threat to the national security. This is where I will rebut the pro side. Countries like China and North Korea are continuously and aggressively develop or strengthen their armed forces. We must not take this easily and must act accordingly. A country's military advancements amidst its tension with another country is a sign that it doesn't trust the country it makes agreements with and also another sign of planning to take the dispute to violence or to war. If a country is willing to take the matters to diplomatic and peaceful process, Isn't it suppose to put its attention and energy on finding a win-win situation rather than sharpening its knives. Let us take China as an example. There is an ongoing dispute between China and an ally of the US, The Philippines. Instead of having a dialogue with the Philippines, China started to improve its armed forces and build military outposts on the disputed territories. Another example is North Korea. North Korea has made staggering progress in advancing its nuclear capability. A few moments later, It threatens to deploy a missile to mainland US. Any military progress of the enemy must not be undermined and must be responded with military advancements ten times greater or as much as we can.

The third point is the threat of other deadly besides nuclear weapons. There are so many threats coming from everywhere. Let us not take the use of biochemical weapons out of the equation. We must conduct studies or researches about these biochemical weapons and other possible biochemical weapons for us to be prepared whatever happens. This is another job for the military itself and apparently requires a budget.

What I want is for the military spending to be maintained as it is or better, To be increased for the US needs it more than ever. WIth that I am proud to oppose!
Debate Round No. 1
Darckshado99

Pro

Darckshado99 forfeited this round.
Eggeggegg26

Con

Eggeggegg26 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Darckshado99

Pro

Darckshado99 forfeited this round.
Eggeggegg26

Con

Eggeggegg26 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Block.19 3 years ago
Block.19
I think that if the military budget can't be cut it should be restructured and than steadily scaled back to a more appropriate size. We can cut back on some of the contract we have and use those funds on military salaries.
Posted by Darckshado99 3 years ago
Darckshado99
I Just wanted to thank eggnog for accepting and wish him the best of luck in this debate
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.