January PF CON Case We negate the resolution : In order to better respond to international conflicts, the United States should significantly increase its military spending Definitions: Imperialism: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force (Oxford Dictionary) Significantly: having or likely to have influence or effect : important <a significant piece of legislation> ; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) OBSERVATION: Utilitarianism: whichever side benefits the most amount of people should win today’s debate CONTENTION 1: CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS ARE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OPTION SUB A: The US’s military spending is already excessive Blodget, Henry. "Yes, Of Course We Should Cut Military Spending!" Business Insider . Business Insider, Inc, 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. We should cut our military spending because, as much as we want a "strong defense, we certainly don't need to spend $700+ billion a year on our military when the next-biggest spender on the planet spends only ~$140 billion a year. Blodget, Henry . "Yes, Of Course We Should Cut Military Spending!" Business Insider . Business Insider, Inc, 10 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2016. Our military spending is so huge, in fact, that it accounts for a staggering 41% of all the military spending in the w orld. That's more than the next 15 biggest military spenders put together . (See chart below,) The only military spending category in which the U.S. isn't absurdly dominant is military spending as a percent of GDP. Our economy is so huge that our level of military spending as a percent of the economy--~5%--is behind that of several other countries. Importantly, however, these other countries are small countries with small economies. No other developed or big country comes close to us in military spending, even as a percent of GDP.
The level of military spending that is occurring in the United States is already excessive, so no more money needs to be spent. SUB B: Funding isn't strengthening the military. Engelhardt, Tom. "American Power Is Becoming Ineffective. Here's Why." Mother Jones, 14 July 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2016. And speaking of the "sole superpower," it remains true that no combination of other militaries can compare with the US military or the moneys the country continues to put into it and into the research and development of weaponry of the most futuristic sort. The US national security budget remains a Ripley's-Believe-It-Or-Not-style infusion of tax dollars into the national security state, something no other combination of major countries comes close to matching. And yet, recent history is clear: that military has proven incapable of winning its wars against minor (and minority) insurgencies globally, just as Washington, for all its firepower, military and economic, has had a remarkably difficult time imposing its desires just about anywhere on the planet. Though it may still look like a superpower and though the power of its national security state may still be growing, Washington seems to have lost the ability to translate that power into anything resembling success.
- Fall '18
- military, Spending, President of the United States, United States Department of Defense, military spending, militarism, Military base, PF