Should military spending be increased? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should military spending be increased?
in Military

Should military spending be increased, decreased, or kept as the same?
therepwalterbaWoodenWoodfeajoecavalry
  1. Live Poll

    Should military spending be increased, decreased, or kept the same?

    24 votes
    1. Increased
      29.17%
    2. Neither increased nor decreased
      25.00%
    3. Decreased
      45.83%
Retired DebateIslander. I no longer come here actively, and many of the things that I may have posted in the past (Such as belief in the flat Earth theory) do not reflect on my current views. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • thereptherep 61 Pts
    Military spending needs to be increased. Will threats coming down counties we haven't got threats from in the past, defense needs to be increased and so does insta budget for that to happen.
    SilverishGoldNovacdog1950
  • Historically our spending was at much higher level as a percentage of GDP.  It has been drastically lowered in prior administration. We should just get it back to where it used to be and spend it more wisely, with more weight on latest technology military improvents
    walterba
  • The military facilitates economy. There is a reason why pirates don't exist anymore. It's a good thing the US doesn't tax other countries for the protection it gives. Also China is becoming an increasing threat. So the military spending needs to be increased or not changed, but definitely not decreased.
    walterba
  • @1Hacker0 Actually, there are still pirates, and with our navy having the fewest ships since 1916, their attacks are surging.
  • @CYDdharta I didn't mean they didn't exist at all. Of course there are some. But when compared with world history as a whole, there are relatively less pirates. 
  • VaulkVaulk 720 Pts
    edited August 2017
    @1Hacker0,

    Actually no, there are not relatively less pirates today than in History.  The fact is...and it's a hard pill to swallow, is that we live in a very sheltered world where problems like Piracy just don't seem to exist because they don't affect us directly.  It's very unfortunate that people think this way, but we live behind a veil that few ever have the opportunity to see past and most of those who do still only see it from a controlled perspective.  The reality is that Piracy is real, it's big, there are more pirates and instances of piracy happening in today's world than ever before and it's steadily rising.

    I think most of this misunderstanding comes from the idea that piracy (During the Golden Age of Piracy) was some booming industry that resulted in hundreds or thousands of ships being plundered.  In all actuality, most Pirate crews during that time didn't overtake more than 8 ships each year and only the famous and notoriously efficient Pirates took more than that which still only equated to around 12 ships each year.  Black Bart (Bartholomew Roberts) was considered to be the most successful Pirate of all time and his record was 400 ship captures from 1719 - 1722.  His average was just about 100 ships each year and that was while he commanded 4 ships, one of which was the most heavily armed Pirate ship to ever sail during the Golden Age of Piracy.  No other Pirate ever came close to his record so that gives you an idea of how many ships total were overtaken by pirates back then.


    http://www.thewayofthepirates.com/piracy-history/modern-piracy/
    https://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/15/worlds-most-pirated-waters.html


    1Hacker0walterbaBaconToes
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • @Vaulk persuaded. 
    walterba
  • This is not a "Persuade Me" Debate. This is a casual Debate.

    My stance on this topic is that military spending must be increased and possibly fluctuate ate based on current environment threats and times.
  • Decreased. The U.S. spends more than the next 8 nations combined. The U.S. accounts for 34% of the world's spending on defense.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    Decreased. The U.S. spends more than the next 8 nations combined. The U.S. accounts for 34% of the world's spending on defense.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/
    ...and yet we couldn't defeat the Taliban, which is resurgent in Afghanistan, or al Qaeda , which morphed into ISIS.  If anything, recent history demonstrates we need to increase military spending.
    Erfisflat
  • CYDdharta said:
    Pogue said:
    Decreased. The U.S. spends more than the next 8 nations combined. The U.S. accounts for 34% of the world's spending on defense.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/
    ...and yet we couldn't defeat the Taliban, which is resurgent in Afghanistan, or al Qaeda , which morphed into ISIS.  If anything, recent history demonstrates we need to increase military spending.
    1. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are not the same
    2. These groups were created by the U.S. in invasions and proxy wars. How does this prove your point?
    SilverishGoldNova
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain .” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    edited December 2017
    Pogue said:

    1. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are not the same
    2. These groups were created by the U.S. in invasions and proxy wars. How does this prove your point?
    No; the Taliban was created in Afghanistan only after the US ended Afghanistan funding.  Al Qaeda's formation had no ties to the US.  ISIS was created from elements of al Qaeda by the vacuum created by Obama's withdrawal of US troops.  Only ISIS may have been created by  the US, and if Obama would have increased US troop strength instead of withdrawing them, they likely wouldn't have grown to be the threat they became; but that argues against decreasing military spending.
  • US military funding is highly ineffective. Companies bribe the leaders so that new military technology can be developed, but in reality it is just a way for companies to make money from the government. If these companies are out of the picture, then we could possibly make our military stronger even if we decrease our spending. 
    cdog1950
  • @Fascism Do you really think it's any better for non-military funding?
  • @CYDdharta Nope. I've made an argument on this topic on two other debates. The whole system is controlled by corporations. America can be defined as an oligarchy. 
    Pogue
  • I can only speak from my experience in the Air Force, the equipment and especially the iron (Aircraft) are in need of repair/replacement.  Some piolets are flying planes that should have been scrapped a long time ago.  Quite a few are beyond repair.  The older they get, the hight the cost to keep them operational.  

    So, I support a budget increase, not for pay, but for recapitulation of some of our asset.  I base this on first-hand experience.  
  • I think that we should be spending more on schools and national parks. But if we really need to spend more it should be on defense. Especially on our satellites. Less on TSA. They really don’t help at all.
    Erfisflat
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • We have entered into a new era of warfare, best described as, "It ain't never gonna stop." The more terrorists that can be created, the easier it is to convince Americans that we must have more defense spending. It is self defeating for the military industrial complex to have a war end now. Further, Americans do not want to spend our lives on these wars. Therefore weapons become more expensive and more complex and have a very high expense to kill ratio. Weapons such as drones do serve to have a very high "make new enemy" ratio however.
  • cdog1950 said:

    Therefore weapons become more expensive and more complex and have a very high expense to kill ratio.
    That's not necessarily true.  A drone can do what we once relied on a Tomahawk cruise missile to do.  The drone, even fully armed with the most expensive missiles it can use, is still much cheaper than the cruise missile and it is reusable.
  • I think that we should be spending more on schools and national parks. But if we really need to spend more it should be on defense. Especially on our satellites. Less on TSA. They really don’t help at all.
    I agree, but that fund should come by way of cutting back on these social programs. Welfare, Medicaid reform and all the other social programs.
  • @CYDdhartaCYDdharta said:
    cdog1950 said:

    Therefore weapons become more expensive and more complex and have a very high expense to kill ratio.
    That's not necessarily true.  A drone can do what we once relied on a Tomahawk cruise missile to do.  The drone, even fully armed with the most expensive missiles it can use, is still much cheaper than the cruise missile and it is reusable.
    I believe drones is the future of Airpower, in fact they started screening BMT students based on aptitude and are trying a drone flight program with enlisted flyers. I guess the thinking is the larger the gene pool the better pilots we'll get.

  • cdog1950 said:
    We have entered into a new era of warfare, best described as, "It ain't never gonna stop." The more terrorists that can be created, the easier it is to convince Americans that we must have more defense spending. It is self defeating for the military industrial complex to have a war end now. Further, Americans do not want to spend our lives on these wars. Therefore weapons become more expensive and more complex and have a very high expense to kill ratio. Weapons such as drones do serve to have a very high "make new enemy" ratio however.
    Not as long as we want to remain the world's only Hyper - Power.  Currently no military can touch us, however, China is coming on fast.  So we either start making the transition now or loose our position as a world leader.

  • I believe drones is the future of Airpower, in fact they started screening BMT students based on aptitude and are trying a drone flight program with enlisted flyers. I guess the thinking is the larger the gene pool the better pilots we'll get.
    Drones are undoubtedly the future of airpower.  Through their incredible endurance, they can maintain a constant presence over a region.  They may be able to provide what has long been sought but never realized; the ability to control an area without boots on the ground.

    The Army has the world's largest UAV force, they've been letting enlisted personnel operate drones for quite some time.  The Air Force wants their drone operators to be pilots, but they've been relying on contractors to cover for the shortfall in pilots, and even they're starting to use enlisted, which makes sense considering these are some of the top non-military drone pilots in the world;


    with_all_humility
  • We don't need half the military budget we got. It's not like there are any countries on the planet that are a major threat to us anyway. We should focus on things that progress our society. Not freak out about some war going on halfway around the war. Does it really benefit us to stick our heads in problems that aren't ours? I just don't see how that's good for a peaceful and secure government. At this point we may just be starting wars.
  • Military spending should be increased due to global threats such as North Korea, etc. 
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • ih8shartsih8sharts 59 Pts
    edited April 2018
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2803 Pts
    I would prefer to see it decreased, but the military in general more de-centralized across the leading countries. As of now, the US takes almost the entire burden of peacekeeping on its shoulders, while all other allied nations combined still do not even come close to the US military power. The US spends over 3% of its GDP on the military, while, say, Germany spends just a little over 1% - and since all these nations still rely on merely buying the US military goods technology, instead of producing their own, the US is essentially on its own in this.

    If the US cut its military budget down to, say, 2%, and all its allies ensured spending 2% of their GDP on the military, as well as making the military development one of the priorities and not just checking marks in the planned budgets - then both our allied military dominance would be much stronger, and less would depend on each individual member, meaning the US too would be able to siphon more resources from the military into the sectors more vital for the internal economy.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    edited June 2018
    MayCaesar said:
    I would prefer to see it decreased, but the military in general more de-centralized across the leading countries. As of now, the US takes almost the entire burden of peacekeeping on its shoulders, while all other allied nations combined still do not even come close to the US military power. The US spends over 3% of its GDP on the military, while, say, Germany spends just a little over 1% - and since all these nations still rely on merely buying the US military goods technology, instead of producing their own, the US is essentially on its own in this.

    If the US cut its military budget down to, say, 2%, and all its allies ensured spending 2% of their GDP on the military, as well as making the military development one of the priorities and not just checking marks in the planned budgets - then both our allied military dominance would be much stronger, and less would depend on each individual member, meaning the US too would be able to siphon more resources from the military into the sectors more vital for the internal economy.
    That's a poor plan.  You would do well to keep the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, Henry Temple's words in mind; "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

  • The arguments for boosting military spending presumes that the spending will bolster our ability to fight ISIS, defend the US from aggressive actions of rival nations, and prevent piracy through more enforcement. Of course, the impact of increased military spending does not necessarily mean any increase in defense capability. Kimberly Amadeo writes for The Balance, analyzing the breakdown of our current military budget. In total, there are 4 components to the military budget:

    1.      The $597.1 billion base budget for the Department of Defense.

    2.      The overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group ($88.9 billion.)

    3.      The total of other agencies that protect our nation. These expenses total $181.3 billion. They include the VA Department ($83.1 billion), the State Department ($28.3 billion), DHS ($46 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity in the DOJ ($8.8 billion) and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the DOE ($15.1 billion).

    4.      The last component is $18.7 billion in OCO funds for the State Department and Homeland Security to fight ISIS. (1)

    An increase in military spending would transfer more money into government coffers; however, one needs to consider how the money is spent. In fact, the DOD’s own estimates conclude that overall, it has 22% excess capacity (2). Nevertheless, the 2013 Bi-Partisan Budget Act of 2013 blocked future base closures. Considering the purported loss of local jobs, the possibility of government officials supporting base closures is slim. In fact, the most recent Bi-Partisan Budget Act raised the military base spending cap by $80 billion (3). Clearly, the legislature is determined to move the opposite way of closure. It would be impossible to determine if the increase in military spending will be absorbed by administrative and operational costs from strategically defunct bases.

    One must also consider the massive cost of providing more money in the face rising costs of operational and management as well as personnel in the DOD. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that by 2024, both categories of spending will “consume the entire defense budget by 2024. You’d have no money left for procurement, for research and development, military construction, for family housing, nothing (4).” This is not to say that we should not properly compensate soldiers. Instead, limiting the growth of civilian personnel would help (1). Instead, the DOD could create a competitive bidding process to contract work to the private sector and/or form public-private partnerships. This is especially important for cyberwarfare, where private-public partnerships or private contracting work are pivotal considering the drought of talented cyber-experts in the government. The current bureaucracy does need to be streamlined as far as those on the DOD’s payroll is concerned. When the Pentagon asked for an internal study to find out how to decrease costs, they found that despite historically sparse numbers of troops, (roughly 1.3 million,) there were nearly as many desk jobs (5). The Pentagon hid the report in fear of budget cuts, but that does not change the truth of where taxpayer money is being held: in a bloated bureaucratic system.

    Pentagon cost overruns also produce issues for military budgets. The CATO Institute in September of 2015 summarizes only a minute sample of cost overruns by the Pentagon because, as they quote from the GAO:

    “[The military branches] overpromise capabilities and underestimate costs to capture the funding needed to start and sustain development programs”

    Cost Estimate and Date of Estimate Original vs. Final 

    Littoral Combat Ship $360m (2004) $667m (2014)

     Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle $102m (1998) $376m (2013) 

    Joint Strike Fighter $79m (2001) $138m (2013) 

    JPALS Landing System $29m (2008) $77m (2014) 

    G/ATOR Radar $24m (2005) $61m (2014) (6)

    One must realize that an increase in military spending is not synonymous with a better military. The funds traverse through a broken system that pays out to military bases without a purpose, expensive military contractors, and a bloated civilian workforce. While security does need to be respected, the practicality of an increase in military spending needs to be weighed over anything else. Until I am told where the increase would take place and guaranteed that money will not be diverted elsewhere, I cannot in good conscience support the plan.

     

    1. https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320

    2. http://1yxsm73j7aop3quc9y5ifaw3.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/041816_dod_brac_parametric.pdf4

    3. https://www.csis.org/analysis/making-sense-bipartisan-budget-act-2018-and-what-it-means-defense

    4. https://federalnewsradio.com/sequestration/2013/04/analysis-pay-benefits-om-will-swallow-entire-dod-budget-by-2024/

    5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.dcacac164b7e

    6. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-72.pdf

     

     

  • The arguments for boosting military spending presumes that the spending will bolster our ability to fight ISIS, defend the US from aggressive actions of rival nations, and prevent piracy through more enforcement. Of course, the impact of increased military spending does not necessarily mean any increase in defense capability. Kimberly Amadeo writes for The Balance, analyzing the breakdown of our current military budget. In total, there are 4 components to the military budget:

    1.      The $597.1 billion base budget for the Department of Defense.

    2.      The overseas contingency operations for DoD to fight the Islamic State group ($88.9 billion.)

    3.      The total of other agencies that protect our nation. These expenses total $181.3 billion. They include the VA Department ($83.1 billion), the State Department ($28.3 billion), DHS ($46 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity in the DOJ ($8.8 billion) and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the DOE ($15.1 billion).

    4.      The last component is $18.7 billion in OCO funds for the State Department and Homeland Security to fight ISIS. (1)

    An increase in military spending would transfer more money into government coffers; however, one needs to consider how the money is spent. In fact, the DOD’s own estimates conclude that overall, it has 22% excess capacity (2). Nevertheless, the 2013 Bi-Partisan Budget Act of 2013 blocked future base closures. Considering the purported loss of local jobs, the possibility of government officials supporting base closures is slim. In fact, the most recent Bi-Partisan Budget Act raised the military base spending cap by $80 billion (3). Clearly, the legislature is determined to move the opposite way of closure. It would be impossible to determine if the increase in military spending will be absorbed by administrative and operational costs from strategically defunct bases.

    One must also consider the massive cost of providing more money in the face rising costs of operational and management as well as personnel in the DOD. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that by 2024, both categories of spending will “consume the entire defense budget by 2024. You’d have no money left for procurement, for research and development, military construction, for family housing, nothing (4).” This is not to say that we should not properly compensate soldiers. Instead, limiting the growth of civilian personnel would help (1). Instead, the DOD could create a competitive bidding process to contract work to the private sector and/or form public-private partnerships. This is especially important for cyberwarfare, where private-public partnerships or private contracting work are pivotal considering the drought of talented cyber-experts in the government. The current bureaucracy does need to be streamlined as far as those on the DOD’s payroll is concerned. When the Pentagon asked for an internal study to find out how to decrease costs, they found that despite historically sparse numbers of troops, (roughly 1.3 million,) there were nearly as many desk jobs (5). The Pentagon hid the report in fear of budget cuts, but that does not change the truth of where taxpayer money is being held: in a bloated bureaucratic system.

    Pentagon cost overruns also produce issues for military budgets. The CATO Institute in September of 2015 summarizes only a minute sample of cost overruns by the Pentagon because, as they quote from the GAO:

    “[The military branches] overpromise capabilities and underestimate costs to capture the funding needed to start and sustain development programs”

    Cost Estimate and Date of Estimate Original vs. Final 

    Littoral Combat Ship $360m (2004) $667m (2014)

     Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle $102m (1998) $376m (2013) 

    Joint Strike Fighter $79m (2001) $138m (2013) 

    JPALS Landing System $29m (2008) $77m (2014) 

    G/ATOR Radar $24m (2005) $61m (2014) (6)

    One must realize that an increase in military spending is not synonymous with a better military. The funds traverse through a broken system that pays out to military bases without a purpose, expensive military contractors, and a bloated civilian workforce. While security does need to be respected, the practicality of an increase in military spending needs to be weighed over anything else. Until I am told where the increase would take place and guaranteed that money will not be diverted elsewhere, I cannot in good conscience support the plan.

     

    1. https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320

    2. http://1yxsm73j7aop3quc9y5ifaw3.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/041816_dod_brac_parametric.pdf4

    3. https://www.csis.org/analysis/making-sense-bipartisan-budget-act-2018-and-what-it-means-defense

    4. https://federalnewsradio.com/sequestration/2013/04/analysis-pay-benefits-om-will-swallow-entire-dod-budget-by-2024/

    5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.dcacac164b7e

    6. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-72.pdf

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch