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
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
"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 stupid".
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 33%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
My stance on this topic is that military spending must be increased and possibly fluctuate ate based on current environment threats and times.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 43%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.06  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. These groups were created by the U.S. in invasions and proxy wars. How does this prove your point?
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, I support a budget increase, not for pay, but for recapitulation of some of our asset. I base this on first-hand experience.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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;
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
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=.43fdec6aeec8
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra