MILITARY

• The bigger the military(United States) the less chance of escalation. or faster de-escalation
• Increase hard hedge.
  • preserve spot as hegemon
  • wars will happen to become hegemon
    • lots of extreme impacts from this
• show examples where a larger military would have helped resolve conflicts
• We need more military so that we don’t spread ourselves too thin
• in order to maintain current relationships we need a bigger military (we need larger military to prevent over-extending when helping allies)

NON-MILITARY

• We need to have more military to deal with economic threats (I.E. Desert Storm/middle eastern conflicts)
• Mil. spending boosts the economy
• More mil. spending gives the perception of being stronger (talk softly carry a big stick). just because we have a military doesn’t mean we have to use it.
  • IMPACTS: decreased conflict/war. Enemies less likely to want to fight us.
• R&D: Increased military budget does not have to only be for traditional weapons/more soldiers.
  • Cybersecurity (better intel, better cyber defense, better offensive cyber attacks)

WORKAROUNDS

• Definitions of significant.
  • Merriam Webster
    • “having meaning”
    • “having or likely to have influence or effect”
• Definitions of conflict
  • War, battle
• FRAMEWORK: If we can show that response to conflicts would be faster or more efficient then we will win.
• FRAMEWORK: The neg has to defend the status quo budget permanently.
  • Extend this and say that even if conflict does arise they cannot increase budget.

LOOK AT HOW THE RESOLUTION IS PHRASED.

• we cannot increase military spending if we get in a war.
• What would a war look like with our current military budget.