Instigator / Pro
14
1500
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4993

The US should increase its military presence in the arctic

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

AudraE
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1300
rating
220
debates
44.77%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
(All Blue highlighted pieces have evidence linked at the bottom.  Some are in Cut card format some are not. Cut card format is preferred not required! Sources cited in typical debate fashion i.e. Author last name/website name/abbreviation/ year published. All arguments must be backed up with evidence linked at the bottom, and easily formatted, so I know where your information is coming from. Let's debate)

I affirm the resolution. The United States should substantially increase its military presence in the Arctic.

As arctic melting accelerates, the region becomes a crucial geostrategic standpoint for trade and resources. 

Unfortunately, Brookings 16 states: “America has fallen behind its economic competitors—namely Russia and China—in Arctic resource and infrastructure investment.”

Therefore, my first argument is the US must bolster Arctic military presence to secure trade routes.

The arctic Northern Sea Route holds promise for the global economy, significantly reducing transport time to “30 to 50% shorter than the Suez Canal and Panama Canal routes” Mahle 23 reports.

The Northwest Passage is valuable as well. Hermann 19 found a ship that crossed the Northwest passage in 2013, shortening the journey by 4 days and saving $200,000.

Hadrovic 20 confirms “With 90% of global trade transported by ships, an optimization of Arctic routes could have a significant impact on the global economy.” 

Unfortunately, Russia is encroaching on the Arctic.

Grove 21 finds, “Moscow says it has the right to restrict passage and set prices for transit” in the passage.

Furthermore, despite the war in Ukraine, Russia is aggressively expanding. USNI 23 reports  “Russia’s…ballistic missile submarines and strategic bomber force’s capabilities remain intact.”

Indeed, Pamuk 21 states that "Russia [has advanced] unlawful maritime claims [with] its regulation of foreign vessels transiting the Northern Sea route.”

Luckily, Goldstein 23 finds that with an increased military presence, “the United States could contest Russian claims of the water under international law.”

This will also benefit the US in two ways.

First, poverty reduction through ease of trade.

CP 23 states: “The United States [has] the highest rates of child poverty [among OECD nations] at 20.9%.”

Luckily, World Bank 22 finds, “Recent research shows that trade liberalization [results] in 10 to 20% higher income after a decade.” 

TWB 23 adds: “Overall, trade has [helped] to lift some 1 billion people out of poverty in recent decades.”

Maintaining access to the NSR could drastically reduce poverty, recusing thousands from generational penury.

Second, lowering prices.

Jurgeleviciute 19 finds: “the Northwest Passage could save up at least $500 for every tonne shipped [...] With rising labour costs, [this keeps] the prices of some goods at the same level.” 

US Bank 23 adds: “Improved availability and movement of goods is likely contributing to a reduction of inflationary pressures on the U.S. economy.”

Combating inflation is crucial, as Batrawy 22 found that even an ~5% increase in inflation had “pushed 71 million people into poverty” after the Ukrainian war.

My second argument is increased access to rare earth minerals.

Cho 23 estimates “The demand for rare earth elements is expected to grow 400-600% over the next few decades.”

Currently, Saunders 23 writes: “The United States depends on imports for 51 [rare earth] minerals, and China has become the leading supplier for 26.”

Unfortunately, Phadke 19 corroborates “China…has proven to be an unstable trade partner. Geopolitical tensions arose…when the country drastically cut 40% of global exports of rare earths.”

The US can’t rely its technological future on a shady partner, hence, gaining resource independence is critical. 

Luckily, Sellheim 23 reports, “one million tonnes of mineable rare earth metal oxides [were found] in [one area of] the [...] Arctic Circle.” 

US military presence boosts mining, Omar 20 finds “The U.S. Army has a new program that invests in U.S. startups willing to mine for rare earth minerals which could help fund U.S. companies to make such an investment.”

Biglaiser 07 corroborates:  “U.S. troops … provide a credibility signal for U.S. [enterprises]...prompting greater investor interest….[by] signal[ing] a more positive political environment.” 

The impact is reduced emissions.

Koetsier 21 states: “The United States needs ten times the amount of rare earth metals it currently has to meet President Biden’s ambitious 2030 EV goals.”

Luckily, AEC 23 finds that “In the Arctic region, we can find many of the metals and minerals needed for the green transition.”
Milman 22 predicts that “A total of 7.4 million lives around the world will be saved over this century, if the US manages to cut its emissions to net-zero by 2050”

Otherwise, Bloomberg 21 states “The extraordinarily hot and cold temperatures that are becoming more common as climate change accelerates are responsible for 5 million deaths globally every year”








Con
#2
Better increase military presence in Europe and around China, since thats where the main battles of ww3 will be fought.
Round 2
Pro
#3
(links at the bottom; most cut card, some not. Cited author last name or website title/abbreviation, year published (if there is one!))

My opponent's sole point is we should focus on Europe and Asia because that's where ww3 is happening. I have 6 main responses:

1.  First, both Asia and Europe have territory within the Arctic circle, therefore my opponent is actually arguing for my point. According to Intredpid, countries inside the arctic circle include those of "Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Canada, Iceland and the USA." As Russia is a major Arctic power as well as global superpower, the only way to gain any foothold in this supposed WW3 would be to increase military presence around countries (such as Russia) that are the reasons we are even discussing a third world war.

2. That brings me to my second point which is that putting military in the arctic actually defuses war. As the US military is seen as dominant and largely recognized as one of the largest military powers, by placing that power near trade routes, Russia, and other countries, the US presents its self as a deterrent defusing the war before it begins. However, if the US does not go into the Arctic, Russia might claim the war for themselves as currently they have 13 nuclear icebreakers in the arctic.  Not only this but Zysk 22 writes, "Russian capabilities include nuclear weapons and long-range capabilities, and Russia has conducted operations that qualify as threatening." The only way they'd consider using them is if the US wasn't there to stop them. In a world where you negate the resolution, Russia can take over these trade routes (as stated in case), grow their economy, and even fire nukes from their vantage point, that the US wouldn't have access to.

3. Then, I'd tell you that you don't need to prioritize one spending over the other. While infrastructure in the arctic would likely only cost $1.1 billion to build in the arctic according to Dodds 23, the US military had a surplus of $1 trillion (DoD). Due to this surplus, not only could the US build in the Arctic and increase its military there, they'd still have close to 1 trillion dollars, more than enough to allocate troops and weapons towards other European and Asian countries not in the arctic.

4. Moving on, I think it's pretty clear and obvious that any world war that would be started would be due to tensions between the three great powers, Russia, China, and the US. However, we can see that with important treaties and agreements through the Arctic Council, which the US can only stay in and uphold if they are in the Arctic are actually keeping the peace. USDoS states that indeed "Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States" all inhabitants of the Arctic region are a part of the Arctic Council. As Widakuswara 23 corroborates, "Ties are warming between Moscow and Beijing as Arctic Council seeks to re-establish technical cooperation with Russia." This means this Arctic presence and cooperation is solely what is keeping relations alive and war from happening in these countries.

5. My opponent also gives no sources for information, and for that reason alone, they should be dropped, but even still, their lack of information provided in case means I have very little to go off of when constructing a counterargument. Since there is not enough detail or sources saying ww3 would happen mainly in Europe and Asia, I would argue that since the Arctic ice is melting, it has a plethora of materials, and there are fewer inhabitants, if anywhere that's where the war would start. An expansionist power such as Russia will do whatever they can to obtain the materials they need. Without a dominant power in those places, others will just squabble and fight leading directly to war. However, we can see that the US is the sole person that stands in the way of Russia. When Putin invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainians were able to withstand the attack to US aide and help. Stepaneko 23 states, "Ukraine’s only lifeline [is] that of foreign [US] military assistance." As Ukraine was able to rely on the US withstanding an attack, it is proven that only the US can counter Russian power.

6. Just to spike a response, remember no country is going to turn to nuclear weapons if another more powerful  country is there due to mutually assured destruction.

Moving on to the weighing; you are voting for me in 4 key places:

1. First probability. To win this point, they must prove that this war is actually going to happen, and unless they do so their argument is nullified. While a third world war is unlikely has cannot be quantified, as soon as you affirm, we see a betting of the climate and increased shipping routes ultimately helping poverty and saving lives.

2. This leads to number 2. Prioritize us on timeframe. Although they cannot tell you when this war might happen, we tell you as soon as you put more troops Russia backs off. They see the power signal from the US and since they are depleted from the Ukrainian war and the sanctions that ensued they do not attack. However, by negating you are pushing for the status quo is which Russia is not stopped taking over the arctic. Essentially they are creating the problem they are claiming to solve.

3. You are voting for me on scope. Whereas they cannot even tell you if this war is actually going to happen, we can tell you we are making the final push towards solving for the climate crisis. At the end of the day prioritize saving the world, because although we have survived two world wars as a human race (with devastating issues yes but still alive) scientists predict we would not survive a full dip into the depths of global warming, which would create temperatures so extreme they would even push the entirety of costal cities underwater.

4. And finally you are voting for us on uniqueness. As I proved earlier on, the spending and military for these other places will happen either way, only if you affirm can you uniquely solve for the climate, poverty, and ww3, all in one go.

Thus, I urge a pro ballot.

Con
#4
I obviously meant places in Europe that arent arctic.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Oder of responses goes their case (why they don't win, what they concede etc., my case why we win (same structure as last time)).

At the end of the day my opponent loses the round because in the rebuttal speech they concede all of my points. My opponent only said we need to increase military in the parts of Europe that are not in the Arctic. I gave you 6 responses and here's why they are still standing. 

1. First I told you that the main points of conflict during a world war would be in the Arctic, as the Arctic circle includes places such as Russia, a great power and one that is greatly believed is going to start the next world war.

2. They concede that by increasing military we are preventing a war from ever starting. If we can stop the war before it happens, the preemptive military in other places in Europe is unnecessary.

3. Now this point is where they truly lose the round. We tell you that by increasing military presence in the Arctic we can still increase military in other places too. Remember our Dodds 23 evidence and our card from the Department of Defense themselves that It would only take 1.1 billion on an excess budget of 1 trillion. As long as we have that excess spending money for the military we win here. They have not and cannot prove that this spending can only be allocated towards the Arctic and as we tell you and prove it will go for both, we win here. This knocks out their entire rebuttal, all of which was saying that they just want to increase in Europe. In a pro world we have the benefits of military in the arctic, including access to REMs and important trade routes that better cooperations also preemptively stopping a war.

4. This leads to my next conceded point that the US and Russia, due to the cooperation would not dare strike each other. They are cooperating under an Arctic lead association and as long as that is true neither side would start war with the others. For a WW to happen the great powers would have to fight. As those powers are the US, Russia, and China, if they are all cooperating this won't be an issue in a pro world.

5. They give you no evidence for anything they are saying to back up any claims therefore I win there too.

6. Just to extend the spike remember no country is going to turn to nuclear weapons if another more powerful country is there due to mutually assured destruction.

On to weighing:

1. First probability. To win this point, they must prove that this war is actually going to happen, and unless they do so their argument is nullified. While a third world war is unlikely has cannot be quantified, as soon as you affirm, we see a betting of the climate and increased shipping routes ultimately helping poverty and saving lives.

2. Prioritize me on timeframe. Although they cannot tell you when this war might happen, we tell you as soon as you put more troops Russia backs off. They see the power signal from the US and since they are depleted from the Ukrainian war and the sanctions that ensued they do not attack. However, by negating you are pushing for the status quo is which Russia is not stopped taking over the arctic. Essentially they are creating the problem they are claiming to solve.

3.  At the end of the day prioritize saving the world, because although we have survived two world wars as a human race, scientists predict we would not survive the full effects of a full-blown climate crisis, which would create temperatures so extreme they would even push the entirety of costal cities underwater.

4. Finally, you are voting for me on uniqueness. As I proved earlier on, the spending and military for these other places will happen either way, only if you affirm can you uniquely solve for the climate, poverty, and ww3, all in one go.

Con
#6
Extend
Round 4
Pro
#7
(Layout goes their case extension, why I win, etc. (mirrors the others))

At the end of the day let's look at the round as a whole. Throughout I have provided ample evidence to support the idea that the US should go into the Arctic. I have even turned my opponent's case saying that by increasing military presence we have a deterrent against this highly improbable ww3 scenario. As they have no case at the end of the day and have not responded to anything I have said let's go over it once again.

1. First I told you that the main points of conflict during a world war would be in the Arctic, as the Arctic circle includes places such as Russia, a great power and one that is greatly believed is going to start the next world war.

2. They concede that by increasing military we are preventing a war from ever starting. If we can stop the war before it happens, the preemptive military in other places in Europe is unnecessary.

3. Now this point is where they truly lose the round. I tell you that by increasing military presence in the Arctic we can still increase military in other places too. Remember our Dodds 23 evidence and our card from the Department of Defense themselves that It would only take 1.1 billion on an excess budget of 1 trillion. As long as we have that excess spending money for the military we win here. They have not and cannot prove that this spending can only be allocated towards the Arctic and as we tell you and prove it will go for both the Arctic and towards stopping the ww3 threat, if it even constitutes as that. I win here as this fundamentally knocks out their entire rebuttal, all of which was saying that they just want to increase in Europe. In a pro world we have the benefits of military in the arctic, including access to REMs and important trade routes that better cooperations also preemptively stopping a war.

4. This leads to my next conceded point that the US and Russia, due to the cooperation would not dare strike each other. They are cooperating under an Arctic lead association and as long as that is true neither side would start war with the others. For a WW to happen the great powers would have to fight. As those powers are the US, Russia, and China, if they are all cooperating this won't be an issue in a pro world.

5. They give you no evidence for anything they are saying to back up any claims therefore I win there too.

6. Just to extend the spike remember no country is going to turn to nuclear weapons if another more powerful country is there due to mutually assured destruction.

At this point you can already vote for pro as they have no case, but even if you believed that here's why you are still voting for us:

1. First probability. To win this point, they must prove that this war is actually going to happen, and unless they do so their argument is nullified. While a third world war is unlikely has cannot be quantified, as soon as you affirm, we see a betting of the climate and increased shipping routes ultimately helping poverty and saving lives.

2. Prioritize me on timeframe. Although they cannot tell you when this war might happen, we tell you as soon as you put more troops Russia backs off effectively stopping this war preemptively. They see the power signal from the US and since they are depleted from the Ukrainian war and the sanctions that ensued they do not attack. However, by negating you are pushing for the status quo is which Russia is not stopped taking over the arctic. Essentially my opponent is creating the problem they are claiming to solve.

3.  At the end of the day prioritize saving the world, because although we have survived two world wars as a human race, scientists predict we would not survive the full effects of a full-blown climate crisis, which would create temperatures so extreme they would even push the entirety of costal cities underwater.

4. Finally, you are voting for me on uniqueness. As I proved earlier on, the spending and military for these other places will happen either way, only if you vote for pro can you uniquely solve for the climate, poverty, and ww3, all in one go.


Con
#8
Thanks for the debate.