Amount of money spent on Wars

[nietzsche]

Hey guys, does anybody knows a ballpark figure of how much money has been spent on the last American wars? From Desert Storm I.

I have a point, I just need to know the amount of money..

Bear with me

[notyou2]

A lot?

[nietzsche]

A lot?

Don't know if that qualifies as a ballpark figure, but I was hoping some numbers.

[Army of GOD]

17 trillion pesos

[notyou2]

17 trillion pesos

A bazillion more pesos than that.

[Army of GOD]

17 trillion pesos

A bazillion more pesos than that.

That's still only 4 dollars.

[Aradhus]

I'm sure I read not that long ago that Iraq and afghanistan wars cost was upto about 3 trillion.

[saxitoxin]

Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

[Baron Von PWN]

Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

amusing. Swedish fish are red herrings.

[saxitoxin]

Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

amusing. Swedish fish are red herrings.

Ninety-nine percent of what I say around here I'm sure 99% of people don't get, but BvP has always been part of the 1%, which is why I like him lots.

[Baron Von PWN]

Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

amusing. Swedish fish are red herrings.

Ninety-nine percent of what I say around here I'm sure 99% of people don't get, but BvP has always been part of the 1%, which is why I like him lots.

Also amusing, a Baron would be part of the 1%.

[nietzsche]

Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

[firsal901]

Wikipedia

The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by the United States Congress to be $61.1 billion.

that's just Desert Storm 1
add Part 2 and Afghanistan, thats gotta be more than 3 trillion

[zimmah]

17 trillion pesos

A bazillion more pesos than that.

That's still only 4 dollars.

while 4 dollars is only about 0,50 euro.

[jimboston]

Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

How much money spent to fight these wars ultimately results in research and technological advances?

How much money helps drive the economy and benefits people in other ways.

You can't say all that money was just "wasted"... that would be inaccurate.

[Lootifer]

Nothing. IIRC from Time, they paid for it in Swedish Fish, and I heard they allocated 1 billion toward it. So, figure 22 Swedish Fish per package and Swedish Fish go for $1.99 per package - ?

amusing. Swedish fish are red herrings.

Ninety-nine percent of what I say around here I'm sure 99% of people don't get, but BvP has always been part of the 1%, which is why I like him lots.

Also amusing, a Baron would be part of the 1%.

[nietzsche]

Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

How much money spent to fight these wars ultimately results in research and technological advances?

How much money helps drive the economy and benefits people in other ways.

You can't say all that money was just "wasted"... that would be inaccurate.

I never said wasted.

I do agree with your point tho, it isn't as straightforward as I said but you get the idea.

The case that made me think about this is such a well example of how fucked up is that all that money is spent on killing others.

Also, they are paying premium for a lot of those things that they have to get built. An stupid but simple example would be that the sit of a tank cost them 100,000 per piece, because it had to be made of a material that blah blah, certain electronics required a new type of processor that blah blah not to mention that because of reasons of security they had only 3 possible providers and they charged whatever they wanted. Who's gonna say anything, they have this moral superiority, it's for the security of the whole country, see there are 10000 ships full of afghans right on the atlantic coast.

I might be a little naive in saying this, but I'm guessing that a couple of million dollars, well allocated, would definitely get us quite close to a procedure to make the autoimmune disease that I'm talking about to get into remision.

[Lootifer]

Money spent on War is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy.

Consumption that leads to no production of any kind (directly or indirectly) is considered "waste". Much like many see wellfare as waste as they feel the beneficiaries of welfare produce nothing in return.

However this doesn't really relate to the Iraq war (not so sure about Afganistan) because the net result was increased production for the US (soldiers indirectly produced - or resulted in - cheaper and more plentiful oil resources).

So the US wars are less of a question of WHAT COULD THAT 3-12091209 TRILLION BOUGHT INSTEAD?! but more Are we happy with the fact that Iraq, and possibly Afganastan, wars were either wasted money or net wealth transfers from Government to Oil companies?

[BigBallinStalin]

Money spent on War is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy.

Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Consumption that leads to no production of any kind (directly or indirectly) is considered "waste". Much like many see wellfare as waste as they feel the beneficiaries of welfare produce nothing in return.

However this doesn't really relate to the Iraq war (not so sure about Afganistan) because the net result was increased production for the US (soldiers indirectly produced - or resulted in - cheaper and more plentiful oil resources).

Bingo! Economic interests are vital interests in the eyes of the US government--especially under Bush Sr. and Obama.

So the US wars are less of a question of WHAT COULD THAT 3-12091209 TRILLION BOUGHT INSTEAD?! but more Are we happy with the fact that Iraq, and possibly Afganastan, wars were either wasted money or net wealth transfers from Government to Oil companies?

Oil prices could have been higher for Americans, but we can never know.

The US is known to open markets via warfare, but it's misleading to say that $3 trillion was transferred from the US citizens to US oil companies. The US government merely kicked down some doors, which crushed a lot of people, and then gave US, UK, etc. oil companies select contracts--but that money is more dispersed across the "military-industrial complex." Oil companies merely get the good deals--if they wish to take the risks, which are subsidized hopefully (in their view) by the US military and US mercenaries.

Mostly it's about cutting the competition away from cheap supplies to oil, and for diverting that oil to US and US-friendly markets.

[Lootifer]

Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Yes, but I was talking about value-add (and very generally): The products of War add no value, whether it be a soldier, gun or a satellite.

Now that's not to say soldiers don't help local communities, or that guns dont protect property otherwise lost, or satellites dont give good data to to google etc etc. But the actual war effort (for lack of better phrase) does not make anything, it merely serves as a sink (like my welfare example).

Additionally the things you speak of are either unintended/non-primary benefits (ARPANET/satellite) that could be sourced from any industry, not just war, or plain non-value-add components of the economy (the guy who makes the fighter jet adds no value because that fighter jet is just as valuable as the block of metal it was made from - unless you include blah blah iraq blah blah oil blah blah)

Compare a tank with your standard economic "widget", one destroys things, one makes things. That's all im sayin'.

(I would say that the iraq wars' business case most certaintly gets over the line though, and yes sweeping statement about govt -> oil company is sweeping and in no way accurate but I would be interested in your opinion on wars that provide no value to the US...?)

[firsal901]

War can give some good. Im not saying its a good thing, but pretty awesome stuff can come from it as shown here - http://www.cracked.com/article_18703_5- ... ar_p2.html , RADAR, Twinkies, some classic toys, Tabasco.... those stuff rock.

I also remember that the reason of WW1 was to defend France, WW2 to stop the spread of Nazism, Korean War to defend South Korea from commies, Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism (failed, but A for effort), Desert Storm 1 to retake Kuwait, Afghanistan to keep the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from ever repeating 9/11 and Desert Storm 2 to get rid of a dictator.

I'd say those are justifiable reasons for spending trillions, if not quadrillions, of dollars on war.

As Sun Tzu said in the Art of War, "The true object of war is peace"

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

I can remember a T-shirt that said "it will be a fine day when schools get all the money they need and generals have to hold bake sales to buy a tank"

War always costs, but the real problem is relying on profit to do what needs to be done. Despite all this popular tea party rhetoric, and Repub double-speak, the truth is that the really ground breaking research in medicine and most industries was done by the government. Industry then takes what information they choose and makes it marketable, but only after the null routes have been discarded. AND.. often, these breakthroughs don't even come from the direction the research intended. For example, chaos mathematics arose out of someone looking at weather data.

When it comes to the military and medicine directly, there is a further irony that many medical advances come during wars. The whole idea of an EMT and paramedic, for example arose out of Vietnahm. Inroads into Malaria arose because more soldiers were dying from it than battle wounds.. etc.

[BigBallinStalin]

Um excuse me, but hand guns, ARPANET (then Internet), satellites, and all other related technologies from war-spending which the private sector uses. Nuff said.

Honestly, my point is that money spent on war isn't only consumed by the military and that it does supply some things into the economy--at the very least, jobs.

Yes, but I was talking about value-add (and very generally): The products of War add no value, whether it be a soldier, gun or a satellite.

Now that's not to say soldiers don't help local communities, or that guns dont protect property otherwise lost, or satellites dont give good data to to google etc etc. But the actual war effort (for lack of better phrase) does not make anything, it merely serves as a sink (like my welfare example).

Additionally the things you speak of are either unintended/non-primary benefits (ARPANET/satellite) that could be sourced from any industry, not just war, or plain non-value-add components of the economy (the guy who makes the fighter jet adds no value because that fighter jet is just as valuable as the block of metal it was made from - unless you include blah blah iraq blah blah oil blah blah)

Compare a tank with your standard economic "widget", one destroys things, one makes things. That's all im sayin'.

(I would say that the iraq wars' business case most certaintly gets over the line though, and yes sweeping statement about govt -> oil company is sweeping and in no way accurate but I would be interested in your opinion on wars that provide no value to the US...?)

Sure, war destroys wealth, but to say that war spending "is wasted because Soldiers/War effort only consume. They do not supply anything into the economy" is wrong. I admit that ARPANET and the like could have been provided by the private sector, but it wasn't--war spending provided it.


For the sake of Contrarianism, I'll take up the plight of tanks.

Tanks don't only destroy things. They provide not only jobs to the industrial sector, but also they also provide the government with the capital to engage in services for maintaining its national security. It's a dangerous world, Lootifer, and the Armed Forces must make it a safer place for business and political interests.

[comic boy]

Ok, let's work with 3 trillion dollars. Thanks Aradhus.


3 TRILLION DOLLARS 3 000 000 000 000 DOLLARS

Can you imagine how many medical and technological advances could we have if that money was spent on research?

There is this theory for the root of an autoimmune disease, and it there's anecdotical information that the theory is true, but there is no medicine or procedure to take advantage of this theory because pharmaceuticals don't care, they won't profit, on the contrary they'll lose money, so there's no money to fund such research. This is a debilitating disease and a possible favorable solution might give back the vitality to millions.

I bet there a many MANY more cases like this, where research to radically change or lives for the better is waiting for funding. Yet we spend our money to destroy and kill.

How much money spent to fight these wars ultimately results in research and technological advances?

How much money helps drive the economy and benefits people in other ways.

You can't say all that money was just "wasted"... that would be inaccurate.

Thats true, think of all the big houses that have been built and wild parties celebrated , thats just in Texas

[saxitoxin]

I empathize with nietzsche's position but have to point something out.

The U.S. would not have saved $3 trillion by not waging war, the U.S. only had $3 trillion because it waged war.

Like the Roman Imperium, the U.S. collects taxes from other nations in the form of currency monopoly and treasury bonds. Occasionally, as taxpayers sometimes do, these other countries become non-compliant or attempt to exert independence. When that occurs, tax enforcement efforts are initiated.

Saddam Hussein announced he would stop bartering oil in U.S. dollars. In response, he was banned from bartering oil at all (via the legal fiction of "UN Security Council sanctions"). When that didn't work, he was removed and an Iraqi government that would continue respecting the U.S. currency monopoly was installed.

Spending $3 trillion on war is the U.S.' cost of doing business. Had it not laid waste to Iraq through Ultra-Violence, it would have lost those $3 trillion and many more besides.

The existence of the U.S. is centered on control of all commodities in a commodity-centered economy. Another example- none of the formerly great powers have physical control of their own "sovereign" gold reserves. Germany, Netherlands, Italy, etc. all have their gold stored ("voluntarily" ) in U.S. government vaults in New York. (Canada may be unique in this regard, but the U.S. 10th Mountain Division is only 30 minutes by plane from the bullion depository in Ottawa.)