The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
US War Costs (Guess what's #2!)
No-Quarter
Nothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
Nothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/historical_war_costs/
And that's adjusted for inflation! It simply boggles my mind how we could have spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accomplished....what exactly? I'm not trying to turn this into a Bush-bashing rant, but I simply can't fathom how we could have funneled this much money into 2 conflicts, located in such a relatively small arena over, so short of a time span.
It's not like Vietnam where we were constantly dropping heavy ordnance, or that the Iraq war has lasted 16-some odd years (we hope), but damn man! 25.7 billion more? Does anyone have any idea where this money is going? Is this simply a side effect of having the most up-to-date equipment and weaponry which will therefore be more costly to maintain?
Updated February 1, 2008
HISTORICAL COSTS OF U.S. WARS (In 2007 Dollars)
World War II $3.2 trillion
Iraq and Afghanistan To Date $695.7 billion
Vietnam War $670 billion
World War I $364 billion
Korean War $295 billion
Persian Gulf War $94 billion
Civil War (both Union and Confederate costs) $81 billion
Spanish-American War $7 billion
American Revolution $4 billion
Mexican War $2 billion
War of 1812 $1 billion
Source: Congressional Research Service and Office of Management and Budget data.
And that's adjusted for inflation! It simply boggles my mind how we could have spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accomplished....what exactly? I'm not trying to turn this into a Bush-bashing rant, but I simply can't fathom how we could have funneled this much money into 2 conflicts, located in such a relatively small arena over, so short of a time span.
It's not like Vietnam where we were constantly dropping heavy ordnance, or that the Iraq war has lasted 16-some odd years (we hope), but damn man! 25.7 billion more? Does anyone have any idea where this money is going? Is this simply a side effect of having the most up-to-date equipment and weaponry which will therefore be more costly to maintain?
No-Quarter on
0
Posts
WWB has been working in the opposite direction.
War costs in terms of (adjusted) GDP in the year they ended:
World War II: 57.6%
Vietnam war: 15.5%
Korean war: 14.1%
Current Iraq/Afghanistan war: 6.0%
Gulf war: 1.3%
This chart only goes back to 1929— but the Civil War cost 9.3% of the 1929 GDP.
Oh, and technically the Korean War is still going on.
That's note a ludicrous %, so why is the economy tanking? Because they refuse to raise taxes, while simultaneously throwing down all this money?
Can you explain further? I'm pretty ignorant about economics in general.
+
I find it curious how the pro-war candidates can push their agenda, without explaining how they're going to continue to fund the damn thing. Mccain and Romney both sidestepped the question point blank at the last debate.
EDIT: Is the answer simply "Raise taxes!" but they don't want their base to go apeshit until they're already in office?
And the reason wars are more costly today in comparison to 1812 is because an armored humvee costs way more than a horse and a musket. Which is one of the reasons there are so few actually in theater. :?
I saw a report on TV talking about the medical bills for injured troopers and shit like PTSD. At present a soldier has to PROVE to the government that they have PTSD because we simply don't have the funding to help them all. It's a disgrace.
I want to see Bin Laden killed by a diseased cow hurled from a trebuchet.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Because the banks did some moderately stupid shit, it bit them in the ass, and now everyone is screaming bloody fucking murder. Investors as a whole tend to be irrational as hell.
Further, tech like that means less "good guys" die, so that should probably quantified.
I wholeheartedly concur.
WHOLEheartedly. There should be an asterisk.
Surely you can't be serious.
Why are you so up in arms that they grouped Iraq and Afghanistan together? They're both fronts of one war that's being fought according to the current admistration.
You are serious, and I shouldn't call you Shirley.
Feel free to come back with something to add to the discussion at anytime.
Back to the subject at hand, I don't really mind that they grouped them both together because it's interesting to see how much the overseas actions taken under this so-called War on Terror have cost. It'd be nice to see them maybe break it down as well, but whatever. It's not a big thing to me. It's not cheating either.
But Hitler had charisma!
No they aren't, they're two separate wars being fought concurently. Iraq and Afghanistans were not allies, nor were they some sort of Axis. The only reason they should be counted in costs together is as Phobos explained it, the same military is fighting and being funded for both wars.
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34699
The money for these submarines can be better spent on better armor for the soldiers in Baghdad that are actually doing all the fighting and dying.
http://positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1440
I wonder how the creator of that breakdown feels about people copying it around. The website for the graph has a flash viewer with panning and such.
OMFG, the money spent on the Navy and Air Force is unbelievable. You'd think it's the 1980s all over again.
Sure, hi-tech equipment make for awesome Tom Clancy fiction but in reality are they necessary??? We don't need new ships when all the fighting is being done on the streets of Baghdad. I'm saddened that there isn't much outrage over this.
Edit: USMC spending compared to the other branches is hilarious as usual.
The ability to shoot around buildings without exposing oneself, and to see and shoot through smoke are pretty useful. Don't forsake all advancements just because some aren't immediately useful. :P
Ships/aircraft take so long to develop they're done in preparation for future wars- we're building those ships in anticipation of having to be prepared for a modernized China expanding its naval forces to project power in East Asia, and whatever comes after that.
Basically, significant portions of the US military don't think trinitarian warfare is dead and are still spending taxpayer money to prepare for it. I don't think they're wrong or right, necessarily- but that's just how it is.