4 ms·

A Hellfire missile apparently costs $150K [0]. Given that it's apparently OK to launch one of these at a single suspected enemy informant, couldn't we have sav

A Hellfire missile apparently costs $150K [0]. Given that it's apparently OK to launch one of these at a single suspected enemy informant, couldn't we have saved a lot of time, money and lives by just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

merpnderp 5y ago
Infrastructure and industry were the solution to Afghanistan. A tribe which owns a large share in the local mining operation is a tribe which does its best to keep the peace. The US could have built a lot of roads and propped up a lot of barely profitable enterprises with the money spent on all those military operations.
- uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
randomopining 5y ago
So like 30-50k per person for the total cost of the war. Or 1.6k-3k per year. I guess that's doable but it's probably not a lot of money. Plus the power structures still want to take advantage of any situation, it's not like 3k is going to pacify a warlord in the country. So nope let's go with teh hellfire.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gccs 5y ago
No. The purpose of the war is to fund defense contractors and create jobs back at home. Giving the money directly to afganis would not do that.
- juanani 5y ago
  I like how we call them by their Manufactured name. 'Defense'. Not really picking on you or this comment, I just read way too many Defense Contractors in this thread. Hope we start calling them War Contractors, closer to reality.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dpatru 5y ago
The money for a missile could be given to the population, but then it would not go to the missile’s manufacturer. But the whole point of the war is to give money to arms makers. They are the only ones who benefit from the war and who lobby for it.
rscoots 5y ago
>just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like? Lol we also did that.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  No, most of the foreing aid got stolen by the corrupt Afghan government. see https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-take-kabul-via-path-paved-by-corruption/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-take-kabul-via-path-... . They didn't even pay their servicemen, that's the reason for the quick surrender. Interesting why very few in the US are asking how they could spend more than a trillion of the taxpayers money without any oversight.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    Well the strategy was technically always to bribe the warlords, bribing random citizens is ineffective. But I'm confused why you think we disagree.

merpnderp 5y ago

Infrastructure and industry were the solution to Afghanistan. A tribe which owns a large share in the local mining operation is a tribe which does its best to keep the peace. The US could have built a lot of roads and propped up a lot of barely profitable enterprises with the money spent on all those military operations.

uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

randomopining 5y ago

So like 30-50k per person for the total cost of the war. Or 1.6k-3k per year. I guess that's doable but it's probably not a lot of money. Plus the power structures still want to take advantage of any situation, it's not like 3k is going to pacify a warlord in the country. So nope let's go with teh hellfire.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gccs 5y ago

No. The purpose of the war is to fund defense contractors and create jobs back at home. Giving the money directly to afganis would not do that.

juanani 5y ago
I like how we call them by their Manufactured name. 'Defense'. Not really picking on you or this comment, I just read way too many Defense Contractors in this thread. Hope we start calling them War Contractors, closer to reality.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dpatru 5y ago

The money for a missile could be given to the population, but then it would not go to the missile’s manufacturer. But the whole point of the war is to give money to arms makers. They are the only ones who benefit from the war and who lobby for it.

rscoots 5y ago

>just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like? Lol we also did that.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago
No, most of the foreing aid got stolen by the corrupt Afghan government. see https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-take-kabul-via-path-paved-by-corruption/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/taliban-take-kabul-via-path-... . They didn't even pay their servicemen, that's the reason for the quick surrender. Interesting why very few in the US are asking how they could spend more than a trillion of the taxpayers money without any oversight.
- rscoots 5y ago
  Well the strategy was technically always to bribe the warlords, bribing random citizens is ineffective. But I'm confused why you think we disagree.