3 ms·

True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secon

by araes 15y ago

True, and numerous families across the US depend on the active and guard pay of the armed forces. However, by bringing troops home, there are a number of secondary costs that can be reduced, or eliminated. For example, one of the more famous recently has been the discussion of AC in Afghanistan. Per the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w... We are spending 20 billion a year to truck energy supplies across some of the worst terrain in the world so that we can provide AC to thousands of horridly inefficient tents for our soldiers in the field. For comparison, that's more than the entire yearly budget of NASA. And its only one of numerous logistics and support costs we incur in our active warzones.

kens 15y ago
The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)
- araes 15y ago
  Not taken that way. I expect the real number is somewhere between the 20 billion from this article, and the 1.5 billion the Pentagon responded with in their reply. 1.5 billion is probably the line item in the budget that says "tent AC", while different calculations assuming sundry costs can reach higher, and some of it probably is PR inflation. The main point not being the specific final total, but rather that the cost, and other logistical costs like it, would be reduced or possibly eliminated if troops weren't in the field.

by araes 15y ago

kens 15y ago

The 20 billion a year air conditioning cost is marketing nonsense. Specifically, this number comes from someone selling energy-efficient tents to the Pentagon, and it's pretty clear they made up this number. At the very bottom of the article, the Pentagon states it spends $15 billion on energy for all military operations around the world (i.e. everything, not just air conditioning). This might be a good time to read Paul Graham's article on PR: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html (I don't mean this as an attack on araes or the suggestion to reduce military spending.)

araes 15y ago
Not taken that way. I expect the real number is somewhere between the 20 billion from this article, and the 1.5 billion the Pentagon responded with in their reply. 1.5 billion is probably the line item in the budget that says "tent AC", while different calculations assuming sundry costs can reach higher, and some of it probably is PR inflation. The main point not being the specific final total, but rather that the cost, and other logistical costs like it, would be reduced or possibly eliminated if troops weren't in the field.