3 ms·

Seriously? The Korean war cost something like 20-30 billion/year in today's dollars [1]. That's just the military expenditure, not counting lost income from al

by T-A 3y ago

Seriously? The Korean war cost something like 20-30 billion/year in today's dollars [1]. That's just the military expenditure, not counting lost income from alternative uses of manpower and material, veteran care etc. The bill for the Vietnam war was $120 billion. [2] Iraq: $1.1 trillion. [3] Afghanistan: $2.3 trillion. [4] Can you even think of something hypothetically worth stealing from any of those places which could even just come close to covering the costs? The only remotely plausible candidate I can come up with is Iraqi oil. At the time it was indeed a common refrain from the usual suspects that the US was only there to grab the oil. But that's not what happened. Iraq's 2005 constitution made it clear that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqis, who have since adopted a fee system under which oil companies get a few bucks per barrel (something between $1.6 and $6), and the rest goes to Iraq. [5] For reference, a barrel currently trades at around $75. Iraq made more than $115 billion on that arrangement during 2022. [6] Even if you generously assumed that oil companies got 10% of that, and that it was all profit, and that they are all American (not even remotely true [7]) it would take a century just to recoup the cost of the Iraqi war. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344315/us-military-expenditure-korean-war/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1344315/us-military-expe... [2] https://theveteransmuseum.org/visit/exhibits/vietnam/ https://theveteransmuseum.org/visit/exhibits/vietnam/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War [4] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-b... [5] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=45a8132e-8291-48eb-af2f-97bb531b17e9 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=45a8132e-8291... [6] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230103-iraq-oil-revenues-top-115-billion-in-2022 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230103-iraq-oil-reve... [7] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/mesopotamian-exodus-why-western-energy-firms-are-leaving-oil-rich-iraq/33179 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/oil/mesopotamian-exodus-why-...

amrocha 3y ago
Those wars didn't "cost" trillions of dollars. That's trillions of dollars of subsidies for war contractors, of jobs for troops, etc. The war itself achieves the states political goals, the spending props up the economy. It pays for itself, it wouldn't matter if it "pays off" or not.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Those wars didn't "cost" trillions of dollars. Yes, they did. > The war itself achieves the states political goals, the spending props up the economy. It props up the economy less then alternative spending of the same ampunt with a higher domestic velocity. > It pays for itself It may be a net benefit considering the value of the war aims against the opportunity cost, but that doesn’t change that it has a cost, it just means that (in the right value system) the cost is justified.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    No they didn't. Governments don't spend, they invest. That may seem like splitting hairs but it's not. It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent, but that millions of people and resources are poured into it instead of something that improves society. Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Governments don't spend, Yes, they do. > they invest. Even if all government spending was investment, investment is just spending in the expectation of future return. > It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. It is literally exactly like that. > The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent True, that's not the real tragedy of war. But that's because spending money isn’t tragedy (though the opportunity cost of the choice of how to spend it can be), not because government spending is not-spending, so the trillions spent on war are not-spent. > Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true. I thought the context was clear that I was referring to utilitarian justification, whether it is good is a differebt story, sure.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        You should educate yourself on macro economics

by T-A 3y ago

amrocha 3y ago

Those wars didn't "cost" trillions of dollars. That's trillions of dollars of subsidies for war contractors, of jobs for troops, etc. The war itself achieves the states political goals, the spending props up the economy. It pays for itself, it wouldn't matter if it "pays off" or not.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Those wars didn't "cost" trillions of dollars. Yes, they did. > The war itself achieves the states political goals, the spending props up the economy. It props up the economy less then alternative spending of the same ampunt with a higher domestic velocity. > It pays for itself It may be a net benefit considering the value of the war aims against the opportunity cost, but that doesn’t change that it has a cost, it just means that (in the right value system) the cost is justified.
- amrocha 3y ago
  No they didn't. Governments don't spend, they invest. That may seem like splitting hairs but it's not. It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent, but that millions of people and resources are poured into it instead of something that improves society. Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Governments don't spend, Yes, they do. > they invest. Even if all government spending was investment, investment is just spending in the expectation of future return. > It's not like there were trillions of dollars sitting around waiting to be spent. It is literally exactly like that. > The real tragedy of war is not that trillions were spent True, that's not the real tragedy of war. But that's because spending money isn’t tragedy (though the opportunity cost of the choice of how to spend it can be), not because government spending is not-spending, so the trillions spent on war are not-spent. > Your argument of efficiency is inherently flawed. It implies that war is good as long as it's cost effective, which isn't true. I thought the context was clear that I was referring to utilitarian justification, whether it is good is a differebt story, sure.
    - amrocha 3y ago
      You should educate yourself on macro economics