4 ms·

The accounting for the current conflict is far from straight forward. The money was largely already allocated to military things, and there's fixed constants of

• spacemark 7mo ago
  So what do you think the cost of the war is, then? $50bn? Seems like splitting hairs or missing the point. Even $50bn is too much for a war that congress nor the American people approved.
  • Alupis 7mo ago
    When's the last time Congress approved of a war? How about the American people? Maybe that first six months of Afghanistan? Maybe... The President doesn't need approval for military action, and hasn't for decades. In a not so subtle way, we elect Presidents to make decisive decisions, such as when to engage in a conflict. And to address your question, the cost is probably neutral so far. We'll need to replace many of the munitions, but we do that anyway. The loss of life is probably the most costly aspect of this conflict thus far.
    • spacemark 7mo ago
      The cost of the war is zero? You're off your rocker. The constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war and authorize military force. The fact that our country's politicians have manipulated our system to the point that this has been disregarded basically since WWII should never be normalized. This country has been run by the rich for a very long time and democracy is on its way out.
• croes 7mo ago
  Them why has Hegseth ask for another $200 billions? https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/hegseth-iran-war-budget.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/19/hegseth-iran-war-budget.html
  • Alupis 7mo ago
    > House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., responding to a CNBC question Thursday, said he has “not heard anything official from anybody” on the $200 billion number. But he said the figure could also include things that would otherwise be sought in the fiscal 2027 spending bill. > Hassett, speaking on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” said at that time that he did not think the U.S. needed to ask Congress for more money for the war effort “right now.” > The massive figure would increase production of the critical munitions that the U.S. and Israel have used to strike thousands of targets since the conflict began, three other people familiar with the matter told the Post. > U.S. military operations against Iran, which began Feb. 28, have already cost $12 billion as of Sunday, according to Kevin Hassett, director of the White House’s National Economic Council. And a reminder, the $12B figure includes all of the normal things that would be spent regardless if we are in a conflict or not.
    • robhlt 7mo ago
      What leads you to believe $12B includes normal things that would be spent regardless? The source of that quote makes no such claim. They have every incentive to quote as low a price as they can reasonably defend, and it would be very easy to defend a quote that only includes new and additional expenses that are directly attributed to the war.
      • Alupis 7mo ago
        The $12B figure[1] is almost exclusively munitions used so far. The US didn't buy munitions and use them, they already had them. The cost reports (updated as the conflict goes on) will also include payroll, fuel, food, supplies, etc. Everything needed to conduct the war - but much of that is already spent even if not at war. [1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-hassett-national-economic-council-face-the-nation-transcript-03-15-2026/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-hassett-national-economic...
  • antod 7mo ago
    Have you seen the price of crab legs lately?
• mrguyorama 7mo ago
  Every missile fired has to be replaced.