3 ms·

U.S. war in Iran has cost $25B so far [1]. Was that worth it? Did it help with anything? Is the Horumuz strait open? This looks like a disaster that is about to

U.S. war in Iran has cost $25B so far [1]. Was that worth it? Did it help with anything? Is the Horumuz strait open? This looks like a disaster that is about to sink the US economically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47949897 [1]

ben_w 6mo ago
For the sake of argument, presume that Iran having nuclear weapons means there is a risk of them being used on the USA. Even in a dull first-order utilitarian sense, if {cost of getting nuked} * P(Iran would otherwise have nuked the USA) > $25B, yes. I've seen estimates that {cost of getting nuked}, even for a moderately powerful nuke (100s of kT, not MT) over Manhattan, the cost of the damage and a proper cleanup of the radioactive contamination is roughly comparable to the US annual GDP*. That makes it worth the cost even if you think there's only a 0.08% chance. But this is a very naïve approximation, which doesn't account for the geopolitical impact of the US being seen as untrustworthy in its treaties; nor that this is the second time a middle east country that did not actually have nukes was attacked by the US on the basis that they might be making some, while North Korea actually made nukes and has not been attacked as a consequence, and lots of countries may be looking at this as precedent and thinking "we need some nukes" and this overall increases the risk to the USA. * Can't find it now, but one of my older comments had a link to it, if you go back far enough.
- bediger4000 6mo ago
  Based on such a utilitarian, economic argument, Trump should not have dumped the Joint Agreement that Obama's people negotiated. But he did, apparently based on racial animus towards Obama. Therefore, we can safely say that this is not Trump's rationale for his Iran war of choice.
  - ben_w 6mo ago
    Indeed. He is also easily manipulable, almost to the extent that it's useless to do so because everyone knows what his buttons are and push them some other way continuously. However, the question was not "was Trump wise?", but "was $25bn etc. worth it?"

ben_w 6mo ago

For the sake of argument, presume that Iran having nuclear weapons means there is a risk of them being used on the USA. Even in a dull first-order utilitarian sense, if {cost of getting nuked} * P(Iran would otherwise have nuked the USA) > $25B, yes. I've seen estimates that {cost of getting nuked}, even for a moderately powerful nuke (100s of kT, not MT) over Manhattan, the cost of the damage and a proper cleanup of the radioactive contamination is roughly comparable to the US annual GDP*. That makes it worth the cost even if you think there's only a 0.08% chance. But this is a very naïve approximation, which doesn't account for the geopolitical impact of the US being seen as untrustworthy in its treaties; nor that this is the second time a middle east country that did not actually have nukes was attacked by the US on the basis that they might be making some, while North Korea actually made nukes and has not been attacked as a consequence, and lots of countries may be looking at this as precedent and thinking "we need some nukes" and this overall increases the risk to the USA. * Can't find it now, but one of my older comments had a link to it, if you go back far enough.

bediger4000 6mo ago
Based on such a utilitarian, economic argument, Trump should not have dumped the Joint Agreement that Obama's people negotiated. But he did, apparently based on racial animus towards Obama. Therefore, we can safely say that this is not Trump's rationale for his Iran war of choice.
- ben_w 6mo ago
  Indeed. He is also easily manipulable, almost to the extent that it's useless to do so because everyone knows what his buttons are and push them some other way continuously. However, the question was not "was Trump wise?", but "was $25bn etc. worth it?"