Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 25 2016, @10:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the aggression-is-expensive dept.

The Intercept reports:

The total U.S. budgetary cost of war since 2001 is $4.79 trillion, according to a report [PDF] [...] from Brown University's Watson Institute. That's the highest estimate yet.

Neta Crawford of Boston University, the author of the report, included interest on borrowing, future veterans needs, and the cost of homeland security in her calculations.

The amount of $4.79 trillion, "so large as to be almost incomprehensible", she writes, adds up like this:

  • The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and other overseas operations already cost $1.7 trillion between 2001 and August 2016 with $103 billion more requested for 2017
  • Homeland Security terrorism prevention costs from 2001 to 2016 were $548 billion.
  • The estimated DOD base budget was $733 billion and veterans spending was $213 billion.
  • Interest incurred on borrowing for wars was $453 billion.
  • Estimated future costs for veterans' medical needs until the year 2053 is $1 trillion.
  • And the amounts the DOD, State Department, and Homeland Security have requested for 2017 ($103 billion).

Crawford carried out a similar study[PDF] in June 2014 that estimated the cost of war at $4.4 trillion.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:29PM

    by aclarke (2049) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:29PM (#418561) Homepage

    There should be an important distinction to a human between "creating pointless jobs" and "creating pointless jobs KILLING PEOPLE". I realize the article is about money spent and that's important to discuss, but fundamental to the discussion of war is the fact that much of war is about killing people. Anyone considering killing people because it's good for the economy has a seriously dysfunctional moral compass.

    Even from a strictly economic perspective, spending $x to destroy infrastructure and society abroad and $y to attempt to rebuild it abroad is likely to be less economically and socially advantageous than spending $(x + y) on domestic infrastructure and social projects.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:06PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:06PM (#418570) Homepage Journal

    I absolutely agree. I'm just arguing with gewg_ because I like making him refine his position. Now please explain this to Mrs. Clinton.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.