SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Total Cost of USA's Wars Since 2001 Approaches $5 Trillion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 104 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Today is what happened to yesterday.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday October 29 2016, @06:22PM
Flushing trillions down the toilet in Afghanistan does nothing to secure our access to Chinese rare earths.
International exports are almost entirely speculative since the true production and cost figures are not available. China had helium export caps that were removed following the announcement on renewing US production. Access to Afghanistan's rare earths achieved the same result. Similarly, post-fracking, middle-eastern oil barrels dropped in price in advance of any actual increases in US gas production.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday October 29 2016, @07:50PM
It would have been orders of magnitude cheaper to re-start our own rare earth production capability and then keep it mostly idle. It would have killed a lot less people as well.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday October 30 2016, @12:17AM
When it comes to resources, "cheaper" is a concern for countries without nukes and self sufficient food production. More over, it's a nation-wide concern, something that's largely irrelevant to US politics which is governed by the few for the benefit of the few.
On the subject, there is only the one mine and the EPA had to be silenced by the Obama administration before the mine could have been reopened ( https://gizmodo.com/the-strange-second-life-of-americas-only-rare-earth-min-1702199894 [gizmodo.com] ).
It was a recent policy change that put peace, industry & paying back the national debt over environmental concerns.
It coincides with Flint switching from Lake Huron to the Flint River (April 2014) and a few other water aquifer pollutions \ gas leak affects on climate change reports getting pushed to the end of the term if you're wondering about the timeline.
Recently, we've even seen a new fission plant open in the states after almost half a century of moratorium in practice.
Well, I'll cut this short before digressing any further... But it will take so much intelligence (state department budget sits at $70million) just to start making sense of all the interests here. Overall, when you have so many interests coinciding from all over, a money sink of a war can perpetuate much like a recession can regardless of net cost in life and resources. Think, Hundred Years' War.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday October 30 2016, @01:43AM
I wouldn't say cheap is unimportant. The chickenhawks seem deeply concerned about it when talking about programs that don't blow people up.
Your gizmodo link isn't really good support for your statement since is says nothing about Obama or the EPA at all.
But in any event, that still leaves war in the middle east and surrounding areas unjustifiable.