Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#241

Post by Johnny555 »

hn8788 wrote: post #60
Johnny555 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest asset the US has built up over the past twenty or so years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is a reserve of soldiers with real world military experience. The average term of enlistment in the USA military is 15 years, 11 years for officers. So that experience gets lost quickly unless we keep getting embroiled in new wars.

There's no way the average term of enlistment is 15 years. Very few people choose to re-enlist after their first term, or are even allowed to. In 2016, there were almost 200k Marines, and they were struggling to get 10k people to re-enlist after their first 4 years[1]. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2015...

I just used the snippet returned a Google search, which said:

The average length of enlistment for U.S. military personnel is just under 15 years for all branches. The average service time for officers is a bit less, averaging about 11 years. The U.S. Air Force has an average enlistment time of 14.7 years. Oct 4, 2017

The referenced URL is:

https://classroom.synonym.com/beyonce-curls-8729.html

(yes, that "beyonce-curls" URL is the right one)

Surprisingly, it does include references, but only one of them still exists, which backs up the 11 year number for officers, but not for general enlisted:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter...

The average officer in 2009 had been in the military nearly 11 years, slightly more than a year longer than the average in 1973.

The pattern among enlisted personnel is more complicated. The average length of service for enlisted personnel rose from 5.8 years in 1973 to a peak of 7.5 in 1994 and 1996, but then began drifting downward and now stands at 6.7 years.

Re: Economic costs of war

#242

Post by baybal2 »

api wrote: post #198
NonContro wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of cutting costs, the way we exited Afghanistan is the best way to do it. Pull out overnight, abandon all the equipment, and the rapid takeover by the Taliban means we don't need to keep running bombing missions to support a slowly retreating national army. In that regard I'd see the current situation as a success, not a failure. It also seems like the Taliban have chilled out a bit, since we're not seeing w…

If the Taliban are smart they won’t do reprisals but instead will offer amnesty in exchange for service. The dumbest thing we did in Iraq was to do the functional equivalent of the Taliban doing reprisals by disbanding the military, government, and Ba’ath party. It created a mass unemployment problem and swelled the ranks of the opposition with listless now unemployed people.

Disbanding Baath was far from a dumb thing, the dumb thing was disbanding them, and then just letting them go

Re: Economic costs of war

#243

Post by mc32 »

el_jay wrote: post #118

To those here riffing on the theme of “this misrepresents the volume and beneficiaries of the transactions involved” - you’re not wrong. Accurate representation of public info like this is a top organisational problem for our species at the moment. But I do think you miss the point, so aptly put by Mr Eisenhower: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a thef…

Ever since we reneged on the decision Kennedy made to pull out of VietNam by Johnson, we've thought continually we were dealing with another defeated Japan or defeated Germany --the enemy population would just comply to our wishes, so we kept on thinking we could "turn them into replicas of American government"

This thinking has undermined our actions in every major war since then, with the exception of GWI. Gulf War One, we went in, did the job and got out. I'm not sure we should have gone in in the first place, but at least we didn't try to artificially change the government there.

It's disheartening to see the admins of Bush and Obama arrogantly and foolishly pursuing a transformational goal. It does not work.

A nation has to work out its own problems for itself. They have to experience an organic, sometimes violent, process of progression toward democracy for themselves.

Let's go back to congress needing to authorize wars and give them sole war-powers with the exception of immediate threats.

Re: Economic costs of war

#244

Post by anyfoo »

sgregnt wrote: post #233
WaxProlix wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may or may not be true right now. Was it true 10 years ago? 20? 30? There exists a point at which it was not true, and we're talking about taking that investment over a 20+ year historical period, not as a lump sum right now. Lots of fossil fuel aligned people have pivoted from "everything is fine" to "there's nothing we can do now", and echoing the latter might be factually correct, but in the context it smacks…

There might be an escape velocity to this: as technology evolves it is easier to clean pollution, and perhaps the innovation moves faster than the added pollution. So maybe the best time to start cleaning is 30 years into the future?

That's like saying the best time to start saving for retirement is 30 years into the future, because by then investment returns may be higher.

Re: Economic costs of war

#245

Post by secondaryacct »

tyre wrote: post #212
throwawaysea wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is likely to gain trillions from their belt and road initiative expanding into Afghanistan and from getting involved with the mining of the $3T in mineral resources identified previously in Afghanistan. China has already recognized the new Taliban government and the Taliban previously welcomed a new relationship with China that would protect Chinese interests, as they put it. China literally met with the incomi…

Yes. They have also invested heavily in their relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan protected Bin Ladin and are deeply involved in Afghanistan. China can lean on Pakistan to compliment its direct relationship with the Taliban. Not to mention that the Chinese are significantly more motivated to make Afghanistan work. As a sign of their influence, the Taliban has said that whatever happens in China’s borders is their bu…

Also they dont humiliate you day and night calling your culture backward, a bonus when you want people to work with you.

Re: Economic costs of war

#246

Post by m_ke »

hestefisk wrote: post #207

“Medicare for all”, the single payer universal healthcare system in the US, was projected to cost between $16-34T [1] over a decade. I know there are some big questions around the actual cost of US aggression / state terrorism since 9/11 (ie 6.4T vs 2T as per other entries in this thread). A rough 80/20 analysis suggests: * We could have funded free healthcare to roughly one quarter of the US population for 10 years…

Considering that we spend 4 trillion a year on healthcare now, medicare for all would save us a few trillion and cover everyone.

Re: Economic costs of war

#247

Post by throwthere »

OJFord wrote: post #43
throwthere wrote: post #18

This title is completely wrong. The article estimates the US has accumulated around $2 trillion in war debt as of 2020. It goes on to estimate interest payments will equal $2 trillion by 2030 and $6.4 trillion by 2050.

If you buy a house with a mortgage, I think it's reasonable to say you 'spent' the booked value.

By that measure, the US federal government has 'spent' $8.4T and the title is still wrong.

Re: Economic costs of war

#248

Post by abc_lisper »

bllguo wrote: post #236
hamburgerwah wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no doubt that a lot has been misspent, trillions almost certainly but let's not be naive and say that it could have magically been spent on "better more sensible things" by the same people who misspent it in the first place (congress) and second let's all appreciate that perhaps 1 or 2 trillion a year, perhaps more, is the cost of western civilization not being immediately stomped out by very bad people like…

absolutely maddening. The US has a network of military bases and armies spread across the world, interjects itself into the affairs of countries worldwide, is by far the greatest warmonger since WW2, are literally on the heels of a colossal failure in Afghanistan that has set the region back decades, yet it's _China_ who are the violent Nazis.

CCP is different from China. If you think CCP has some moral high ground you are deluded. They basically do what the hell they want, as demonstrated many times

Re: Economic costs of war

#249

Post by SubiculumCode »

lmilcin wrote: post #204
SubiculumCode wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one "lent" us money. It's a fiat currency with a self-imposed limit on new money creation.

> No one "lent" us money. Obviously you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. BOND. Issued by US government. Is a promise that US will pay back the price of the bond at some predetermined future date and in the meantime it will also be paying interest in regular installments. Others (including other countries) buy US bonds, which finances US spending. You know, whenever there is this big debate about wh…

But as a fuller reply to your overly condescending post is that a)yes the BOND procedure is borrowing, but b)the majority of new money is created through the fractional reserve system, which requires banks to hold 10% in reserve when creating loans. When banks give out new loans they are in fact creating almost 10 times as much new money, well exceeding the whole bond mechanism.

Now I admit that this is not my field, but it certainly seems that if the majority of new money that is created is through the fractional reserve system, i.e. by fiat, then the majority of the money that is spent buying new BONDS is from fiat-produced money.

Re: Economic costs of war

#250

Post by kondor6c »

cyber_kinetist wrote: post #76
koolba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People that spend a year as soldiers in Afghanistan can't spend that year doing something else. The greatest asset the US has built up over the past twenty or so years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is a reserve of soldiers with real world military experience. I’m not saying it justifies the cost. Far from it. But it’s not a complete wash from a mid term strategic analysis.

Given how the army was incompetent in really doing anything from looking at released documents ( https://twitter.com/richardhanania/status/120416649507430400... ), I think the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan would have actually deteriorated the quality and morale of the army.

Some of those examples are not very stellar examples, I understand that they are just samples but trying to share some of my experiences to help illustrate a better picture. If listening to locals about placing a well or a playground or a zoo, I think you'll quickly get people saying yeah closer to us and not them. You are allocated finite resources to help improve living conditions, sometimes there are compromises. Just noting that transporting fuel by helicopter should not be the gauge regarding incompetence. Many of the bases are very remote, there are different fuel types and/or routes could have been closed and the requirement to get fuel to a location or other emergencies might be a driving factor. But it does sound like something that is pretty inefficient and dangerous.

From my experience and social contacts, I don't think "incompetence" at doing anything is accurate or would I describe it as affecting morale. There are inefficiencies and incompetency with leadership or supply chains, some of this waste is part of running such a large organization like the military. One that sticks in my mind is having 60 people assigned to shake debris out of parachutes when there are only 25 hooks to hang the parachutes on, requiring US mail to be transported by US citizens, and I'm nit picking here: US Air Force intra-Base Security Police enforcing a 15 MPH speed limit...

There have been many lessons that have been learned, from these conflicts and I think a large contributing factor to the cost is rapid procurement of enhanced equipment such as individual and vehicular armor improvements; equipment that had been identified in review's as being a deficiency.

I think a positive attribute around the military is what is being viewed and cited, is lessons and critique. The Army does have strong systems in place for reviewing actions. I think it's something that I try to take a utilize in the civilian sector. I think there is waste, and certainly there could be modifications to improve efficiency, but I also think for a very large organization it does fairly well, and modernized fairly well to the challenges that were presented. However if I were joking around with some friends, I would totally would be tossing around incompetence left and right (haha)!

Post reply on HN