Live data from Hacker News

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

341–350 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#341

A point no one seems to be making is that the $6.4T - a good amount of it just did not vanish... it just found its way into the employees of the state , the war industrial complex seen in the posh houses around the beltway and beyond... it just did not reach all the Americans... those that made bank will no doubt be incentivized to keep up the charade.. the scary part to me is what they are going to cook up next to k…

I’ve never heard of “posh houses in the beltway” that are owned by people involved in defense, yet you and another poster both brought this up. Is this actually a thing?

Re: Economic costs of war

#342

“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…

We did fund healthcare to about 10% of the country during the midst of the war on terror.

Re: Economic costs of war

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" You though, but you did not did. In both prior cases US ran moderately competent occupation government, and by some accounts one better than their own. The model US followed in Vietnam was no…

Those countries knew they would be treated as equals on the economic world forum, not puppet states for resource extraction. The only remarkable thing is that we treated Japan so well, considering how its fellow far east countries were treated as client states or worse for so long. I think it was latent guilt of using the nuke on them.

Japan had an industrial base... well, it had to in order to engage in a long fought war of attrition in all of the Pacific controlling and subjugating very large portions of the population and land area.

So they had an industrial base. No so much for (S) Korea and VietNam. They were very agrarian (like Japan before they built up their war machine). So their problem was peasant farmers with no land + a growing population on the brink of starvation.

US advisors made recommendations to alleviate this problem by doing land redistribution for tenant farmers. South VietNam would have none of that. Korea did appease the peasants albeit reluctantly so they avoided the worst.

Re: Economic costs of war

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$6.4T into renewables and storage over the past 20 years would have decarbonized the US grid several time over, accelerated the tech curve drastically, nearly completely transitioned us to EVs, and we'd probably have decarbonized a good chunk of industry that is hard to decarbonize now. We'd have cheaper energy than we do today, and cheaper energy forever. We could have been looking at current levels of climate chang…

What evidence do you have that Afghanistan was due to oil, and not due to the most direct motivations, like Taliban sheltering Al Qaeda (as they still do)? This seems like a conspiracy theory.

The purpose of invading Afghanistan was to enact revenge for the September 11th attacks. The reasons for the attacks that directly relate to the US are:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11...

* US support for Israel (specifically Lebanon) -- support that the US gives as a strategic ally in the oil-rich Middle East. Without oil in the region, we would not be expending as much effort on this support.

* US troops in Saudi Arabia -- troops are there because of the oil

* Sanctions against Iraq -- placed there again because of oil and the annexation of Kuwait over oil.

Re: Economic costs of war

#346
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…

Eisenhower didn't understand how the Fed worked.

Re: Economic costs of war

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why bring in hundreds of thousands of workers when China can pay the Taliban to force the Afgans to do it and just send some engineers and managers

Wow jeez when you put it that simply of course they’ll just pay local warlords who totally won’t steal money for fake employees, and they’ll totally have these Afghan people who are hard working and really eager for that 9-5 lifestyle to get out of their own village to “mine” for Chinese engineers and managers. I hate to be flippant here but this really shows a continued western misunderstanding of how people in plac…

The copper lode at Mes Aynak monastery complex was probably worked by a bunch of serfs for the benefit of the monks. Plus ça change...

Re: Economic costs of war

#348
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not well read on Chinese history are you?

Re: Economic costs of war

#349
Having spent a decade involved with the military, both big (as a Navy fighter pilot) and small (a tour in Baghdad assisting special forces), I’m disgusted by the waste, destructiveness, and ineffectiveness of these wars. Some of the events that stick in my memory:

In 2007, Marine prowler pilots ran it up the chain of command that they were having “zero” effects stopping IEDs in Iraq. They were told to shut up and keep flying the missions even though ground forces would turn off their “effective” vehicle jammers thinking the planes provided support.

My friend, flying an F-18, found insurgents shooting rockets at a base, and instead of using a laser or gps guided bomb to take out the threat, he was told to spot for artillery, which preceded to miss the target on multiple shots until the enemy drove away.

One of the more effective planes that JSOC leveraged was the super tucano, that could fly at $600 per flight hour versus $10k for an F-18, and also do a better job. Big Navy and Air Force joined together to shut down the program trying to expand its usage.

The massive number of contractors in Baghdad, driving around brand new F-350s. Getting paid ungodly sums of money next to their poorly paid military counterparts. Ex-pilots getting paid $20k+ a month for a job I’d happily have done instead of my near meaningless ground-tour job. The SF guys complaining about their “support” contractors getting paid $1k a day and taking none of the risks.

Patraeus having a peace deal with Sadr that said US troops wouldn’t enter Sadr City, but of course, all the attacks started being launched from there. So he wanted SF to go in with their Iraq counterparts, not on official orders, but just from a phone call, and not to file a secret after-action report, all so he could claim plausible deniability. An awesome SF captain said “fuck that” and his leadership agreed, telling the general he could provide the order over a phone call but they wouldn’t stop filing after-action reports.

I remember Tailhook and all the admirals, McCain, and CEOs of leading contractors all schmoozing it up. Proceeding to build planes and weapons the operators didn’t want: one plane to do everything (JSF), a crapy Navy ATFLIR (when the Sniper was better). Topgun instructors were ordered not to talk about deploying Sniper pods on F-18s. I’m sure some of the admirals are probably on the board of directors now.

The level of grift in senior leadership is just amazing. What an embarrassing moment for the talking heads and leaders of our national security apparatus. Afghanistan should never have been more than SF and airpower. And the Iraq war never should have been. We can’t build nations with the military. But once a war starts, everyone wants to play because it’s the money spigot. Not too different from large civilian orgs.

But really this is all our fault. I remember sitting in a palace on a hill in Baghdad, in an SF operations center, watching a wall-full of flatscreen displays, with predator feeds of young SF soldiers risking their lives, next to talking heads screaming about the developing financial crisis. Seeing the massive outcry and response to the stock market crashing, I realized the wars were just a tv show and didn’t really matter. No one cared, especially compared to their pocketbook. And once I got out in 2011, I didn’t pay much attention myself either. But I do vote now for politicians who talk about reducing the US military presence abroad and view with disgust fake hawks who’ve never served but are happy to send others to war for American prestige. And good on Biden for finally pulling the plug even if the execution bordered on incompetence. There probably really wasn’t another option. Listen to the generals who’d say “stay, we can’t give up”…. the endless graft. A sad time for many of the Afghan people. /rant.

Re: Economic costs of war

#350
post #236

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.

Countries bully other countries when they can. Large powerful countries become large powerful bullies. Those in the service, who tend to be working class or poor, and those in other countries pay the ultimate price. The powerful grow more powerful. The empire grows. Modern imperialism.

The public is often easily manipulated. Like you said, the U.S. has been at war pretty much constantly for 75+ years, and empire building for at least 50 years before that, without ever really being in danger, exaggerating and dehumanizing every enemy along the way. To question this is un-American.

Many people don't seem to be able to imagine other perspectives. I guess that's true of both the school yard bully and the nation state bully. When you can bully someone there's no reason to care what they think.

Post reply on HN