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

521–530 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#521

Post by giardini »

standardUser wrote: post #259
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 were to attack US forces or otherwise enrage the West right now, they would likely be bombed. If they wait a week, they can do literally whatever they want with no reprisals. They haven't "chilled out", they've just won.

"...they've just won." (that is, the Taliban have won)

Consider:

- the Taliban that G.W. Bush knew are gone. Most of them have died,

- OBL and most of his partners are dead,

- almost anyone who helped OBL and is still alive remains a target and lives in fear for their life,

IOW who "won" might be considered to depend on what we mean by the word "Taliban". The Taliban today is not the Taliban of yesteryear. If there is someone who was Taliban during G.W.'s term and is still Taliban today, ask him whether this feels like victory. He might say yes, but then ask him about his old fighting buddies who weren't as lucky as he.

The term "winner" can also mean someone who is still standing when the game ends. In this sense today's "Taliban" has won.

I think we made our point and overstayed our welcome. And now we're going home. We're late but we are leaving Afghanistan.

Re: Economic costs of war

#522

Post by jessaustin »

throwawaysea wrote: post #432
epistasis wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 su…

Come on - it was not to enact "revenge". That is hyperbolic editorialization. It was because the Taliban had consistently been harboring Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, had close ties with Al Qaeda (who attacked the US), and they would have granted those same terrorists safe harbor again if left alone. The Taliban continues to maintain close ties with Al Qaeda today ( https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-secu…

Bush the Lesser specifically emphasized revenge in his famous petulant rant from "ground zero". Did you somehow miss this great modern American oration to which we are subjected on every 9/11 anniversary?

Re: Economic costs of war

#523

Post by vagrantJin »

titzer wrote: post #444
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…

It's hard for us to admit it. My own journey, after spending 7+ years living abroad, and recently completing a (most epic yet) cross-country roadtrip, it is clear that America is in decline due to generations of mal-investment. We've squandered blood and treasure in quixotic and wrong-headed misadventures and dumped gargantuan amounts of money into nothing but destruction. We've been led by bravado and glory, by crav…

I dont think the US can help war mongering. Its the basis on which it was formed and came to be a superpower through war. It figures. Almost every US diplomatic relationship is tied to their military in some shape or form. Which is absurd.

But yes. The US has been in decline for a while, possibly propped up by tech and financial markets but there too is a paper fire. The rest of the world has the skills to run their own financial markets and tech but without the excess central bank printed money that passes as capital in that part of the world.

The solution really is simple though. Stop spending so much money on the military, get your house in order, and make some real friends. Sortie when a real war is threatening peace. Might take a while to do but its simple and easy.

Re: Economic costs of war

#524

Post by xyzzyz »

mc32 wrote: post #484
rayiner wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption. It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet do…

> USSR, Ukraine

Many former USSR countries are doing quite well with their new democracies. Consider, for example, that Ukraine had basically as much democratic tradition as Poland had (big parts of it literally being parts of Commonwealth of Poland for centuries), and yet Poland’s democracy has been doing much better.

I agree that culture and traditions matter, but with your examples, you are overstating your case.

Re: Economic costs of war

#525

Post by yunohn »

m4rtink wrote: post #127
yunohn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no shortage of metal, only the price of metal Metal is a non-renewable resource. Cost of extraction does not match market price, more so when unnecessary demand is created for wars. What kind of spin is this?

I don't think you can call material sources renewable, well unless we talk wood, leather or whale fat I guess. But in general metals can be recycled quite well and often are recycled due to their price. Also even if you finely shredded it and mixed it with other stuff the resulting mix would still most likely have higher grade than regular ore & mining it would thus be economicaly viable.

I’m not sure why you imagine that wartime wreckage and artillery is often recycled?

Re: Economic costs of war

#526

Post by soheil »

It’s so odd that people treat this as if that money has evaporated. It was spent by the US in the US. I don’t know any billionaire defense contractors but I could be wrong. That means the money was spent on workers and equipment. The former creates jobs the later pushes our envelope of technological know-how forward, think DARPA => internet. Lastly the dollar is the world reserve currency. We’re not really paying for every dollar we spend, there is a lot of leverage we have in deciding what countries get to pay what portion of each dollar we borrow. To fight this, is the main reason euro was created and why the European Union came to be. Last I checked Eurozone is not doing so well economically.

Re: Economic costs of war

#527

Post by surfingdino »

rayiner wrote: post #472
heresie-dabord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nation has to work out its own problems for itself. This point being raised, it is time for the US to spend money on education to support its own democracy.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

No, education is not the problem. Universities are supposed to be places where different ideas are meant to be discussed openly without fear of persecution. It is easy to criticise ideas that failed after the fact, but that is not the reason to criticise universities or education. We are talking here using a system based of decades of trying different ideas none of which were developed with a guy with grenade launcher or a religious man in a religious school. Education is not a problem. People who don't value it and don't learn from the past are.

Re: Economic costs of war

#528

Post by raxxorrax »

mc32 wrote: post #484
rayiner wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption. It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet do…

You don't have to neglect that no country is invaded to spread democracy. And people learn from that. Not from what you say, they learn from what you do and that is defending your interests. The spite will be larger than the love for freedom and democracy, hell, the US doesn't currently make the impression that they like freedom very much.

That is not a clear cut in Afghanistan. Perhaps the US just invaded because the Russian tried and it was believed that its hub location could enact control on neighboring countries. Terrorism netted the needed excuse, but it continued after Bin Laden was out of the picture.

Re: Economic costs of war

#529

Post by watwut »

mc32 wrote: post #484
rayiner wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption. It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet do…

Germany had no democratic tradition either, it was corrupt too. And, as someone else said, many former USSR countries are doing quite well with their new democracies.

The factors are way more complicated then just that.

Re: Economic costs of war

#530

Post by watwut »

NonContro wrote: post #170
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…

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…

It drives the point home that USA will use you and then abandon you.

> It also seems like the Taliban have chilled out a bit, since we're not seeing widescale reprisals.

Yeah, all those people are totally safe now. /s

Post reply on HN