Posted on Feb 18, 2016
Are you aware of how much the war on terror has cost since 2001?
4K
21
10
7
7
0
Since 2001, we have been engaged in a "War on terror", this war costs the U.S. taxpayer $8.36 million per hour, this figure includes both Iraq and Afghanistan. When I last checked the amount was $1,670,793,537,424. It's obvious I'm not anti-war. I'm here. I'm wondering how aware everyone is.
Warfare
Budget
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
We must also look at the cost of NOT being prepared or not fighting the war on terror. In just one attack on 9/11 our economy was hit harder than the cost of fighting the next15 years. And if we hadn't fought back we would certainly been hit even worse.
"Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion."
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html
"Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion."
http://www.iags.org/costof911.html
How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?
(4)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Other economists familiar with the costs of 9/11 estimate the losses resulting from the attacks near $80BN. The alarming take away, regardless of the numbers posted here is that the 19 hijackers caused billions of dollars in damage and lives lost on a budget of nearly $500K. I find this asymmetry somewhat interesting, especially given that the lives lost during 9/11 is the equivalent of all of the transnational terrorism lives lost since 1988. Thanks for the post.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT (Join to see), I believe the article considered both the direct and indirect costs of the 9/11 attack.
The point is of course that a series of attacks was thwarted by our war on terrorism, and that this war was far less expensive in both blood and treasure for our society than sustaining a series of additional attacks would have been. This was effectively prevented by our striking back hard and tightening security measures both here and abroad.
It is important to see BOTH sides of the equation to make a rational judgment.
The point is of course that a series of attacks was thwarted by our war on terrorism, and that this war was far less expensive in both blood and treasure for our society than sustaining a series of additional attacks would have been. This was effectively prevented by our striking back hard and tightening security measures both here and abroad.
It is important to see BOTH sides of the equation to make a rational judgment.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - I don't disagree with the GWOT in Afghanistan or Iraq regardless of the evidence that is for or against. It is interesting that you mention the direct and indirect costs. The spin that often accompanies some discussions of the recent wars feeds the argument between the liberty and security camps. This spin is problematic for resolving the issues that the country currently faces. I think that recognition of the direct and indirect costs was one of the first steps in moving forward on the GWOT aside from tightening the security measures at home and abroad is good.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT (Join to see), I agreed strongly with the GWOT in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If I could have rolled the chronometer back four decades I would have volunteered in a heartbeat. It was not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do.
If the current administration hadn't cut and run the situation there would be a great deal more peaceful today - Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
If the current administration hadn't cut and run the situation there would be a great deal more peaceful today - Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
So, I *AM* anti-war. I think everyone should be anti-war. I think we engage in warfare much too high on the list of options for a lot of things. That being said, I'm not a conscientious objector because I think there is a time and place for it. But I don't think that means I have to be pro-war.
Our problem with money and war comes directly from the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex."
"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
Our problem with money and war comes directly from the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex."
"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see) These are interesting statistics. I watched an interview of Michael Morrell in which he called the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the "Great Wars of Our Time." The statistics seem to support Morrell's statement.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google