Best reason not to go to War: It costs too much.

[Tmy]

Turkey is already shaking us down, how much will this thing cost? Is it worth the costs? I dont know about your state but here in Mass. the govenor cries poverty every day. You'd think it was the great depression.

Can we afford this war?

[Drooper]

The Economist published a list of estimates for the cost of various Wars.

I have added the implied annual costs

Revolutionary War 63% of GDP (7% per annum)
War of 1812 13% of GDP (3% per annum)
Mexican War 3% of GDP (1% per annum)
Civil War 104% of GDP (21% per annum)
Spanish-American War 3% of GDP (3% per annum)
WW1 24% of GDP (12% per annum)
WW2 130% of GDP (26% per annum)
Korean War 15% of GDP (4% per annum)
Vietnam War 12% of GDP (1% per annum)
Gulf War 1% of GDP (1% per annum)

The original sources are:
William D. Nordhaus, Yale University;
Ali Nofi, Statistical Summary: America's Major Wars;
www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)

Edited to add:

The thing that caught my eye in the linked web site, is that there was a higher incidence of enlistment in the US during WW2 than during the Civil War (for both sides, but not compared to Confed only).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Can we afford [to fight] this war?

Can we afford not to??

[scotth]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Can we afford not to??

My thoughts exactly.

How would the costs of this potential war stack up against any of the following scenarios?

1) Any moderately successful bio attack.
2) Any moderately successful radiological attack.

[Tmy]

What are the odds that we will be attacked by Iraq or one of its weapons??? I would think that would be fairly small. At least smaller than a number of other countries.

Why not attack France? Theyhave all sorts of weapons, including nukes. We are not getting along, they could turn into our enemy.!!!!

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by scotth
How would the costs of this potential war stack up against any of the following scenarios?

1) Any moderately successful bio attack.
2) Any moderately successful radiological attack.
It wouldn't even have to be that successful... just the threat would send people into their basements with their handy rolls of duct tape.

Another thing to consider... Didn't the price of oil fall right after the last gulf war started? If Iraq is turned into a democracy and sanctions are lifted, the increase in oil supply will also help the economy of the western world.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why not attack France? Theyhave all sorts of weapons, including nukes. We are not getting along, they could turn into our enemy.!!!!

Doubtful. France is historically a non-agressive nation despite a few blips. The people are more interested in further turning their goverment into a labor union than they are in conquest.

I doubt any welfare state could go to war since welfare states seem to draw the ambition and drive out of their peoples (low productivity and high voluntary unemployment).

[scotth]

The total odd would be the sum of the odds that Iraq would attempt to use them against us directly in the future PLUS the odds that Iraq might slip some little piece of nastiness to another willing party.

I would put the odds uncomfortably high if nothing is done to prevent it. For something as serious as this, my idea of uncomforably high probably begins at about 1%.

Yes, France does have access to these types of materials. On the other hand, France has done absolutely nothing that would cause me to believe that they would use them in the near future.

And while we (the US) and France are not exactly buddy-buddy at the moment, we are FAR from ready to go to war with them. Also, if we did get to the point of going to war with France, I still trust them to keep it conventional.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
What are the odds that we will be attacked by Iraq or one of its weapons??? I would think that would be fairly small. At least smaller than a number of other countries.
I doubt that Iraq itself would attack directly. But, they could easily supply money or financing to terrorists (with enough "deniability" that peacenicks will always say "there's no link between Iraq and terrorism".)

Iraq has been very open about supporting terrorism against Israel. There are also a few other 'rumours' I've heard:
- They have allowed some al Quaeda operatives to set up shop in Iraq. I'm not talking about them being behind 9/11; this would be more recent (mostly since the Taliban fell.)
- Remember the Anthrax problem they had? I remember reading an article about how they suspect the Anthrax may have come from Iraq. If Iraq does have anything like Anthrax, its very easy to cause mass-paranoia in the U.S.
Originally posted by Tmy
Why not attack France?
Because they would surrender too easily. After all, we're so eager for war, but we want it to be at least a little challenging.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tmy
What are the odds that we will be attacked by Iraq or one of its weapons??? I would think that would be fairly small. At least smaller than a number of other countries.

What kind of odds do you find acceptable? I kind of like 'zero' myself..

Why not attack France? Theyhave all sorts of weapons, including nukes. We are not getting along, they could turn into our enemy.!!!!
I'm sure if they invade Spain or start gassing their own citizens, we would certainly consider it.
Meanwhile, their refusal to import substantial quantities of 'Right Guard', will have to go unpunished.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Iraq has been very open about supporting terrorism against Israel. There are also a few other 'rumours' I've heard:
- They have allowed some al Quaeda operatives to set up shop in Iraq. I'm not talking about them being behind 9/11; this would be more recent (mostly since the Taliban fell.)
- Remember the Anthrax problem they had? I remember reading an article about how they suspect the Anthrax may have come from Iraq. If Iraq does have anything like Anthrax, its very easy to cause mass-paranoia in the U.S.



I thought the anthrax was beleived to be of domestic origin?

Anyhoo.....

Sure they support terror vs Israel. ISRAEL, not the US. Not that thats a good thing but hey, we're worried about our terror not everyone elses.


Saddams not a dope, he wants to remain in power. If he ever was linked to somr sort of attack on the US he'd be nuclear toast. Even during the Gulf War he didnt dare use those weapons. Now 10 years later he's more likely to do so?? Now while the UN and the world is watching him like a hawk. Plus our security is so much tigher the chances of sneaking in such weapons have really decreased.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Tmy


I thought the anthrax was beleived to be of domestic origin?

Anyhoo.....

Sure they support terror vs Israel. ISRAEL, not the US. Not that thats a good thing but hey, we're worried about our terror not everyone elses.


Saddams not a dope, he wants to remain in power. If he ever was linked to somr sort of attack on the US he'd be nuclear toast. Even during the Gulf War he didnt dare use those weapons. Now 10 years later he's more likely to do so?? Now while the UN and the world is watching him like a hawk. Plus our security is so much tigher the chances of sneaking in such weapons have really decreased.

I have to disagree here. I do believe that if Sadaam thought he could get away with passing off something nasty to a willing agent without getting caught, he would do so.

Also, it would be trivial to smuggle in bio weapons.

Obviously our security isn't good enough to stop the flow of drugs at the border. It isn't even good enough to stop 25% of the drugs at the boarder.

There should be no debate about the difficulty of getting the material here.

I will admit, guess what Sadaam might do is wide open for arguement and debate.

I think he would do it, given the chance. You might think he wouldn't.

I must ask: How confident are you that you are correct? How many lives are you willing to bet on it?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by scotth




Obviously our security isn't good enough to stop the flow of drugs at the border. It isn't even good enough to stop 25% of the drugs at the boarder.

There should be no debate about the difficulty of getting the material here.

I will admit, guess what Sadaam might do is wide open for arguement and debate.

I think he would do it, given the chance. You might think he wouldn't.

I must ask: How confident are you that you are correct? How many lives are you willing to bet on it?

How many lives are you willing to bet on to get Saddam out of power?? Is the world goingto be declared safe once Saddam is gone.

Im fairly confindent in our security. THe drug thing is apples an oranges, theres a whole lot of people (citizens) looking to get those drugs in. Not so with bio-weapons.

Yeah there was 911. But that was done with box cutters! BOX CUTTERS!! It amazes me that a little more care at the metal detector couldve stopped the whole thing.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Tmy


How many lives are you willing to bet on to get Saddam out of power?? Is the world goingto be declared safe once Saddam is gone.

Im fairly confindent in our security. THe drug thing is apples an oranges, theres a whole lot of people (citizens) looking to get those drugs in. Not so with bio-weapons.

Yeah there was 911. But that was done with box cutters! BOX CUTTERS!! It amazes me that a little more care at the metal detector couldve stopped the whole thing.

You're right, it is apples and oranges. Bio-weapons would be much easier to get through than a large shipment of drugs.

I will forcefully argue that your sense of security is misplaced. If bio material was given to terrorists, it is highly probable that at least some would get through our borders.

Where I will give you full credit for being doubtful is on the risk of it getting into the wrong hands. The likelihood of that happening appears to be very much up in the air to me.

I agree that another 9/11 airliner attack is pretty unlikely today. But, we have thousands of miles of border. Enough bio agent to cause severe public panic could be carried in a container no bigger than a coke can.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
I thought the anthrax was beleived to be of domestic origin?

There were a lot of theories floating around about its origin. One story is that it was similar to some stocks developed in the U.S. military's own program.

There was an article a few weeks ago (I think it was in the on-line Jereuselum Post) where they had shown evidence that it had come from Iraq. Of course, that doesn't mean that it wasn't sold to Iraq from the U.S. initially. (Anyone have a link to the original article?)
Originally posted by Tmy
Saddams not a dope, he wants to remain in power. If he ever was linked to somr sort of attack on the US he'd be nuclear toast. Even during the Gulf War he didnt dare use those weapons. Now 10 years later he's more likely to do so?? Now while the UN and the world is watching him like a hawk. Plus our security is so much tigher the chances of sneaking in such weapons have really decreased.
The difference is that 10 years ago, he knew that if he tried gas/bio weapons he would be removed from power, but if he didn't use them he may just survive. So he didn't use them. (The goal was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not overthow him.)

Now, the goal is to actually eliminate Saddam. He has nothing to loose by using chem/bio weapons. (In fact, by using them, he might make himself more popular among the more fundamentalist people in the area.)

As for being watched by the U.N. and our 'tight security'....
- Remember, inspectors couldn't find Iraq's weapons last time until a defector lead them to them
- Much of the Iraqi weapons program can be 'home made', based on materials that are either developed within Iraq, or 'dual use' materials imported from elsewhere. (Where did Iraq get their al Samoud missles from?)
- Iraq has been shipping several tankers of oil, against U.N. rules (Ooops, how'd they overlook those?) So much for 'watching them like a hawk'. And if you can smuggle out something as big as an oil tanker, what can you smuggle in?
- The length of time which has passed hasn't strengthed world resolve, it has weakened it. Iraq has probably less to fear now than they did at the end of the gulf war. (Hey, caught doing something illegal? Don't worry... France will protect you...)

[Tmy]

Are we going to go to war with every country were terrorists might get ahold of bio weapons which might be passed across our boarders?? Does Saddam have the bio market cornered.

How many bio attackes have we seen. Ok the anthrax attack. I tought the investgation is being focused on our own scientists.

I just find that the link to Saddam and our terror to be so weak. You'd have a better argument for invading Saudi Arabia.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Segnosaur



The difference is that 10 years ago, he knew that if he tried gas/bio weapons he would be removed from power, but if he didn't use them he may just survive. So he didn't use them. (The goal was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not overthow him.)

Now, the goal is to actually eliminate Saddam. He has nothing to loose by using chem/bio weapons. (In fact, by using them, he might make himself more popular among the more fundamentalist people in the area.)



So by invading him we are actually going to cause the result that we are afraid might happen anyway?

Funny, sometimes I get so tired aboutthe whole subject that I want to invade just to get iot over with.

Lets get back to the thread topic. The cost. By invadingwont we drive up oil costs more and further push the country into debt because of the cost of ousting Saddam and "fixing" Iraq.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
I just find that the link to Saddam and our terror to be so weak. You'd have a better argument for invading Saudi Arabia.
That's a common argument ("There are better targets than Iraq"). And there is some validity to it. (After all, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, they are more vocal in supporting Islamic terrorism, etc.) Perhaps the U.S. should invad them.

But, Iraq is/should be the first target for a few of reasons:
- There are U.N. resolutions against Iraq, and Iraq has invaded its neighbours. Saudi Arabia hasn't. So, there is a certain "legality" for a war against Iraq
- Iraq is a relatively 'secular' country, and would probably be easier to convert democracy. Saudi Arabia contains many more extreme elements, which would make turning them into a democracy more difficult. (In fact, the majority of Iraqi citizens want an invasion and change in government)

And the Saddam/Terrorism link isn't "weak". It is strong. Its just that the links to the particular terrorists resposible for 9/11 are weak.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tmy
By invadingwont we drive up oil costs more and further push the country into debt because of the cost of ousting Saddam and "fixing" Iraq.
There may be a temporary spike in oil prices. (I could be wrong about that... didn't the price of oil drop the second the first gulf war started?)

Once Saddam is removed, and sanctions are lifted, Iraq can ship more oil. This will increase world supply in the mid to long term, and drive down prices.

[scotth]

As luck would have it, some of the people in my office building are from Iraq.

A brief conversation with them was pretty interesting.

They badly want Sadaam removed. They still have family in Iraq and feel certain that the best thing for their long term safety is a US invasion and a removal of Sadaam from power.

There were several interesting comments (I thought they were interesting anyway).

None of them felt like the US was perfect, but.... It was hugely better than Iraq.

The feeling of personal safety here (even as an Iraqi living here) was so much greater. Appearently, to live in Iraq is to live in fear. Especially if you have the urge to open your mouth about nearly anything. I guess it is fairly safe to live in Iraq if your life's ambition is to remain a silent sheep.

The fear isn't just of the Iraqi government. This surprised me to some degree. It sounds that the Iraqi regime has much more interest in law enforcement that keeps itself in power than keeping the public safe.

Don't know if that changes anyones calculations....

Should the potential benefit to the people of Iraq (and don't kid yourself and think it isn't really like to benefit them) help tip the scales?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by scotth
As luck would have it, some of the people in my office building are from Iraq.

A brief conversation with them was pretty interesting.

They badly want Sadaam removed. They still have family in Iraq and feel certain that the best thing for their long term safety is a US invasion and a removal of Sadaam from power.

There were several interesting comments (I thought they were interesting anyway).

None of them felt like the US was perfect, but.... It was hugely better than Iraq.

The feeling of personal safety here (even as an Iraqi living here) was so much greater. Appearently, to live in Iraq is to live in fear. Especially if you have the urge to open your mouth about nearly anything. I guess it is fairly safe to live in Iraq if your life's ambition is to remain a silent sheep.

The fear isn't just of the Iraqi government. This surprised me to some degree. It sounds that the Iraqi regime has much more interest in law enforcement that keeps itself in power than keeping the public safe.

Don't know if that changes anyones calculations....

Should the potential benefit to the people of Iraq (and don't kid yourself and think it isn't really like to benefit them) help tip the scales?

ABC News: Iraqi-Americans Support War Against Saddam (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/IraqiAmericans030212.html)

[scotth]

Originally posted by Kodiak


ABC News: Iraqi-Americans Support War Against Saddam (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/IraqiAmericans030212.html)

Wow, their story is even more compelling. Thanks for the link.

[HarryKeogh]

thank goodness Roosevelt declared war on japan instead of saying "were kinda strapped right now".

[dsm]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What kind of odds do you find acceptable? I kind of like 'zero' myself..


So I guess you don't:


partake in automotive travel as the odds of getting in an accident are not 'zero'.
walk near a street as the odds of getting run over are not 'zero'.
walk outside your house as the odds of getting struck by a meteor are not 'zero'.
use the electricity in your house as the odds of receiving a deadly shock are not 'zero'.
do much breathing as the odds of breathing in a life-threatening virus are not 'zero'.


Still like 'zero' odds as much as you did...? :p

:D

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm


So I guess you don't:


partake in automotive travel as the odds of getting in an accident are not 'zero'.
walk near a street as the odds of getting run over are not 'zero'.
walk outside your house as the odds of getting struck by a meteor are not 'zero'.
use the electricity in your house as the odds of receiving a deadly shock are not 'zero'.
do much breathing as the odds of breathing in a life-threatening virus are not 'zero'.


Still like 'zero' odds as much as you did...? :p

:D
I understand what you are saying, and I agree... to a point. But there is a big difference between the examples you listed, and the chances of getting hurt by terrorist activities: All of the above examples provide some benefit to me. If there is a reward (such as electricity making my life better, or breathing keeping me from dying), a little risk is worth it.

Terrorism is of no benefit to me at all. (Well, maybe if I worked in a bomb factory it might be.)

[aerocontrols]

Monitary considerations are the less important than any others that occur to me.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I understand what you are saying, and I agree... to a point. But there is a big difference between the examples you listed, and the chances of getting hurt by terrorist activities: All of the above examples provide some benefit to me. If there is a reward (such as electricity making my life better, or breathing keeping me from dying), a little risk is worth it.

Terrorism is of no benefit to me at all. (Well, maybe if I worked in a bomb factory it might be.)

Point is that, just as the activities I listed cannot be managed down to 'zero' risk, neither can terrorism. Everybody lives with a certain amount of personally 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' risk. Acceptable risks are those risks that you've assessed and decided you can live with while unacceptable risks are those that you don't want to live with, but really have no way of eliminating. We each have our own definitions of acceptable and unacceptable risk.

Some may deem the level of risk for terrorism as acceptable while others may deem it unacceptable regardless what the true level is. Only time will tell which is the more valid stance.

[Wayne Grabert]

Today the Army's top general made this claim: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_36) The Army's top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.

Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites). And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."
Several hundred thousand! To prevent "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems" (i.e., the civil warfare I've been warning about). However, with internal tensions that bad, we are supposed to believe that we can still create a stable democracy and preserve the "territorial integrity" of Iraq in two years! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57781-2003Feb11.html) :D :D :D :D :D

Costs of war? I'm warning you that we had better start dealing with North Korea very soon--and BEFORE invading Iraq. North Korea is not going to sit around waiting to be next on the "axis of evil" hit list for "regime change," especially when they already expect a pre-emptive attack from the United States. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030226/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_war_warning_4) They may see a huge deployment in Iraq as their best opportunity to go to war against the United States and win, and could attack South Korea at some time during the occupation of Iraq.

Edited to add: Meanwhile, North Korea is working overtime at being able to hit the west coast of the United States (where I live) with a ballistic missile. Thank you very much, you empty headed, stupid, gullible, war hawk True Believers!

Here is more (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DL25Dg01.html) on the North Korean way of thinking.
Now Kim Jong-il can see clearly that he is now in a do-or-die situation.

The North Korean ruler has little hope unless he can pose to Bush a stark choice: attend to Pyongyang's demands or sign up to fight a far wider war. Kim can indeed do that. He can threaten to turn what the Pentagon now plans as a two-front war against al-Qaeda and Iraq into a three-front war - or a four-front war if Iran, whose nuclear-weapons progress was featured in satellite photos last week, gets involved. As a condemned man, Kim may feel he has little to lose from actual warfare.

North Korea's war plans always have contemplated fighting Uncle Sam only when he has one hand tied behind him. "It would be rather difficult for us to fight all alone against American imperialism," Kim Il-sung acknowledged in 1955. However, "under conditions where they must disperse their forces on a global scale, it would be comparatively easy for us to defeat them".

So ask me again if we can afford not to fight a war against a weak, contained country that poses no imminent threat to the United States (or any that any REASONABLE person can see in the future), you boneheads!

[Mike B.]

Wayne Grabert says
"Edited to add: Meanwhile, North Korea is working overtime at being able to hit the west coast of the United States (where I live) with a ballistic missle. Thank you very much, you empty headed, stupid, gullible, war hawk True Believers!"


Who is to blame for NK?:confused:
I don't follow you.
Since 1953 NK has been digging tunnels under the DMZ (4 have been found), periodically shooting across and infiltrating troops. They have also been kidnapping people and committing terrorism like blowing up civilian aircraft.

If you want to read real vitriol read the Pyongyang Times. For the past 50 years NK has been calling for the destruction of the USA. GWB calling them evil seems downright moderate.

They have been working on missiles for decades too by the way...
They were clandestinely working on these missiles before GW Bush ever took office.

Of course non of this in your worldview is the fault of the f--ked -up regime in NK. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...It is people in this country that were mean to force Kim Jong Il to do this.

I mean he feels threatened...(Poor guy)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Who is to blame for NK?:confused:
I don't follow you. You clearly don't follow me. Go back and read my post. I'm describing how Bush's policies may lead to another Korean war.

Edited to add: North Korea was not clandestinely working on those missiles. They were doing so in the open. How do you "clandestinely" test fire missiles?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You clearly don't follow me. Go back and read my post. I'm describing how Bush's policies may lead to another Korean war.

Edited to add: North Korea was not clandestinely working on those missles. They were doing so in the open. How do you "clandestinely" test fire missles?

Well, if I remember correctly, that test fire over Japan shocked the crap out of everyone, including our own intelligence community. Sounds clandestine to me.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by scotth


Well, if I remember correctly, that test fire over Japan shocked the crap out of everyone, including our own intelligence community. Sounds clandestine to me. Before 1993 North Korea was test firing missiles. Then for five years they stopped. In 1998 they started again. Earlier this month, George Tenet (CIA director) testified that the CIA believes that North Korea may be able to reach the West Coast of the United States with a missile. (And I urge you to read that Asia Times article I linked earlier.)

Meanwhile, all such real threats are to be ignored while we focus exclusively on a very farfetched one that at sometime in the unforeseeable future, Iraq may give a nuclear weapon (that it does not have) to al Qaida (with whom he has a mutual hatred and no proven or evident ties).

Regarding my first post in this thread, I will say that anyone who is willing to wake up to reality--and does so--is not a True Believer or a bonehead.

Anyway, I leave it to you (and not just Scott, but all of you) to mull over the possibilities and to state what is the bigger threat and why. It will be interesting reading your thinking.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Can we afford this war? Yes. It brings to mind the old Fram oil filter ads. "You can pay me now or you can pay me later". In the background was a picture of a dead engine being hoisted out of a car.

Yes, we can afford the war. And it is important to be skeptical of the numbers you will hear flying about. Remember the 50,000 body bags spoken about during the Gulf War. At the time it was argued that the Gulf war was going to drown us in debt.

For some reason, "reason" flies out of the window at the hint of war (on both sides of the aisle).

The first casualty of war is the truth --?

And yes, we should be concerned about the cost. There are those that will profit from this war.

Beware the military industrial complex --Eisenhower

But we can't rule out war because of its cost.

[RandFan]

During WWII the United states fought on two fronts. We learned some valuable lessons. Since then the United States has endeavored to be capable of dealing with 3 major conflicts at once.

We have contingencies for NK and NK does not call for military action at this time. Should it, and if we are fighting Iraq we can and will meet the call.

Iraq is very important, we must not be intimidated into inaction because we fear that others will exploit that action. To do so would have very serious consequences. If it were perceived that we are vulnerable and incapable of protecting ourselves on at least two fronts then it would invite those who do not have our best intentions at heart to seek such a position.

Attacking Iraq must stand or fall on its own merits. Again, we can and will fight on two fronts if it is required.