Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Think for a moment

  1. Jun 13, 2010 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 13, 2010 #2

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The second link is broken. The first link makes me sad.
     
  4. Jun 13, 2010 #3
    Thanks, fixed it.
     
  5. Jun 13, 2010 #4

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK now both links make me sad.

    I wish we'd get back to a pay-go system.
     
  6. Jun 13, 2010 #5
    These arbitrary numbers really should make us all think.
     
  7. Jun 13, 2010 #6
    1 trillion cost of war in 10 years is insignificant compared to the size of US economy. All it did is stimulated the military-industrial complex which keeps the US on cutting edge.

    The biggest drains every year are social security, health, and medicare...
     
  8. Jun 13, 2010 #7
    I don't think you realize the devastating impact of such spendings and debts on your children's future and what better things could have been done with 1 trillion dollars.
     
  9. Jun 13, 2010 #8

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    And my favorite: You could supply every household in the US with 2240 watts of solar panels. Yielding roughly 9 kwh per day, saving each of us only about $1 per day, but multiplied by 112,000,000 households and 365.242198781 days per year, we'd collectively save $40 billion dollars a year and our trillion dollars would be paid back in 25 years. Not counting installation, taxes, delivery, and inspection fees.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  10. Jun 13, 2010 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Really, that's ALL it did. Tell that to my nephew who had to clean up the body parts from a family that was killed by mistake. Oh yes, never mind, he's probably too drunk to listen.
     
  11. Jun 13, 2010 #10
    Tell's me you lack critical thinking skills, because all you've posted are numbers.

    What does this number mean to you?


    2389348967o659560845903445985690569560490823948234908486849680980250892505409468905

    <whistles> wheeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww that's a big number!
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  12. Jun 13, 2010 #11
    This thread is about the cost of war in relation US debt - ALL is in terms of economy, and not casualties, nor Cheney.
     
  13. Jun 13, 2010 #12
    This is EXACTLY correct.
     
  14. Jun 13, 2010 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That military spending doesn't go into a black hole, though: it is mostly spent on the salaries of our military and the compaanies who make the equipment.

    It is basically the same type of economic stimulus that our government spent an equal amount of money on in the past year. So while it isn't great that we spent a trillion dollars on the wars over 9 years, it is a lot worse that we spent a trillion dollars on stimulus in the past year.
     
  15. Jun 13, 2010 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We don't have to attack a country in order to have a strong military. The point that B justifies A is falacious. How much bang did we get for the buck? Did we get a trillion dollars worth of development? Or was most of that money wasted fighting a war that wasn't needed? I would bet any payoff is on the order of one part in a thousand, or less.

    Now if your point is that we have $100 billion a year to waste, then I have a great deal on some swamp land for you.

    Btw, the interest on our national debt is about 160 billion per year. If we didn't have to pay interest, there wouldn't be a problem, so clearly 100 billion per year is significant. 100 billion less per year is the equivalent of eliminating over 60% of our national debt.

    How about paying for three years of medicaid?

    What if all of that money has been dumped into the US economy for productive reasons, rather than for building bombs, and fueling tanks and aircraft? How much more benefit do we derive per dollar spent, from a bridge, than we do a truckload of bombs?

    I fail to follow the logic that it was advantageous to fight an unnecessary war, when we could have been helping Americans, or investing in the US infrastructure or industry. Even viewing this from a purely militaristic point of view, I would bet that one could develop a pretty cool weapon for a trillion dollars.

    btw, I never opposed the war in Afghanistan, just Iraq. In the former case, I don't think we had a choice. I also strongly support the attacks in the hills of Pakistan, using drones. As promised, Obama is no wimp. He's just smart.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2010
  16. Jun 14, 2010 #15
    In a sense yes. Most companies that made money in the war reinvest it in themselves (minus CEO bonuses) and compete with other companies for contracts. And where there is competition there is innovation.
    The US has lots of other internal blackholes, and only feeding them more won't solve the problem.

    And building bombs, and aircrafts? Well that's what superpowers do. Among many other things it gives them a high position when dealing with national interests that, in a sense, feedback to the economy.
     
  17. Jun 14, 2010 #16
    First of all, I didn't start an argument based on those numbers, and second of all, as the title reads: "think for a moment..."

    So what makes you think I lack critical thinking skills?
     
  18. Jun 14, 2010 #17
    Because you did not think before posting these sources - what so ever!

    What's you're premise in starting this thread? This reeks of anti-war nonsense. Should I run around with my hands in the air at the sight of big scary numbers, that lack any context?

    To answer your question: the numbers tell me exactly what they report, and nothing more.
     
  19. Jun 14, 2010 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Granted! But this has nothing to do with the OP, which, as was pointed out to you before, is about money.
    Then that'd be a losing bet. Where do you think the money actually goes that the payoff could be 1:1000? Heck, if we have 100,000 troops employed at an average salary of $30,000 apiece, that would be $27 billion right there, or just under 3%.

    It was pretty easy to debunk that 1:1000 rediculousness with just one simple example of where the money goes.
    Your point, so you tell me. I'll give it a shot, though: if the societal benefit to building a bridge was huge on its own, we wouldn't need to use stimulus spending to build it. The stimulus spending was sold by Obama as a way to create jobs, not for the societal benefit of what those jobs were doing. In that sense, money spent building a bomb is exactly equivalent to money spent building a bridge.
    ...probably because no one made such an argument! :rolleyes:
    Indeed we could. But for the fifth or sixth time now, the OP was about money! Developing a weapon is still expensive and it is still money that we are spending that we don't have. We shouldn't be spending it: not on developing new weapons, not on wars, and not on "economic stimulus", all of which are functionally equivalent.
     
  20. Jun 14, 2010 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Starting a thread with an open-ended question leaves us to guess what your point was. Failing to ever provide analysis makes one question your critical thinking skills.
     
  21. Jun 14, 2010 #20
    Thread Locked; mentors out of control.

    Oh, nevermind, I can't lock a thread. Carry on.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Think for a moment
  1. Think! (Replies: 34)

  2. Speed of thinking (Replies: 28)

  3. Thinking less. (Replies: 25)

Loading...