Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

[AtW]

Lets assume here that cost for one soldier will be $1 mln dollars, no, lets go futher - $10 mln dollars per soldier - over 40 years of live (men die at ~60 and these men will die sooner - suicides etc), so for 16,000 soldiers total cost will be
$160 bln -- less than 10% of quoted number $2 trillion.

Therefore your assertion that this "lifetime" bit applies to most of the sum is not reasonable - vast majority of the money will have to be paid over much shorter period.

[AtW]

Come to think of it $250,000 of annual treatment per soldier is a very high sum that I am certain won't be spend (on average), perhaps even $50k pa is very optimistic. This means that share of wounded soldiers in that sum will shink even futher - no suprise here as they are the last guys who will get the money from all those vast sums handed over into pockets of people who make profit from war.

[Lucifer Box]

It's not my assertion, dude, it's the assertion of the author of the article you posted. It is his major point that costs will be high because lifetime medical costs are not being factored in.

Everyone agrees on what has been spent so far (ca. $175bn because that's a known). Extrapolating this to about $350bn by 2010 isn't totally unreasonable.

I have worked in insurance before, and I can assure you your estimates for intensive hospital treatment of US soldiers are way, way wide of the mark. $1m/month for intensive care was the going rate in the late 1990s, so your estimate of $1m-$10m over a lifetime is likely to be on the low side.

[AtW]

The author does not assert that $2 trln is sum over 50 years, you made this assertion on the basis of "lifetime" costs for soldiers. It is clear from simple numbers that this "lifetime" bit can't account for more than 10% of total amount, thus totally undermining your suggestion that 2 tril is no big deal since its over 50 years.

I have worked in insurance before, and I can assure you your estimates for intensive hospital treatment of US soldiers are way, way wide of the mark. $1m/month for intensive care was the going rate in the late 1990s, so your estimate of $1m-$10m over a lifetime is likely to be on the low side.

They will not be in intensive care of that kind for years - a few will but most will be discharged - with big disabilities like no limbs, but this is not exactly something that would require $1 mln per month cost.

[Lucifer Box]

Yeah, you're right. That $2 trillion is going to be incurred over the next four or five years and the US will go bust and be sold to an administrator for 50p.

They'd better get a move on though, as they've only spent $175 billion over the last three or four years.

It is clear from simple numbers that this "lifetime" bit can't account for more than 10% of total amount

As I said, drop Reuters a line and berate them for slack editorial control in allowing their journo to make it the main point of his argument when he is clearly talking out of his arse.

[AtW]

I did not say USA will go bust - their national debt is like 12 tril, so adding 2 tril to it won't make much difference as their debt is growing anyway since there is little hope of it being repaid anytime soon.

They'd better get a move on though, as they've only spent $175 billion over the last three or four years.

"Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment."

What is the price of equipment that goes out of service? What about missiles and bombs? Do you think its all made free by private companies? What about increased cost of fuel that is solely due to instability in the East?

[Lucifer Box]

I'm sure you are absolutely correct. Still, I am glad that in the end you did agree that $2 trillion is peanuts to the US.

[AtW]

Still, I am glad that in the end you did agree that $2 trillion is peanuts to the US.

Yes its peanuts to the USA, but my point is that if USA wanted to save lifes of Americans from terrorist then it would have better off investing all this money in to cure from AIDS and cancer - both of which kill more americans every day than 9/11.

The whole world would have prayed to USA name if they found cure for these deseases and offered them to the world for free or at reasonable price.

[expat]

Richly ironic I recall that several of the pro war folks on this board at the time gave keeping Oil prices low as one of the many reasons for justification for the conflict.

Keeping world oil prices in dollars, so that the US economy keeps its built-in stability, would be a more plausible reason. OPEC has been putting prices up (whenever they could) for over 30 years, but not one of its members got shat on for it. That's because they agreed a long time ago (with Kissinger) to keep charging in dollars.

Saddam Hussein switched over to charging in euros, thus threatening American economic stability and control. That was a foolish move, and he didn't last long after that.

[Lucifer Box]

I'm sure you are absolutely correct. Hopefully the USA has more than one peanut in its bag of dry roasted nuts.

It's always easy to be right from a false premise though as I'm not entirely sure that if the Iraq war had not been fought medical research would be better off to the tune of $2 trillion.

It's interesting isn't it that some of the biggest medical breakthroughs in history have come from war?