War Costs, US: Revolution to Present
Cool graphic: The cost of US Wars over history
click for interactive site
Data file: Military Costs of Major U.S. Wars in 2008 U.S. Dollars and % of GDP
Data source: Congressional Research Service
Wednesday, September 03, 2008 | 05:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (21)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e554c661538833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference War Costs, US: Revolution to Present:
Comments
Yep, as I go through life I am constantly amazed at man's inhumanity towards man and the costs associated with it. Of course, these are just the monetary totals.
Posted by: Pat G. | Sep 3, 2008 5:46:09 PM
Barry--
At a glance, these are not inflation- adjusted, as they probably ought to be to give a sense of the relative costs of the various wars/conflicts/liberations.
Rgds.
Posted by: Scott Frew | Sep 3, 2008 6:08:03 PM
Agree with Scott, inflated adjusted numbers would be much different.
Posted by: Sia | Sep 3, 2008 6:18:01 PM
The data set appears to be in 2008 constant dollars. That set also provides % of GDP; see http://tinyurl.com/6pyjkn
Posted by: RW | Sep 3, 2008 6:22:35 PM
Are these only direct costs? Iraq/Afghanistan may be a bit more expensive if all related longer term costs are need to be added.
rt
Posted by: rtalcott | Sep 3, 2008 6:47:55 PM
That has to be inflation adjusted because GDP didn't even add to $1 trillion from 1941-1945.
Posted by: Sam Park | Sep 3, 2008 6:52:08 PM
What is Persia?
Posted by: alex p | Sep 3, 2008 6:52:09 PM
The figures are inflation adjusted. There are more USD 500B per year budgets in the 20XX, than during Vietnam.
I do not know if the supplementals paying for GWOT would make the comaprison to Vietnam different.
It is all volunteer hedonistic warfare inflation.
A third the force for the same inflation adjusted bucks.
Some much money so few threats........
Posted by: ilsm | Sep 3, 2008 7:07:40 PM
Clearly, we should only fight civil wars, as those are cheapest. Additionally, consider the benefit of convenience and additional profit margin to the Haliburton's among us for easy selling of arms to both sides.
WWII is out of kilter because we were starting from absolute scratch then, so even the cost of building the shipyards is included in there, whereas the follow-up wars started out with arms and infrastructure from the previous wars or peacetime buildup.
Posted by: Darkness | Sep 3, 2008 7:08:11 PM
Darkness,
Good point the US has endured continuous mobilization (warfare state) since 1950.
And looking at the percent of total US military was a larger part of force structured sent to Vietnam or Korea than to the new Global War on the Taxpayer?
An excuse for the warfare state (which don't stand up in inventory theory) is to eliminate the delay to mobilized.
As if mobilization delay is woth half a trillion a year!
A student of history will remember taht Bismarck said it takes three years to build an army.
Posted by: ilsm | Sep 3, 2008 7:24:49 PM
Very cool chart! Here's another that shows the relative Debt per Capita to Income index (DTIP) for the U.S. from 1830 onward, which should give you an idea of how significant each conflict was to the U.S. economy, beginning with the Mexican War.
The comment URL (click "Ironman") should take you to the post from which the chart has been excerpted which has more discussion.
Posted by: Ironman | Sep 3, 2008 7:39:24 PM
Now just plot inflation over the same time frame as the wars. I think you'll find in every case inflation spiked during or shortly after the wars.
The rules of war remain:
-Wars are easy to start but hell to stop (paraphrashing queen Elizebeth)
-Wars cost a lot of money (and cause inflation)
-People die
-The outcomes are unpredictable especially for countries that start pre-emptive (and often bogus) wars
I think these rules fit fit very nicely thank you. By the way, I had stated these prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: Blue Bellied Yankee | Sep 3, 2008 7:53:33 PM
spoiler alert: grumpy rant ahead.
remember back in the 1970s-1980s-1990s when every few years some security critic would scream that airline-hired private securities guards sucked at protecting planes (eg Pan Am 103, TWA hijacking '84, etc).
Then inevitably the airline lobby would say, "it's cool, everyone's trained well and the added $$$$ of 'draconian' security unreasonable."
Then the brew-ha-ha would die down.
Imagine if some politician (Reps and Dems equally blew this one) actually had the balls to say f*** you airlines, put some locks on the cockpit doors.
Cost: a few hundred million.
Savings: no 9/11, no Cheney-Rasputin takeover of the West wing, sane air travel....(though obviously in lieu of a hijacking Bin Laden would have tried something else like another Timothy McVeigh-style attack)
***sigh***
Posted by: everyone's an expert online | Sep 3, 2008 8:35:29 PM
Our most recent wars are more capital intensive - using & losing less manpower. It costs a lot of money to substitute technology in place of young men's lives.
I would rather spend the money, and lose fewer men.
Posted by: Zephyr | Sep 3, 2008 11:57:30 PM
If only the CRS had applied the proper hedonic adjustments -- better guns and bombs, more healthful MREs, way better personal electronics -- Iraq would fade to a dimple the size of the War of 1812.
Posted by: boogieman | Sep 4, 2008 12:08:16 AM
alex P. -
Either they've already budgeted the costs of the upcoming U.S. attack on Iran or it's a reference to the Persian Gulf War.
Posted by: montaigne | Sep 4, 2008 1:14:26 AM
It would be interesting if the post-war health and mental health care costs were added in. We've still got a doozy of a bill awaiting us trying to help the thousands of our troops who have been physically and mentally maimed in Iraq.
Posted by: ScottB | Sep 4, 2008 2:14:40 AM
The size of the most recent wars reminds me of Eisenhower's farewell address (see below). We seemed to ingore the warning.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Posted by: MDDwave | Sep 4, 2008 2:30:45 AM
Since we're quoting Eisenhower:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
Posted by: That Guy | Sep 4, 2008 8:49:52 AM
Barry, I like much of your analysis, but as a numbers guy you might have noticed that the linked page has a feature to display the numbers as a percentage of GDP, which is a lot more useful.
As a percentage of GDP, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf War are the three smallest circles on the graph.
Of course that's less than half of the overall cost/benefit analysis, but it's worth pointing out.
Posted by: JBL | Sep 4, 2008 12:16:27 PM
For WWII it should read 4.114 trillion. Instead it reads billion.
Posted by: David Jackson | Sep 4, 2008 8:28:25 PM
