# Since when is it immoral to consider the costs of a war ?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [September 26, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772 "2002-09-26T22:18:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 14
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/1 "2002-09-26T22:18:18Z")
Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill said today:
> [@](#):
>
> On another matter, O’Neill signaled a decision by the administration to avoid, for now, getting into specifics about the cost of a potential invasion of Iraq. Estimates have ranged from $40 billion to $200 billion, and Democrats have requested a study from the Congressional Budget Office.
>
> “It’s all irrelevant,” O’Neill said. “There’s no price at which we should think about giving up freedom because we can’t afford it. . . . It shouldn’t be thought of as an economic question at all. Period.”
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3136-2002Sep25.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3136-2002Sep25.html)
Could someone on the hawkish side of the fence please explain which freedoms are in such peril that we need not concern themselves with per capita expenses of between 142.00 and 714.00 per citizen ? Is there some well developed ethical code that justifies O’Neill’s position, or is this more of an _ad hoc_ judgment call on the part of the Secretary ?
note: -I’m looking more for answers here than a debate, so at least some attempt to stick to the facts of the issue would be appreciated. In particular, the ellipses (…) in O’Neill’s statement are bothersome. Perhaps more was said than was reported by the press ?
---
### Author:  [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2002, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/2 "2002-09-26T22:34:53Z")
What was the cost of 9/11? What would the cost of a nuke in NY, San Diego, Miami, etc. be?
---
### Author:  [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2002, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/3 "2002-09-27T00:48:15Z")
I would agree that the costs are relevant, but only within certain limits. If, for example, the cost could be anywhere between $50B and $50T, it would be worth studying. Over the range of $50-200B (or $142-714/person, as you state), I don’t think the exact cost is really an issue. I think that anywhere in that range is affordable enough to be a non-issue. To put it another way, if you knew the cost of saving the life of your cat was going to be between $5 and $20, would you do a budget analysis, or would you just fork over the cash?
Jeff
---
### Author:  [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)
#### Post date: [September 27, 2002, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/4 "2002-09-27T01:00:04Z")
$142 per person is something to be concerned about? I’m willing to pay 39 cents a day for a year if it means Iraq won’t nuke me.
---
### Author:  [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2002, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/5 "2002-09-28T07:01:40Z")
Let’s not only consider the financial costs, let’s consider the HUMAN cost to American lives. How many young men in the prime of their lives will have to be sacrificed to satisfy our desire for regime change?
> [@](#):
>
> I’m willing to pay 39 cents a day for a year if it means Iraq won’t nuke me.
That’s the thing. Iraq won’t nuke us. They would be insane to do that. We have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them) that could obliterate Iraq many times over. There’s no compelling proof to show that the usual deterrance of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) wouldn’t be of any concern to Iraq. Saddam doesn’t seem to be suicidal.
---
### Author:  [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/6 "2002-09-29T02:40:12Z")
If the morality we’re talking about is Christian biblical morality, I’d say it’s quite moral to count the cost. [Luke 14](http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvLuke.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=14&division=div1):
> [@](#):
>
> 28: For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?
> 29: Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,
> 30: saying, `This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’
> 31: Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten
> thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?
> 32: And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/7 "2002-09-29T03:00:13Z")
Bah, even the Devil can quote verse, yada yada.
From an extreme Hawks point of view:
1. If we do not force ‘regime change’ in Iraq, a WMD will be provided by Iraq to some zany islamic fundamentalist group.
2. Said group will ponder whether or not they should use it against us for all of 2 seconds.
3. Assuming sufficient power of said WMD, we lose a significant portion of a city. Or cities, in a truely worst case scenario.
4. In simple dollar figures, rebuilding downtown Manhattan after a ‘bucket of instant sunshine’ is used will cost more then then just rolling into an immasculated Iraq today and taking Hussien and the Baath party out.
Sadaam’s various intelligence services are rather crafty, on the ‘human operations’ side of things, and there is no doubt in my mind that they could orchestrate such an event without leaving conclusive ties back to Iraq.
Soo…Take them out now, and damn the cost. Considering the cost of the invasion without considering the cost of _not_ invading is ludicrous.
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/8 "2002-09-29T03:33:07Z")
Okay, if you want to do a cost-benefit analysis, I’ll play that game.
It’s been estimated that the WTC attack cost the American economy around 1 Trillion dollars, including secondary effects like damage to the airline industry and investor confidence.
How much would a nuclear attack cost? Let’s be incredibly conservative, and say it would be about 10 times the cost of the WTC attack.
Let’s also be conservative, and say that the cost of the Iraq invasion is at the high limit of 200 billion.
And to be really, really generous, let’s leave out any economic benefit the U.S would gain from having Iraq as a full trading partner and not having to house a few divisions in the Gulf to contain him, which they do now.
In that case, we’re betting 200 billion against ten trillion. In that case, it would make economic sense to attack Iraq if there was a 1 in 50 chance that it would avert a nuclear detonation in America.
I’d take that bet.
But the real world is even more skewed towards attacking Iraq. First of all, the cost will likely be far lower than 200 billion. I’d guess it would be closer to the cost of the Gulf war, or about 70 billion. Second, saying a nuke would only cost 10 times what the WTC attack did is incredibly optimistic. If it detonated in an expensive place like Manhattan, the cost would be incalculable, but we’d be talking about essentially the entire Island of Manhattan being obliterated, and if the winds are blowing right the contamination of the rest of New York. The blow to the United States would be massive. It would certainly throw us into a heavy recession or perhaps even a depression. The cleanup would divert huge national resources for years.
And then there’s the benefits that come from the war. The U.S. currently spends billions each year stationing a defensive force in the Gulf specifically to deter Saddam. Getting rid of Saddam will boost investor confidence, increase trade, lower the world cost of oil, and probably benefit the U.S. by more than what the war costs.
But of course, in this situation the true costs are not financial. They are diplomatic and human costs. What is the value of losing diplomatic capital? What is the value of the lives lost in the war?
But here again, the equation falls on the side of invading Iraq. Diplomatically, you’re going to find that once the world sees the U.S. steaming towards the Gulf there will suddenly be support from all sorts of unlikely areas, just like there was during Gulf I. There have already been some surprising reversals: Saudi Arabia and Egypt have already moved off their original hard-line positions and moved towards the U.S. position. Even Iran has said it will support an invasion of Iraq if the U.N. votes for it.
The reason you’re going to see big reversals toward’s the U.S. position is because once the war is inevitable, the other nations will be thinking like this: “Okay, it’s inevitable that we will soon be living in a world in which the United States has overthrown Iraq and is now calling the shots there. Given that reality, would I rather live in that world as an ally or an enemy?”
As for human lives, how many would be lost in a nuclear blast in Washington or Tel Aviv? How many people die in Iraq each year because they can’t get enough food? How many Kurds are going to die at the hands of Saddam?
There will certainly be casualties on both sides. I expect the margin of victory will be even greater than in Gulf I, which means American servicemen will have incredibly low casualties. U.S. military power is almost working like an ‘industrial enterprise’ now - a bunch of technicians carry out a large, expensive operation virtually unopposed, and suffer about as many casualties as equivalent large, dangerous industrial activities do. How many casualties were there in the Gulf War? A couple of hundred? Less? Out of 500,000 soldiers?
Probably a few thousand Iraqis, most of them soldiers.
The big risk in this war is that Saddam manages to keep an effective, loyal army around him in Baghdad and the U.S. has to dig him out in urban warfare or lay siege. In that case, the casualties on both sides will be much, much higher. Perhaps a few thousand Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis - many of them civilian.
That’s the absolute worst-case. The absolute worst-case result of inaction is a mushroom cloud over a major city, and hundreds of thousands or millions dead. More Americans lost in one day than were lost in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam combined.
War is horrible. Sometimes the alternative to war is worse.
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/9 "2002-09-29T04:43:28Z")
And, **Sam Stone** didn’t even address the worst worst case, namely that Iraq smuggles several atomic bombs into the US and detonates them. It’s unlikely, but not impossible, that we could be talking about the destruction of New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles.
---
### Author:  [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/10 "2002-09-29T21:51:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blalron \*
> \*\*
>
> That’s the thing. Iraq won’t nuke us. They would be insane to do that. We have a large arsenal of nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them) that could obliterate Iraq many times over. There’s no compelling proof to show that the usual deterrance of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) wouldn’t be of any concern to Iraq. Saddam doesn’t seem to be suicidal. \*\*
Totally disagree. There was a thread about this a couple months ago which included plausible scenarios in which Saddam would push the button. For one thing, if some faction in Iraq attempts a coup and Saddam is on the brink of defeat and suspects the U.S. was involved in the insurrection.
Or if Saddam thinks he could nuke an American city and plausibly deny responsibility.
I’m not an historian, but I’m sure there are a at least a few examples of ruthless dictators charging into situations that predictably bring ruin upon the nations they rule.
---
### Author:  [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/11 "2002-09-29T23:34:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I’m willing to pay 39 cents a day for a year if it means Iraq won’t nuke me.
But surely steaming into Iraq with guns blazing is only going to make fundamentalist groups _more_ hostile to America, and therefore far _more_ likely to attack further?
I honestly think the US could do far more for the Middle East if it enforced a “regime change” in Israel – and Palestine for that matter, I’m not taking sides.
The way I see it, Saddam _may_ be developing nuclear weapons. Sharon _has_ nuclear weapons, and his idea of keeping the peace involves using tanks to flatten large areas of land which his country is illegally occupying.
Which is scarier? Maybe I just can’t see things from the United States’ blindly pro-Israel perspective…
---
### Author:  [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/12 "2002-09-29T23:47:58Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by r\_k \*
> \*\*
>
> But surely steaming into Iraq with guns blazing is only going to make fundamentalist groups _more_ hostile to America, and therefore far _more_ likely to attack further? …\*\*
Fundamentalist Islamic groups cannot be reasoned with in the first place, so why bother trying to placate them?
And if they do get more hostile to America, I imagine they will just start dropping from aneurisms, since they are already hostile enough to fly planes into buildings and whatnot. How much more hostile could they get?
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2002, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/13 "2002-09-30T13:27:45Z")
Here is a little pop quiz. Choose all that apply.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blalron \*
> That’s the thing. Iraq won’t nuke us. They would be insane to do that. \*\*
Iraq won’t nuke us because:
a) Saddam is a rational leader
b) Saddam has not shown a tendency to use WMD
c) Saddam likes America (especial the Bushes)
d) Saddam has no way to deliver a bomb
We should not topple Saddam because:
a) It isn’t nice
b) Saddam is not an insane dictator
c) Saddam has no way to attack the US
d) Appeasement is a much better policy than aggression
e) Someone might get hurt
f) The rest of the world would rather wait until he is a much larger threat and THEN call in the Americans to save the day
g) Many people don’t like Bush so any idea that comes from Bush must be bad
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blalron \*
> Sharon has nuclear weapons, and his idea of keeping the peace involves using tanks to flatten large areas of land which his country is illegally occupying.
Israel is flattening large parts of Palestine because:
a) They need more space for shopping malls
b) That’s where the suicide bombers are hiding
c) Because of 50 years of turbulant history where both sides are not completely blameless
---
### Author:  [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2002, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-when-is-it-immoral-to-consider-the-costs-of-a-war/129772/14 "2002-10-01T20:02:00Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Fundamentalist Islamic groups cannot be reasoned with in the first place, so why bother trying to placate them?
Because there are a billion Muslims who _may or may not_ join radical groups.