Relative cost of the Iraq war

The idea of comparing the cost of the war in Iraq with the money spent on science research in the United States has crossed my mind a few times in recent months, so I finally looked it up. Brace yourselves. The US is spending the equivalent of the annual National Science Foundation budget every two weeks fighting the war in Iraq (about 6 billion dollars). In total, the war has cost us the equivalent of 100 years of NSF funding.

The NIH budget is substantially higher than the NSF budget. It takes two months of Iraq war to spend the annual NIH budget.

The war cost referenced here is just the upfront cost of counting the war. It does not count the backend costs of retooling the military, taking care of our wounded and killed soldiers, and the negative impact on our economy.  Sources estimate these costs double the true cost of the war.


One Response to Relative cost of the Iraq war

  1. brianbunton says:

    The cost of human life is the #1 reason I’m angry about the war, even moreso now that I’ve learned a cousin will be heading to Afghanistan in January. But the money is #2. The numbers just boggle my mind. However, I can’t think of how things would be different domestically if there was no war. So that means the cost is all being taken from the deficit? I guess it seems okay just to pile on to our national deficit to fight a spurious and superfluous war, but couldn’t we spend those billions on something that would actually do some good, like education? Or poverty? But try bringing that idea up in peacetime, and you’ll have a revolt. It’s so frustrating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: