62 votes

The True Cost of Military Equipment Spending (And what the money could have bought instead)

Thanks to Jonathan of MilitaryEducation.org

Cost of Military
From: MilitaryEducation.org

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

anti war vs anti defense...this post BLURS that line.

Let me first preface with, while I have been a huge supporter of Paul both ideologically and financially, I have only been a member of this site for 20 minutes at best...thanks to this post. Ron Paul has done a great job clarifying the distinction between military spending and defense spending, and that distinction seems to finally be taking root inside the established GOP. This post blurs that line. Military spending being nation building, foreign aid, military bases... Defense being hardware that would be used in defense of our nation. While I wholly understand that these implements are the tools of war, they are also the tools of defense. This post is counter productive in a highly contested gop primary race, seems not to be doing Ron Paul any favors and should not be disseminated as part of Ron Paul's platform....because it isn't. Before it is suggested I am a warhawk neo con posing as a Paul supporter, I suggest we think carefully before taking liberties with Ron Paul's message.

Plain and simple

Seized taxpayer money flushed down the toilet while crony corporatists get bigger bonuses.



Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

But Seriously

How does it cost one BILLION, that's $1,000,000,000 to make ONE freakin plane????

It shouldn't cost $1 billion to make ANYTHING.

Because of inflation. They're

Because of inflation. They're in with the decision-makers and thus get the new money as soon as it's off the (virtual) printing press. They get a windfall and when inflation hits, can demand another pay raise. But really, those planes should be manufactured far more efficiently.



Truth is the virus that people fear the most because it's reality.

this is astounding--

thank you. If the "government" can afford these things it is because of taxes, and if the taxes are not used for weapons/military expenses, it can be used for peaceful living.

If taxes are not being used, what IS being used to purchase these things? Inflation. Fiat money. The same reasoning applies. Remove the federal reserve, inflation and fiat money, and the entire nation is more prosperous.

Not to mention the 'heart' factor. Fewer orphans; fewer widows; less divorce from PTSD; less suicide in veterans.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

This chart kind of implies

This chart kind of implies that the government should be buying houses and health care for people instead. They should have shown how much money the average tax payer would get back, or something similar.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

That money would stay in the Productive economy

ya may be looking at it the wrong way... Remember; it's OUR money- not their's.

it's not hard to reason this out in a libertarian way--

with true liberty and constitutionality and without the 'crony capitalism' Dr. Paul mentions frequently . . .

the government IS the people. Without the heavy burden of wars to maintain, people are then freed to expand their dreams and their hopes and their labors and have a better way of life.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


I am glad we have these things. I want to have the best military equipment on earth... I just don't want us using it unless we REALLY have to i.e. WW2.

A better chart for me would be cost for each element of our foriegn policy including each theatre of action along with the cost for running bases in each region of the world that we operate.

what do *we* do when these weapons age and become . . .

obsolete then? No, having a stockpile of weapons/equipment is a dangerous thing.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


You get to be "green" and recycle ;)

But seriously, we do need to be sure we are building weapons that are needed now and for the next war, not just to line the profits of weapons makers.

Conservatives, in their

Conservatives, in their credulity, who support constant warfare and emancipated industry, have no leg to stand on when socialists retort: see what this money could have bought. Now, if the choice was, as a matter of reality, between every household receiving an iPod or, instead, having the limbs, bodies, and blood of soldiers and civilians lubricating the soil for the jugglers in the MIC, I would, no doubt, choose the former. The Merchants-of-Death, their apologists, lickspittles, and shavers can desiccate on the vine.

Parsimony in government and the concomitant liberty unveiled beats the sacrifice farmers, small business, families, regular folk, and soldiers have to endure by supporting the bloodlust of those who wield the iron fist in fending off the Huns. Instead of an Iranian war—a tyrant’s lust—which will cause misery for millions, at home and abroad, let us enjoy our Pax Americana.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke


I have been looking for this for quite awhile,This info is only acquired with a password from what I have found.

Now take these costs and Double them!,Because for every dollar openly appropriated the same amount goes to a secret project.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

awesome! but correction

this is super awesome and we should help this spread

there is a correction i *think*

the outfitted military soldier, shouldn't that be .08* homes and not .8 homes?

I saw the same thing.

It calls all the rest into question. Hope they can edit.

Looks like it's been edited

Looks like it's been edited already. Now reads $17,500 and 0.35 houses. That's $50,000 per house.

National average for tract housing is about $50 / sqft, so we're talking 1,000 sqft - small starter houses.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

there should be one more item on this and maybe I missed it

How about the cost associated with taking care of the wounded and the PTSD victims? Thank you for posting this Michael and educating us Jonathan. No amount of money is worth one single life lost, one single victim without limbs, or one single person suffering from PTS!!

The former Supreme Allied Commander

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 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 cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
34th president of US 1953-1961 (1890 - 1969)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


So we need less stealth bombers and more U.S soldiers? ...I'm kidding I'm kidding.. jeez.. take it easy.

Armed Neutrality

Same concept as non-intervention but better language in my opinion for helping convince the neocons. We do still need SOME of this stuff for "national defense" just not as much as what's needed to occupy 130+ countries.

The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.
Thomas Jefferson

Where liberty is, there is my country.
Benjamin Franklin

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
G. Washington

Foreign Aid = Cronyism

It would be nice to see a chart showing who profits from US Foreign Aid. Billions of US taxpayers money given to Foreign Countries just to buy arms from a couple US corporations.

The military expenditures alone would suffice.

Stating that this is what we could be spending on otherwise gives the impression that we are advocating socialism. Perhaps point out that Joe Citizen could spend it on these things if he didn't need to expend so much toward policing the world. Thank you Michael, for all that you do.

"It’s not like I’m just trying to win and get elected. I’m trying to change the course of history." ~Ron Paul


Promoting topics like this only reinforces the idea that we are really just liberals who want to disband the military and legalize drugs so we can all just get high.

This post implies that if we didn't spend the money on equipping our men and women in uniform, and keeping our military up with state of the art technology, that our government would be buying us houses and 4-year educations at college, and health insurance plans. None of which are authorized in the Constitution.

We have a problem with OVERSEAS SPENDING, meaning the wars we're fighting and the subsidizing of Europe's, Japan's and South Korea's military. We do not have a problem with defending our own country and making sure if we are ever attacked by a foreign nation that we can absolutely crush them within weeks.

I don't care if this is down-voted; protecting our soldiers on the ground and defending our borders is one of only a handful of things our federal government needs to be handling.

this assumes that those who make the decisions . . .

with regards to the military/weapons, etc.---

WANT to defend America.

Dr. Paul speaks hopefully about this, diplomatically, about this--

but the fact is that America has been sold, betrayed, by the very people who have the 'authority' to promote war and sell weapons and hand out foreign aid.

I don't want to depend upon such people to 'crush' *our* enemies. Even now the enemies are right here, in federal government positions, state governments, and even in local governments.

There are things *I* could say to prove this, but *I* have privacy to protect.

The 'war' is in small town, large town, rural America. The 'war' is being waged against 'law-abiding' citizens.

There are few enemies worse than the loss of freedoms that has occurred in the past decade alone.

Some of us remember what it felt like to be truly 'free'.


FDA, Department of Education, Food Stamps, Roe versus Wade, Welfare, War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc., etc., etc.--

*I* remember those days/years. When the CIA was just beginning to create problems in the middle east and around the world and America was much, much more free.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I mostly agree.

In some ways, I see how this could be construed by a lot of people as "We should be putting war spending into education and housing instead." Initially, though, I saw it as more of a numbers comparison - this is the equivalent in terms of numbers, not necessarily what we SHOULD spend the money on instead. The title might imply the former though.

"Of two evils, choose neither." -Charles Spurgeon
Read my columns at Freedom Bunker and Reformed Libertarian.

Think Like A Neocon

That's why I'm saying it implies. If we started going off about how much money we spend on military hardware to the neo-cons we're trying to convince to vote for Ron Paul, we'd be shut down and it would go in through one ear and out the other.

This is something I would expect to see on the Huffington Post or The Hill, not the Daily Paul as the second headline topic.

Then you show it in terms of

Then you show it in terms of how many bibles, churches, 12 gauge shotguns and pickup trucks you could've bought with the money.

Ok. Where is the talent to re-do the chart.

Paulers to the rescue to once again enhance for solution.

Oh and banjos and chitlins

Oh and banjos and chitlins too!