It's so funny to me when the dollars stop being abstract for a moment, and I see that the US has regions that <i>beg</i> for quite literally .2% of this amount to fund things like public transit, lead remediation in elementary schools, or homelessness programs.<p>Americans will never see a dime of benefit from this war.
For context Doge saved 2-3 billion by independent estimates. And cut some of the most important international aid around the world.
Not only aid, it was a powerful tool for the extension of American soft power around the globe. But I guess we're no longer able to reason in the abstract beyond "helping people is woke."
Other independent estimates say DOGE has cost America $135b. <a href="https://fortune.com/article/doge-mass-federal-workforce-cuts-taxpayers-billions/" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/article/doge-mass-federal-workforce-cuts...</a><p>And spread death and disaster across the world, making chainsaw man musk the 21st century's bloodiest killer. <a href="https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/" rel="nofollow">https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...</a><p>But yes our politicians seem entirely unwilling to do anything about colossal expenditures on this "expedition", while all-too-willingly destroying American institutions. It's an insurrection of the elites; Federalist Society finally getting the destruction of the nation their treasonous tattered souls have lusted for. What a horror show they have us strapped in to.
For reference, a national 4-week paid parental leave program in the U.S. is estimated to cost under $2 billion annually, while a 12-week program would cost around $7 billion.<p><a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w33279" rel="nofollow">https://www.nber.org/papers/w33279</a>
Wow, that's pretty cheap compared to all the AI datacenters.
Note that it doesn't count the cost of second- or third- order effects (like the cost from the price of oil going up by 50%). Since February 28, crude oil prices increases cost $42 billion in the United States alone.
Oil money flows back into the U.S. economy as a net exporter.
to be fair US is net exporter now
Doesn’t matter much in this case as US consumerd are still affected by the price rise same way consumers in a non-exporter country would be.<p>I guess what matters is that the increase in revenue largely stays within the country, but that doesn’t help consumers directly.
net exporter of petroleum products, US is still a net importer of crude.
Being a net exporter is completely irrelevant when prices are set globally. Such a statement is like shining a laser pointer to distract a cat, fun, but meaningless.
Not to mention datacenters were bombed and, for specifically AI ones, the in-construction Stargate was threatened.
We increased export revenue by about $9b per month and may have changed the global energy supply chain to our benefit for decades.
It's so odd to me that people think the cost of oil going up is universally bad. It's good both morally for me and financially for many people.
The consequences to everyone that isn't as well fed as yourself are also good for you morally?
I think people are more concerned about the massive deindustrialization and famines which could result from the Strait of Hormuz being chaotically strangled, not the hit to their pocket books at the gas pump
Me too. I'm surprised those in the Green Movements generally, haven't been celebrating. Not a whisper. Makes one wonder.
It is nice to be rich. People in India and Asia are heavily reliant upon oil and gas coming through the strait. When prices shoot up by a multiple, guess what happens? The poorest people have to do without cooking gas. “Rationing” is a cute word to mean the poor take the hit on the chin.<p>There is enormous, real suffering hitting those who can least handle it.
What are the second- and third order effects of the Marg Bar Amrika Society getting a nuclear device (and the missiles to deliver it)?
It is interesting.<p>Is the job of a leader (or the administration) to foresee threats before anyone else can see it coming? Is their job to make sure that it does not manifest?<p>It is interesting that when they does it, the majority is against it, precisely because no one else could see it and can agree with the action of the administration?<p>So it seems that if someone is a very good leader, they will be ridiculed by the very people they are trying to protect. I think this happens if the unit in question is a family, or a country.<p>I am not picking sides in the on going crisis. But just making an observation.
Peace in that region of the world, since you can't just bomb Iran consequence free anymore?<p>MAD has had its virtues extolled, yet assume it won't work with another country because somehow they are even more irrational (if true). Even though that is exactly for whom the MAD strategy is designed and operates under.<p>It is only the build up of Iran getting a nuclear weapon that is used to go to war.<p>The game theory here seems rather simple, honestly.<p>And if Iran is seen as hostile, we need to look at the countries for whom the USA allies with and what wars they launched in the region. And they are plausible nuclear capable where their neighbors are not.<p>I think Israel is currently a larger aggressor, literally flattening more towns through demolition.
Who shredded the 2015 agreement with Iran that had stopped them from enriching more uranium?<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/29/science/iran-enriched-uranium-stockpile-nuclear-energy-bomb.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/04/29/science/iran-...</a><p>Oh wait, that the Trump and his war criminal friends. They make the problem, blame it on someone else, and then claim they fixed it while making life worse for everyone else. Meanwhile Trump and his corrupt oligarch cronies are profiting massively.
Probably comparable to North Korea getting a nuclear device and the missiles to deliver it.
This superficial analogy comes up a lot but these two states don't share anything in common aside from internal repression. They're diametrically opposed in their external behavior.<p>Look at a small sampling of Iran's external actions in the region through the Quds force. The hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed by Hezbollah or the almost 300k dead in Yemen due to the Houthis. Iran's actions in 2019-2022 against CENTCOM bases in Iraq and elsewhere. The puppet Iraqi president propped up by PMF.<p>North Korea doesn't do anything like this until very recently when they started sending troops to invade Ukraine. They don't organize their state around an expansionist death cult ideology.<p>NK doesn't behave different due to owning a nuclear weapon. Before the 1990s they were like this too.
Does North Korea send missiles and drones to it's neighbors?
the right question to ask is how much worse is the situation now that tensions have been radically escalated without any meaningful path towards Iranian disarmament.
Compare the costs associated with keeping US troops in NKorea to contain that threat.
The data centers are being paid for by customers, who are receiving greater value from the products than they pay for them.
Is it? I don't think so.
What was gained from it?
Does this number include the cost of stockpile replenishment?
Somewhat related: "Here Is What Trump’s Gargantuan $1.5T Defense Budget Has In It":<p>* <a href="https://www.twz.com/air/here-is-what-trumps-gargantuan-1-5t-defense-budget-has-in-it" rel="nofollow">https://www.twz.com/air/here-is-what-trumps-gargantuan-1-5t-...</a><p>That's $500B more than last year's budget, and:<p>> > <i>Trump’s budget proposal represents the largest yearly military spending plan in U.S. history, exceeding the previous record of $1.2 trillion during World War II, when adjusted for inflation. And records confirm the DNC’s characterization of the increase being the largest since WWII when inflation is factored in.</i><p>* <a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/apr/20/democratic-national-committee/trump-defense-budget-ww2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/apr/20/democratic...</a>
So what were they requesting $200 Billion for?
> <i>So what were they requesting $200 Billion for?</i><p>That request was over a month ago and perhaps based on estimates using an operation tempo that was high. After the initial outburst, things may have slowed down.<p>That said, a lot of missiles were used, which, under current production rates, will take years to replenish: some 'extra' money may be needed to pay for production ramp up to get replacements sooner.
> based on estimates using an operation tempo that was high<p>So they were expecting those high tempos to continue for months?<p>> That said, a lot of missiles were used, which, under current production rates, will take years to replenish: some 'extra' money may be needed to pay for production ramp up to get replacements sooner.<p>8X is a heck of an expedite fee.
Short answer? To ramp up production.<p>For any sufficiently large and complex system, you need to keep that assembly line alive to keep the system alive. Part of this is for just replacement parts and general maintenance. Take something like the F35. The engine will only last a certain number of flight hours. Then you need a new engine. That engine will need replacement blades and other parts. The frame and the stealth coating will need maintenance. And then there are all the weapons you fit to the plane and use.<p>A good example of how this matters is with rockets. Up until SLS, Saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever built and SLS only beats it by "cheating" with 2 solid rocket boosters. People would often ask "if we could build Saturn V 50-60 eyars ago, why can't we just do that again?" It's a fair question and the answer is we no longer have the expertise. All of the people who worked on that are long gone. Some of it was documented. Some wasn't. F5 engines were essentially bespoke. Materials science has changed. It's essentially impossible or just prohibitively impossible to reproduce now.<p>So back to the $200 billion. The US military has been hit by this kind of problem before where they've bought a weapons system and been unable to maintain it later. Now it essentially has to be documented and the US buys up and stores all the documentation as well as machining tools, etc if they ever have to revive it.<p>So for a lot of the munitions used in the war, the US has contracted them to a certain replacement rate. In the last year they've been used way in excess of that production rate. Ramping up production is expensive. New factories have to be built. New people need to be trained. And the only way a supplier would do that is if the military essentially pays for it AND guarantees purchasing. So you might end up paying 3x to double production because it doesn't necessarily scale. It's also more expensive to scale something up quickly.<p>Put another way, this is another $200 billion for Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to replenish overpriced weapon systems.
Maybe they expect this not war to last 7x longer?<p>Have any of the not objectives for the not war been accomplished yet?
Destroying the world is cheap compared to the cost to humanity.<p>Now they need to share the cost that we have burdened the world and ourselves with.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. I miss actual capitalism with actual competition and anti-trust enforcement, not the oligopolies, regulatory capture and government-picked survivors we have now.
A small price to pay to teach the mullahs a good lesson.
Does anyone have the number that would have been required to pay off all student loans that SCOTUS blocked?
One time $10k per borrower forgiveness was estimated to cost $300 to $330 billion.<p>Of course this cost would be distributed over time, and the economic benefits of putting substantial spending money in the pockets of younger adults would have the potential to significantly offset or exceed these costs.
> ...cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all
borrowers...<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf</a>
Total student loans are about $1.8 trillion. SCOTUS blocked forgiveness on $400 billion of that.<p>Trump-led tax cut policies reduced revenues by ~$1.5 trillion in his first term, and ~$5 trillion in his second term. $800B of PPP loans were forgiven. The oft-cited ICE and CBP budget increases were about $140 billion.<p>I can't find many other policies championed by Trump that accounted for increases >$200B in increased spending. As a result, there's not really any good 1:1 "Trump is willing to spend $400B on $X but not student loans". Most of his national debt impact has been via tax cuts rather than spending. Where spending did increase in large amounts, it was mostly for the Pentagon, and some % of those increases likely would have occurred under any other administration - so it's hard for me to carve out what Pentagon budget increases were due to his policies vs. the base-case for how much they would have increased otherwise.
$400 billion
$400B
I’d be okay with them forgiving student loans so long as they also pay me back for what I paid back.<p>I think the best course is to allow students to default on their loans. With backed loans Unis know they’ll get their money one way or the other and keep ballooning their admin costs.
Why does improving things for future generations need to be held up until we can undo mistakes already done? The ladder got pulled up and some of us needed to scramble, but can't we lower the ladder back down for them anyway?<p>We can do both. We can help people already saddled with debt, and also do things to prevent future generations from being saddled with debt in the first place. People who managed to climb out of the hole (a demographic I am also part of) are the least in need of consideration.
Because we're still alive and also have a future and if the goal is to help people, there is no reason to draw the line at "paid it off already" when money is fungible and can still be used to secure a more comfortable future. Having paid off debts doesn't mean you climbed out of the hole, it means you did the responsible thing when you could have easily stashed the money away for your own retirement.
We can help them by allowing students to default on their loans. It still costs us taxpayers but at least it keeps universities honest.
I wonder if they have to assign costs to a project code.
I would merely point out, since the operation started, global terrorism has fallen quite dramatically. Freedom isn’t free; never has been.
Yes, it's great that civilian homes and infrastructure are sacrosanct now. Saracasm aside, that's a matter of perspective, no?
They don't want to waste their evil plan of assassination, just to be send to the 17th page of the newspapers.
Domestic terrorism is up though. The American public wants nothing to do with being world police.
correlation, therefor causation! simple as.
all their numbers are a lie<p>they've spent more than $25 BILLION on just weapons which have to be replaced so it's already twice that number<p>and for more examples we know now the true cost of militarization since 9/11 was $21 TRILLION<p>it's at least half the national debt if not more<p><a href="https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militarization-since-9-11/" rel="nofollow">https://ips-dc.org/report-state-of-insecurity-cost-militariz...</a><p>Remember, beyond the cost of war, every day the cost of gas is +$1 that's another BILLION dollars being siphoned out of the US economy, EVERY DAY<p>the strait is not opening this year, maybe not even before 2029 at this rate<p>that's TRILLIONS<p>time for a windfall profits tax on the US oil industry
Perspective:<p>- $9b per month increase in US oil export revenue as a result offsets probably 40% of the cost.<p>- Several trillion (with a 'T") of realized and yet to be realized FDI commitments from gulf states more than offsets cost by about 3x.<p>- A nuclear Iran carries economic costs I won't detail here to prevent a wall of text. In sum, forces other countries to go nuclear and take other actions to manage risk, and this happens in ways that could severely impact US dollar standing, US debt standing and US military spending. Its an interconnected world.<p>I know its unpopular to be pro-USA and pro-government on HN, but someone has to be the voice of reason - even if its at the bottom of the page.<p>-
By the way, this is just the estimate from Pete Hegseth, who has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable narrator. This administration seems to have difficulty with numbers in general, accurate numbers in particular. The real cost is likely twice this, or higher.<p>For example, roughly 50% of our missile stockpiles have been depleted during this "excursion."
All of the jokes about reported Soviet production numbers come to mind. This administration has zero credibility in speaking the truth, especially when the outcome is embarrassing.<p>I do not know what to believe, and I hate it.
As a European center/moderate kind of person I agree with the US POTUS about this one thing: Iran can not be allowed to build nuclear weapons.<p><i>Whether this war is effective at stopping that is another question.</i><p>I personally don’t buy the line of thought that Iran has no such ambitions; YMMV.
For comparison, Iran's annual military budget is somewhere between $7B and $11B [1], representing 2-2.5% of estimated GDP. The US military budget currently exceeds $1T+ and the ask for 2026 is expected to be $1.5T+, representing almost 5% of GDP. And the US simply cannot end this conflict militarily short of the use of nuclear weapons. I don't mean that as hyperbole. I mean it literally.<p>There are long-term consequences to this war (and the 12 day war last year), namely the depletion of missile defence munitions (eg Patriot, THAAD) that will take <i>years</i> to replenish and this will have ripple effects on allies as well as certain theaters (eg moving THAAD interceptors and radars from South Korea to the Gulf).<p>Over half of the military budget goes towards weapon systems, arguably incredibly overpriced weapon systems. Put another way, it's a scam to move money from government coffers to private weapons manufacturers.<p>The inability to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily was not a surprise to US military leadership or intelligence agencies. It was only a surprise to the president (IMHO) who believed he could do a repeat of a Venezuelan decapitation strike. But Iran unlike Venezuela has suffered under reprehensible and unjustifiable sanctions and military adventurism by the US and its proxies such that the entire Iranian national project is built to resist US aggression, understandably. So that was never going to work.<p>This will have to end diplomatically. It will be worse for the US than it was before this war. Iran has something better than a nuke: it has a nuke they can use (e closing the Strait) and the US forced them to use it and prove that it works.<p>Now it's just a questio9n of how long this impassse goes on for before it ends and so far at least the US would rather let the world burn than split with Israel. Again without hyperbole I say, splitting with Israel effectively means the end of American empire. And the whole world is suffering for it.<p>[1]: <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/military-expenditure" rel="nofollow">https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/military-expenditure</a>
I remember before the election I read a few people on HN say Trump is the most anti-war president they have ever seen and that all the talk about him letting Israel flatten Palestine was fearmongering. Wonder how they feel now.
I think he ran on ending "forever wars", not whether or not Israel could flatten Palestine. He would probably also argue that Iran is a 47 year forever war that he is finally ending.
I felt more or less like this, though I don't know if I posted it on HN. Lots of things I didn't like about Trump, but I did favour the less interventionist foreign policy he promised and initially delivered.<p>Now I feel I was wrong and Trump is just averagely warmongering, as US presidents go.
Trump kidnaps a sitting president of a foreign nation after months of conducting strikes in the Caribbean. This is not a war but calling him "averagely warmongering" is just wrong.
Honest question; why did you believe that about Trump? He was, and is, a serial lier and famously inconsistent. In his first term he moved on the same conflicts he has started now, but was held back circumstances and a cabinet that wasn't 100% yes men. I never understood how anyone could see Trump as the anti-war candidate during the election.
He keeps claiming falsely that he's "ended 8 wars," but at this point he's actually attacked 8 different countries.<p>Up is always down with these people.
They definitely don't feel remorse.
[dead]
[flagged]
The cost to operate the Federal government for one day is about $18 billion.
The only way you could arrive at such a high figure is if you included transfer payments like Social Security and Medicare in "the cost to run the government", which is not how most people understand "the cost to run the government".
The entire NSF budget, our basic science infrastructure which is currently being destroyed by withholding grant funds against Congress' wishes, is only half of that. And Trump's budget cut it in half, Congress had to push back to avoid throwing away half of a carefully grown research industry.<p>Meanwhile Trump also wants to increase the daily allocation of military spending by $1.3B per day, to go to useless and unproductive contractors such as his son, rather than truly effective defense spending.
[citation needed]