Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
bawolff
bubblewand
A carrier operating at sea on the other side of the world is a ton more expensive than a carrier in port at home. The Ford in particular would probably be in port now if not for these back-to-back expensive adventures, they’ve been deployed for a remarkably long time now.
(As for whether this reflects only those added costs, I don’t know)
lefstathiou
Carriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
adriand
> The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing.
The idea that the war isn’t costing money for personnel because those people would be doing something anyway makes no sense. They could be doing something else. In fact, they could be doing something that increases the wealth and wellbeing of the world, rather than destroying things. So from that perspective, the cost is far higher than what is shown here.
Then there’s the loss of innocent lives. It would be unconscionable to put a price tag on the lives of dozens of Iranian girls killed when their school was flattened and to show it on this website, and yet, this is not “free” either.
state_less
The strait of hormuz is the opposite of protected right now. Insurance companies aren't willing to cover ships if they enter the strait to pick up a load of oil, so little commercial traffic is occurring.
The real cost should include the spike in oil prices, the world consumes about 100 million barrels a day, so every $10 increase costs the world a $1 billion a day. We're already up ~$10, and it might continue to rise depending on how things go. You probably should include LNG in there too. If this oil halt is protracted, your stocks and bonds will be dragged down as well.
Retric
We have surplus carriers specifically to allow them to average a large percentage of their time at home unlike container ships who spend the vast majority of their time in service. Many systems that are both bespoke and complex means lots and lots of maintenance issues.
Sure the Navy can Airlift in parts etc, but that’s obviously very expensive and less obviously more dangerous.
idontwantthis
They aren't all deployed at all times and the Ford is more than overdue to be in Port. The sailors are notably suffering on this deployment and there is a ton of deferred maintenance.
dspillett
Exactly: that protection isn't happening right now because those resources are doing something else. The money would be spent anyway, but doing something that is normally considered useful, and that useful thing is not happening to the same capacity as before. Therefore there is an opportunity cost to consider.
nitwit005
They haven't exactly been sending aircraft carriers after pirates. It's a huge excess of firepower for any traditional threat to shipping.
The US has liked to portray itself as the world's protector, but often that's just spin. The carriers are big weapons of war, meant for waging war.
bawolff
True.
Honestly i think my main opinion is that we have no idea what the number is, but its probably a large one.
robaato
WSJ: https://archive.is/IB7H2 Missed Funerals and Blocked Toilets: Iran Deployment Takes a Toll on U.S. Sailors The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford’s lengthy mission is causing strains for crew members and their families
Overtaxed crews can be a problem across the Navy’s fleet, beyond just the Ford. In April and May 2025, near the end of an eight-month deployment, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman lost several jet fighters while countering Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea. A Navy investigation blamed the high operational tempo of the mission.
One sailor on board the Ford told the Journal that many crew members are angry and upset, with some saying they want to leave the Navy at the end of the deployment.
RobRivera
Carriers routinely engage in war gaming and cruises. They dont port if they are not actively engaged in war.
runako
> Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way?
This is a fair way to account for the cost, because the assets were procured and personnel hired years ago for just this purpose.
Put another way: we would not need this fleet at all if we did not expect to use it in a manner like this. (For example, Spain did not choose to have this capability and so has not borne a cost of maintaining this option for the preceding decades.) Through that lens, the true cost of this war would involve counting back to before this round of hostilities began.
It's only fair to count _at least_ the "time on task" for all the assets.
1970-01-01
Yes, the actual accounting is quite poor and makes bad assumptions. Don't use this info for anything important or serious.
eschulz
Right, consider the personnel costs that are displayed here. They were already getting paid this past weekend either way (admittedly the military may have had to hire some last minute contractors to help with the operation).
blktiger
I think that's true, but I like that this site includes a "ESTIMATED MUNITIONS & EQUIPMENT COSTS" section that shows the value of actual, expended munitions which are all one-time costs directly resulting from the war.
bawolff
Seems like a massive understatement given how much of this war has been shooting down iranian missiles. According to wikipedia, a single patriot missile cost 4 million, and you often have to use multiple to get a succesful shoot down.
dexihand
This. 220 mil/day is 55 PAC3-MSEs. Iran has fired ~100 ballistic missiles alone per day. Probably spending that on interceptors alone.
stevenwoo
There's someone quoted here who estimated UAE by itself cost in fighting off the Shahed drones at $23-28 per $1 spent on Shahed drone at $55000 (they know how many got through and the claimed success rate and the methods they are using to defend UAE) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/shahed-drones-iran-us...
quantified
Munitions, fuel, and combat pay are additional in combat. Also maintenance. Some costs are there anyway, sure. But war is far more expensive than peace.
sva_
Also, the taking the production/purchasing cost of some F15s that were 25 - 35 years old doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or does it?
lukan
They still work, if they get shot down, you will have to pay to replace them. (also using them is expensive and causes wear, especially under the stress of real action, where the limits are pushed)
sva_
Yeah my 2004 3-series BMW also still works, but if it broke down, I wouldn't think I lost the price that it originally cost.
throwaw12
This doesn't include generational damage in sentiment:
* Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas
* Japan is in trouble because Middle East supplies its 75% of oil, which is blocked now
* Ukraine is in dilemma, because US giving every support to Israel, but not to Ukraine
* Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain is asking questions, if US can't defend us and is moving all defensive missiles to protect Israel, why should we even be ally with them in the future, they're scared even more (except UAE) that people might overthrow those kings if things continue this way
* Africa understood its better to work with China, than with US
roysting
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. People here seem to also have no perspective, since it is not in the wheelhouse of most tech people, on the fact that this is all a part of a 40 year strategy (as Netanyahu himself has openly stated) that some refer to as the “the Clean Break Strategy” or the “7 countries in 5 years memo”[1]. It clearly took longer than 5 years, but they definitely tried and even the likes of Hillary “we came, we saw, he died” Clinton was a party of that.
People always squabble over blue team vs red team, never realizing that the whole game is just a ruse to provide a sense of democratic control to placate the public, and also give the apparatchiks if the regime a sense of autonomy, when in fact they’re just all pulling at the same continuity of agenda like beasts of burden, being whipped and rode by a very small group that hold their reins.
[1] https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1819709215352438921?lang=en
ajross
Counterargument: squabbling about "blue team vs red team" is legitimate domestic politics about issues important to voters. You're just upset because what you think the "the whole game" is about is a rare area of general agreement[1] and you happen to be on the "other side".
To wit: when you disagree with everyone, it looks like they're conspiring against you to control the masses, yada yada yada. They're not, you're just in a small minority (or an epistemological prison).
[1] Hardly surprising, since international geopolitics is exactly where you'd expect their interests to align.
gravisultra
How my tax dollars are spent is a domestic issue. As is not implicating me in war crimes.
> They're not, you're just in a small minority
The majority do not support this war, nor do they support Israel. Our politicians refusing to listen to the electorate is also a domestic issue. As are the many attempts that Israel has made to strip us of our fundamental rights.
throwaw12
red team was against endless wars in Middle East, red team specifically elected Trump to be America first and to stop all wars.
if it was indeed about domestic policies, why promises were not held given to the "team"?
jklinger410
I think citizens in those countries recognize that allowing a repressive regime to exist simply for cheap oil costs is not necessarily a good solution, either.
throwaw12
until your energy bills impact your pocket directly, while you were laid off from your manufacturing plant, because their cost structure is not competitive without cheap Russian oil/gas
Look at the correlation here starting from 2022: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/recent-weakness-german-manufa...
roncesvalles
This is akin to someone in 1861 saying US cotton plantations, and by extension the entire Southern economy, aren't viable without slavery, so let's allow slavery to run.
Western liberal civilization has theta decay without occasional violent intervention.
Imagine if we didn't go all-out against communism.
lukan
Because they all live themself in repressive regimes?
qingcharles
If you're talking about the Qataris, Kuwaitis and Bahrainis, they generally don't consider themselves[1] repressed, even though it looks that way from say an American perspective. (Women's rights are definitely a huge issue still) Those countries are very quickly becoming enormously Westernized, though. Just don't ask how many women politicians there are.
[1] only speaking of the natives, immigrants of all flavors have a very different situation
megous
No, we realize US americans elected gerontoidiot Trump, and we constnantly ask ourselves what the actual fuck after every third act of this senile imbecile. Do you not have young (like at least < 60) people who can still actually think critically, have strategy, hold ideas for more than 30 seconds. Are you impressed by senility? Why do you support someone who attacks european countries frequently just on the basis of whimsy shit like not wanting to go with you into wars of aggression agaisnt third countries, like you attacked Spain most recently? What the actual fuck?
That people think in terms of good/vs/evil and that US will somehow come out of this as a liked country that did good is beyond me. The constant attempts at painting some morals or grand strategy over the constant random unhinged acts of senile imbecile that gets bootlicked by everyone around him just comes out as insane.
That's what at least this european thinks of US, yeah. :)
Unhinged country with unhinged lunatic at the top, all this is. That's what americans should be thinking hard about, not about another new ways to rationalize his insanity and insane criminal acts.
mkoubaa
[flagged]
jklinger410
Oppression is a spectrum. I wouldn't compare "taxes" to something like, I don't know, killing gay people and forcing women to cover their bodies and hair.
kakacik
Almost nobody thinks like that, what are we 5 year olds? Especially when most left leaning folks in western world has hard sympathies with hamas which are just left and right hand of the same regime (maybe not US left which is far from left elsewhere).
Did US population en masse lost sleep during past decades till now and some future due to sweatshops full of kids making their jeans or iphones or Christmas toys for their kids in highly undemocratic regimes?
jklinger410
> Especially when most left leaning folks in western world has hard sympathies with hamas
I'm not going to take your comment seriously due to this wild opinion.
underdeserver
> Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain is asking questions, if US can't defend us and is moving all defensive missiles to protect Israel, why should we even be ally with them
Where are you getting this information? The UAE, for instance, is relying heavily on missile defense - and it's working out for them:
https://gulfnews.com/uae/uae-intercepts-186-ballistic-missil...
It's all US technology, too:
https://www.wired.me/story/inside-the-system-that-intercepte...
flyinglizard
The disruption in gas supply will be very short. Weeks, at most. The gulf states will be very happy to see the Islamic Republic gone, they are living in its shadow for a long time now. Now, Ukraine and Israel need very different kinds of support, and things like US withholding intelligence from Ukraine have nothing to do with Israel.
hedora
Iran has been bombing production facilities across a bunch of US allies. It's unclear how quickly those will be rebuilt. Also, the US is probably bombing Iranian production, which means countries like China will be looking for additional sources.
throwaw12
I wonder why Israel should get any support, do you support killing children and bombing schools?
Ukraine, I understand, because it was attacked, but Israel, who was oppressing people for so many years with prisons full with Palestinian kids and teenagers long before Oct 7th, I really don't understand.
Except, for Epstein reasons (blackmail), other than that, there is no reason US should support Israel, in any way
dttze
[dead]
flyinglizard
[flagged]
karmakurtisaani
> The disruption in gas supply will be very short.
Remember when W declared mission accomplished? That war was so short too.
> The gulf states will be very happy to see the Islamic Republic gone
Would they be happy to see a devastating civil war that gives rise to a successor of ISIS or Taleban? Will they happily accept tens of millions of refugees?
Absolutely nothing good will come from this dumbfuck war. We all will pay the price of it one way or another.
lm28469
> Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas
60% of it comes from the US, a lot from northern Africa too, not much comes from the middle east
karmakurtisaani
The price of oil has skyrocketed because of the dumbfuck war. Doesn't matter where the oil comes when it costs too much and causes massive inflation once again.
undefined
joecool1029
This seems really low considering one of the early warning radars taken out cost around $1bil on its own.... and it's possible a second one was at least damaged. (one in Qatar the other in Bahrain)
nosmokewhereiam
NSA (Naval support) Bahrain lost a ground station (maybe two), not a radar.
dmix
I believe Qatar(?) lost part of a THAAD system which is expensive. But that money has already been spent.
google234123
The only footage I've seen is damage to maybe a satellite receiver. Have you seen proof of the radar damage
spaghetdefects
[flagged]
joecool1029
Not helpful, this is an AI generated post.
We do have actual video of that one radome in Bahrain getting directly struck (from multiple angles). It's possible it was a satellite communication antenna and not a radar.
But the still images shown with before/after are AI generated. (the surrounding buildings are completely different in the before/after image).
The radar that is likely to have been damaged is the one in Qatar, here is reporting from an NPR editor using Planet satellite imagery: https://nitter.net/gbrumfiel/status/2028227786750476627
slumberlust
The contract to rebuild it will mean huge profits too. The circle of life (MIC).
incognition
This is a Keynesian argument, which has largely been disproved. Keynes famously said if you just paid people to dig holes and fill them back up again, that this would be net stimulative to the government. It works until it doesn't work, because digging holes, as you can reason from common sense, does not actually create value.
This U.S. operation is meant to bomb the Iranians into the Stone Age, so presumably THAAD-level air defense wouldn't be needed again. The Qataris, Saudis would have sold off to South Korea, Taiwan if they wanted.
Havoc
Possibly. There are a lot of things around that story that seem very off
Aside from the obvious bad AI images floating around the one credible looking video shows a shaheed flying into a radome. A Radome in the middle of a bunch of buildings. You don't put radars in between buildings. And if it's a phased array I don't think it would be in a round Radome either.
They seem to have hit something of value, but don't think it was a 1bn radar
Everything around this smells like the Iran hilariously oversized F35 misinformation
https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/1ldffvd/its_confi...
roughly
Next time someone asks how we're going to pay for, eg, free school lunches, keep this site in mind.
BJones12
Given 50 million schoolkids in the US and a cost per meal per child of $4, the current number represents 10 meals. At 1 meal a day that would be 2 school weeks, at 2 meals a day that would be 1 school week.
roughly
We've been at this for 2.5 days, and the president is suggesting this could last a month or more.
I suspect the long term ROI on free school lunches is going to far exceed that of this war, as well.
cvoss
The government's job is not to maximize its ROI. For example, (and I make no argument about whether the current situation does this), protecting its citizens is of extreme moral importance, even if it's very very expensive and unlikely to somehow feed back into the economy in a way that recoups the cost long term.
s1artibartfast
99% of school lunches have zero ROI. Parents can provide them just fine.
hedora
Everyone except the president is suggesting this will turn into a regional forever war.
sheikhnbake
2 school weeks of lunches for less than a week of war costs is a pretty good argument for school lunches. Especially as costs of this start to balloon the longer it goes on.
throwaw12
2 weeks of meal for every school kid in the US!
Can you imagine the scale of this number?
3 days of war vs 2 week of meal for every school kid
Now do the math for Afghan war, probably US could have easily cancelled 70% of loan for every college grad, or could've been built large rail network
hedora
The Sentinel ICBM project (already at 2x initial budget, and set to balloon further) will be the most expensive project since the interstate freeway system was built.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/02/the-air-forces-new-icb...
So, an all-city high-speed rail network would certainly be achievable for a small fraction of the total US military budget.
JKCalhoun
That is the thing that is the most disappointing—that we could have had it so much better.
amelius
How many subsidized meals would it represent if you only account for the kids that need one?
roughly
Honestly, a lot of these programs become substantially more expensive when you add the bureaucracy and hoops required by means testing. The economics are easier if you just give kids food and skip sorting out whether they deserve it or not.
TFYS
Those meals would most likely help a lot of kids become healthy productive members of society. That money would be saved by the families of those kids and used in other parts of the economy. A lot of the cost would therefore be returned. The money spent of this war is producing only destruction.
beepbooptheory
When would it ever be 2 meals a day?
BJones12
With a school breakfast program and a school lunch program.
marginalia_nu
The question is fundamentally poorly formed, and as a consequence, so is the rebuttal. A state can pay for anything, since it doesn't have to be in a budget surplus.
Household budget analogies emerge any time someone wants to limit spending, or criticize spending, but one of the biggest points of Wealth of Nations (which is the foundation for modern macroeconomics) is that the budget of a state is fundamentally different to that of a household.
If a household fails to maintain its budget, it's game over. People know this, which is why it's a punchy analogy. But it's also a bad analogy.
If a state fails to maintain its budget, it can either print more money or raise taxes. Neither is a great long term fiscal policy, but it's not the end of the world either, and budgetary deficit something most states utilize fairly regularly.
What's missing with the school lunches and present with the Iran War is political will. (I get that is what your point was all along.)
collinmcnulty
This is not exactly true on the scale of these interventions. The state can't run out of money but it does run out of the time and talent of its people, the resources of its land, and the patience of its partners. State capacity is a real limit, and where we direct the money is a pretty strong proxy for where we spend these, the true resources of the state. We don't pay for bombs with dollars, we pay for them with schools, roads, and hospitals.
roughly
Yeah, I mean, it'd definitely be better if we could just tell the deficit weenies to fuck off, but given that we keep having to have that argument with everyone to the right of Bernie, it's nice to be able to throw it back in their faces in their own language, too.
ikrenji
he was saying the state should be paying the school free lunches, what are you on about
marginalia_nu
I wasn't making a rebuttal.
Stromgren
I saw the cost of the three downed planes somewhere else and thought the price was huge. Now I see that it’s comparable to “First Tomahawk salvo”.
Quarrelsome
not providing universal healthcare is a choice, as seen directly here. Its distressing to have US politicians make false claims that Europe's universal healthcare being something they "indirectly pay for", because even if Europe spent all their money on defence the US (albeit mostly the GOP) would still resist providing universal healthcare both tooth and nail.
danny_codes
Universal healthcare is cheaper than our system of healthcare by a factor of 2 (comparing other OECD countries). If we raised taxes and implemented universal healthcare we’d save about $1T a year.
Cost isn’t the relevant factor, it’s politics. Or more accurately, naked bribery that we, for some insane reason, call “lobbying”.
ineedaj0b
I've looked into this for work and no way. You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model.
Some very smart people have looked at fixing the system, and there's no golden goose (except ozempic maybe). We'll need pharmacological breakthroughs.
Also, regrettably - A LOT of medical care is unnecessary but we love grandma.
Quarrelsome
> You must unfactor the European models getting subsidized by the current US model.
But they don't. This is clearly a pro-insurer talking point. Europe just negotiates on a state based level so therefore is able to negotiate better prices.
danny_codes
The Europeans don’t get subsidized by us. Not sure what you’re talking about.
We don’t “need” pharmacological breakthroughs to provide the current standard of care. That’s why it’s the current standard of care.
DarmokJalad1701
> If we raised taxes and implemented universal healthcare we’d save about $1T a year
If it saves $1T, then why does it require raising taxes?
mekdoonggi
Because currently the working population pays what is effectively a tax for health insurance. I pay over $450 a month for a family plan, and that's cheap and subsidized AND I need to pay for copays/deductible/coinsurance.
So taxes could go up $5k/yr but if I got health insurance, I'm better off.
The savings would take longer to realize because they come from better contracts, better preventative care, increased screenings etc.
danny_codes
Healthcare Spending in the US is split across private and public expenditure. Under universal healthcare the public would pay more, but net spending would decrease.
Quarrelsome
idk maybe those savings are not upfront but are more around productivity improvements and so on.
dcder1
Israel => 2.7 bil dollars per week, that is roughly 0.4 bil per day (from news) US => 60 mil per day just operations (from news). Likely around 0.1 bil per day, or more. World => 80 mil barrels oil/day x 10 dollars = 0.8 bil per day (from news), on the increase.
5 days of war generated at least 6.5 bil dollars in cost !!! The majority of which is paid by every human on the planet :-)
The results include the killing of an 86 year old man who had cancer, about 150 school girls, some 40 radical idiots and various by-standers.
wnevets
But universal healthcare is too expensive.
IAmGraydon
[flagged]
gravisultra
This is a valid criticism. Whenever there is a push to improve life for US citizens, we are told that we do not have the funds. Yet, here we see an essentially unlimited budget to fight Israel's war of aggression against Iran, with zero benefit to US citizens. In fact, the costs (financial, moral and human) that we will pay for this excursion will be astronomically high.
mhb
If budgets are what interest you, maybe consider why Iran spent over $500B developing offensive nuclear weapons. Instead of peaceful pursuits or defenses against its supposed aggressor over 1,000 miles away.
danny_codes
Reductive tropes?OP is pointing out a serious flaw in US federal spending. Namely our lack of spending on healthcare and our intensive spending on killing people from a distance
DarmokJalad1701
> Namely our lack of spending on healthcare
The federal govt spent about 2.6-2.8 trillion dollars[1] on healthcare in 2025 - including Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, VA/DoD health and federal employee benefits). In what world is that "lack of spending" ?
[1] https://www.pgpf.org/article/healthcare-spending-will-be-one...
Freedom2
Agreed. Considering this attack is also biblically sanctioned, commenters should keep that in mind else they incur the wrath of God.
wnevets
> Low effort comments
Thank you for your very high effort, insightful and valuable comment on this matter.
kakacik
Your reply is even worse, no facts, no reply just rant and diversion, a proper low effort too.
tzahifadida
What would have happened if the US dis not get involved in WWII. We would probably not be here... Not everything is short sighted bean counters. Having major cities explode by nuclear devices in the US will surely cost more.
Jtsummers
Iran has been weeks away from a nuke for decades. What evidence is there that they were any closer this time, or that this war was necessary to delay or block their progress?
password54321
The war is for Israel, sorry I should say Greater Israel.
lukan
I vaguely remember a similar situation last year, where Trump said, Irans nuclear program is now destroyed for years to come.
Jtsummers
Yep, the Iran chicken hawks can't keep their stories straight.
Trump's chicken hawk fanboys:
- Iran is weeks away from nukes, but our bombing runs last year were so successful they're now years away. But now they're weeks away again, got to attack!
- We're not the world's police, but Iran killed 30k of their own citizens, we need to help them and be the world's police!
- The Iranians were going to attack US bases because of an Israeli attack, so to prevent those attacks we attacked first. Thus giving them no reason to bomb our bases. Oh god, they're bombing our bases! The fiends!
gravisultra
If Iran had nuclear weapons we would not be bombing them now and the world would be a more peaceful place. I certainly trust Iran with nuclear weapons a lot more than I trust Israel with them. We need Iran to keep Israel in check.
karmakurtisaani
I'm sorry but this is a braindead take. Trump is exactly a short-sighted .. well not a bean counter since I doubt his ability to count. But short sighted for sure.
Thinking an Iranian nuke is threatening a US city is probably a Fox news talking point, so dogshit by definition.
cindyllm
[dead]
roncesvalles
[flagged]
galleywest200
We had a nuclear deal with them, which was ripped up by the same man currently in charge of the US.
password54321
The alternative was not bombing them in the middle of negotiations.
roncesvalles
Persia's only singular civilizational goal right now is nukes.
What's funny is, all nuclear engineering programs in US universities (undergrad and grad level) are disproportionately filled with Iranian/Persian students (even as far down as 3rd generation immigrants i.e. those whose parents emigrated during the Shah Pahlavi era).
It's unreal how determined that entire culture is to getting the bomb. It's a big hit to their ego that all the other great "academic" civs of the world (Western European, Russian, Chinese, Indian, Jewish) have it except the Persians.
And they'll get it eventually. The question is only under what regime.
woodpanel
What’s the price tag for keeping your empire?
IMHO:
The US is doing what Russia did 2022 – Act before the window of opportunity closes. Not just vis-a-vis China. Russia being entangled in Ukraine leaves extra opportunities on the menu. Temporarily.
fishingisfun
the lives lost though. the children killed.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way? Without a war US would still have aircraft carriers, they would just be floating somewhere else.
On the other side, it seems like this is not tracking interceptor costs (presumably due to it being classified), which have certainly been used extensively and are extremely expensive. For that matter i doubt we have a very clear picture of how much ordinance has been used in general.
[To be clear, im not doubting war is very expensive]