Syria Strike Wouldn't Be Cheap

[n2doc]

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

WASHINGTON — A cruise missile strike against Syria could cost the Pentagon hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons, according to experts and government documents.

Since any type of US military action is expected to last just a few days, the price tag would be similar to costs accrued during the early days of the 2011, five-month NATO operation to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, defense analysts say.

The first few weeks of the Libyan operation cost the US about $600 million. About $340 million of that was directly was to replenish munitions, specifically sea-launched Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missiles and air-launched Boeing Joint Direct Attack munitions, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (T-LAMs) cost about $1.4 million each, according to government budget documents.

more

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130828/DEFREG02/308280030/Syria-Strike-Wouldn-t-Cheap

[leveymg]

1. No shit. And, not just financially.

[DirkGently]

2. But war money comes from the War Chest, which is a

magical box that invisibly sucks resources from things we don't need, like education and health care.

Everyone knows that.

[Scootaloo]

3. Isn't the war chest the one we need to beat regularly? n/t

[HooptieWagon]

4. Yes, but its not just the money.

The money would be well spent if a missle strike were a magic bullet that ended Syrian fighting.

But its not. Its bound to fail (perhaps by design?). It will not prevent Assad from using chemical weapons, infact probably the opposite. It will not end fighting, prevent civilian deaths (it may cause civilian deaths), or bring a stable government to power. It IS pouring gasoline on a fire already out of control.

So, even if the missles were absolutely free, its still a poor value because it will not succeed in its claimed purpose.

[DirkGently]

5. Which no one seems willing to acknowledge at all

Step 1: Missiles

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Assad / Syria all fixed