Are the United States earning money from wars or losing money to wars? The reason for my question is that during the presidency of almost every American president a war will take place.

That depends on what war you are watching and how you look at it.In the short term, the government only costs money. But the benefits can be enormous in a good course.

Without the war of independence there would be no United States.

In addition to the purchase of Louisiana and the purchase of Alaska, the American Indian Wars have ensured large expansions of the territory.

The Barbary Wars have been very favorable for the US to enter into the conflict.Accepting threats and trade creamed under compulsion is always unfavorable to your economy. The progress of this has been well extracted for the US (for more information see USS Enterprise).

The Second World War has been of vital importance.

However, from the Vietnam War it can be argued that it has only been expensive, but has yielded little for the US.

Of the first Gulf War, it can be argued that it has been favourable to the economy.After all, a dictator with antisocial personality disorder that threatens to get 80% of the world oil reserves is very unfavorable, for everyone’s country, incidentally. What many may have forgotten is that in addition to Kuwait, Saddam has also invaded Saudi Arabia and has had a war with Iran before that. In particular, the costs have been the fact that the Americans have not only fought but that a coalition has been formed with both European and Arab countries.

However, from the conflict in 2003, the Government has not yielded anything good, previously favourable to the business community.It is exactly what Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech.


This is not a good question, because it puts the costs and benefits at the same unit (US).In reality, there are both Americans who deserve (the armaments industry) and who lose it (the rest of the population) at every war. The armaments industry has a lot of influence on both sides (at least more than a simple voter that is not a mega donor) but especially a lot on the Republican Party, which will make you see that more money is spent on war among Republicans (money on the Boyfriends in the armaments industry is given so).

The gigantic arms industry deserves the sale of weaponry, this sale rises in case of, or a serious threat of war, so do the gains.There is a major weapon lobby.

What is the Military-Industrial Complex?

For the industry (especially the armaments industry), a war is a gold mine, but the government runs out of it.

The more sensitive a 芒 鈧?艙administration芒 鈧?is for lobbyism, the more attractive it will be to go on sometime war.

But there are other reasons why war can be appealing to a President: In times of crisis, the population (at least, at short notice) is much more loyal to the incumbent president than when nothing is going on. Only when a conflict has dragged on for years will there be more resistance.

Americans conduct war and create enemy images because they have to keep the armaments industry running.They started it after WW2. If they quit they will end up in a deep recession,

Some groups in the U.S. will surely earn a war, lined by the US.Most likely, there are groups in the US that have well earned to the Lost Vietnam war. Maybe indirectly because they owned bonds and the like of Wapenindustrian. DOW Chemicals had the fame to make incendiary bombs. A well-known Dutch proverb: The one his death is the other his bread.

That’s hard to say.The armaments industry deserves a lot of money, but war costs the Treasury huge sums. Most American weapons go to their own army, so for the economy as a whole, civil indusstrie is supposedly better than military. After WWII, these wars have yielded the US little and the sovereign debt has increased enormously.

Leave a Reply