The US Military Has Spent $550 Million on Military Action in Libya (Will Cost $40 Million per Month)

Source: Al Jazeera

The US military has so far spent US$550million on military action in Libya, says the Pentagon.

Costs to the US taxpayer are expected to stabilise at US$40million a month once NATO takes control of operations, military officials added.

Some 60 per cent of the money was spent on missiles and bombs, while the rest was for bringing troops to the region and operating costs.

more: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-30#update-21386

These costs estimates only include the actual price of the weapons system that is expended in combat, be it a bullet, bomb, or missile. However the old rule of thumb is that for every dollar spend on the actual making of said weapons system, another ten dollars is spent on maintenance, upkeep, security, etc.

Let's say the Navy has 1,000 Tomahawks, and they cost $2 million a year to service ($2,000 each, per year).

One day, the Navy fires off 100 missiles. If they weren't replaced, then the Navy's budget to maintain the remaining 900 missiles would drop to $1.8 million a year.

If they were replaced reasonably quickly, then the maintenance budget would remain at $2 million per year.

The Navy would just have to pay the replacement cost, which I believe is about $500,000 each.

There is no "if" about it. As soon as those missiles were fired off, contracts were sent out to various vendors in order to replace them. Most likely with the latest, greatest model.

Expended munitions should be replaced promptly; that's basic military sense, MIC greed aside.

Besides, as Jan Ting points out below, President Obama may follow George Bush's lead and give us another tax cut to fund this war. (Two legs good, four legs bad)

March 29, 2011
By Jan C. Ting

Let's not be taken in by talk of the handoff of the military mission to NATO. The United States is at the heart of NATO. So it's still our war. We're just changing hats.

The Pentagon is reporting that the first week of the war in Libya cost U.S. taxpayers at least $600 million, including $269 million for cruise missiles, and $60 million for the downed F-15E fighter jet.
Costs also included hundreds of precision guided bombs at tens of thousands of dollars each, and increasingly expensive fuel for ships and planes.
But will taxpayers actually have to pay? Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. government raised taxes to pay for World Wars I and II, Korea, and Vietnam. But in the 21st century, under Presidents Bush and Obama, we wage war without raising taxes. President Bush actually cut taxes after we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those tax cuts have been extended for all taxpayers under President Obama. Since we don't have to pay anything extra, why not go to war in Libya, too? Maybe we'll get another tax cut.
President Obama may have to submit an emergency supplemental budget request for Libya, which is how much of the war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan have been paid, essentially with borrowed, unbudgeted money. Maybe we can think of this spending as more economic stimulus. Let's get America back to work producing cruise missiles and precision guided bombs, while we go deeper into debt to pay for them.

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=16093:unanswered-questions-remain-after-obamas-libya-speech?du

on 40 million a month?

or how many green jobs could be created for 40 million a month?

or how many solar panels on office building could be installed for 40 million a month?

or ∞

Near as I can tell, real money is spent on peaceful things like teachers, health care, and pensions. Real money has to be spent carefully.

On the other hand, war money is apparently magic money and can be spent without concern for the future. It's like gambling money is to a gambler.