The US Has Been Involved In These Wars For Nearly Half Its Existence [INFOGRAPHIC]

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-us-armed-coflict-2013-2

The U.S. has a long history of armed conflict and the Best Liberal Art Colleges released this infographic, breaking down the battles, the cost, and the duration of each. It's a handy and concise look at a long and complex history of armed conflict.

[RKP5637]

1. It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. n/t

[Initech]

24. Yup. Bush was right about one thing - money trumps peace.

But not sometimes - all the time every time!

[el_bryanto]

2. That's a well designed graphic

Some wars are pretty sketchy, some wars are pretty defensible.

Bryant

[TheMadMonk]

17. No war is defensible. Some just have to be fought. /nt

[el_bryanto]

18. Well if they have to be fought that makes them defensible

I guess it depends on how you look at it - but if we are to Judge the United States - well, Spanish American, Mexican American, Vietnam, Iraq - these are hard to defend. On the other hand certainly WW2 might be seen a more defensible.

Bryant

[zipplewrath]

19. Attempt at simplicity

You're attempting to make a very complex subject, very simple.

The original wars were pretty much about the right to even BE a country. This is especially true of the two wars with Britian. Over laid with that (they excluded the "French and Indian wars" preceding the Revolution) were basically wars of white/european expansion into the American Continent. (this gets a bit confused as well because of the Spanish moves in this area that start before that). Subsequent to those wars, were the string of wars expanding the country west. That was predominately a continuation of white/european expansion, but under a new government. You then get into the early attempts at a new form of empire building which is where the Spanish American war and Philipino wars come from.

Then you get to the WWI and II (which are the same war) and it isn't clear why we really needed to be involved in that one AT ALL. We probably get involved predominately because of a desire to maintain our more lucrative economic markets in England and France, and the fact that England was "controling" much of the early middle eastern oil. Truth is, it is one of the DUMBEST wars europe fought. They basically all "backed in" to it and if cooler heads had prevailed, it could have been avoided altogether. WW II doesn't happen at all without the outcome of I, although it isn't clear at that point what happens to the rise of facism, especially in Italy and Spain. But neither of those countries had nearly the expansionist intentions of Nazi Germany, so a general European war is probably unlikely.

Then you get to our modern "empire" wars, Korea, Vietnam (Laos and Cambodia), Iraq I and II. We could throw in Panama, Grenada as well as repeated moves into Haiti. These are attempts at empire in a new form, started out of a desire to avoid direct conflict with the USSR, but now just empire building for the 21st century.

In that layout, it isn't clear that ANY of them were necessary. Canada didn't need a war to become independent of England. (But our revolution may have made it possible). We can argue about the necessity of westward expansion, but anyway one looks at it, it is hard to see why it had to be a vioilent expansion. The one war I left out, the American Civil War, was only "necessary" because we weren't part of England any more which had rid itself of slavery well before us.

At the end of the day, war isn't "necessary". Occasionally, you get attacked and there isn't much you could have done. 9/11 almost qualifies as an attack like that (although many would like to discuss our behavior over the previous few decades that created Al Queada and the Taliban). But in this day and age, my axiom is:

War is what you do after you missed all the chances to do the right thing.

[TheMadMonk]

21. And I reitterate. NO WAR IS DEFENSIBLE.

ALL wars start with "He's got something I want, and I think I'm big enough to TAKE IT." and that mindset is ALWAYS indefensible.

[el_bryanto]

22. So what about WW2 - should we not have responded to Pearl Harbor? nt

[TheMadMonk]

23. Did I say that? Let me check. NO I DID NOT SAY THAT!

The party which has to DEFEND/JUSTIFY a war is the party which STARTED it, not the party given no choice but to respond to it.

Defending a war IS NOT the semantic equivalent of defending against war.

So (third time's the charm?) NO WAR IS DEFENSIBLE.

[el_bryanto]

25. Gosh - i'm sorry to be so slow.

But when you say no war is defensible below a chart of the Wars of the United States - the Wars we have been involved in - I just take that to mean that no war the United States has been in is defensible. I guess that was foolish of me.

What you meant to see is that War is always a failure on somebodies part, but nations, of course, have the right to defend themselves.

Bryant

[TheMadMonk]

32. Not quite. War almost inevitably ends in failure for one,...

...side or the other. But it is not inevitable that failure (of diplomacy or torte) is the reason for war.

War is:

• I want.
• You have.
• I take.
• You stop me?
  You don't stop me?

[exboyfil]

27. A case could be made that we were overly

belligerent towards Japan, and we could have avoided the war with a softer policy. Not to say that I agree with what Japan was doing (or their allies Germany and Italy). We could have ignored Germany when it declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Would we have stood by and watched Western Europe go dark? We might have if Japan had not attacked us. Many Americans believed that the behavior of France and England after WWI means that they were getting what they deserved. I think many saw a replay of WWI going on in WWII (and the extension of the several hundred years of European wars). Up until WWI we were able to mostly stay out of European intrigue. A more neutral policy before our entry into WWI could have kept us out of that engagement as well.

[TheMadMonk]

33. The US was as much behind the inequities of the Versailes...

...Treaty and Marshal Plan as Britain and France.

It is becoming more and more likely that the Lusitania incident was deliberately engineered to get the US populace behind a war they wanted to stay out of. At the same time, there is any amout of evidence that "Stay out of it." was official policy right up until the moment it wasn't.

In fact one could make an argument for the US hanging back a year or so to see if there was any profit in tooling up for mechanised warfare, or simply gain the time to tool up to the stage where the US could make some impact.

And then cynically sending a shipload of civilians to their deaths in order to change a nation's collective minds in an instant.

Arguably many of the roots of WWII were in the 29 crash and great depression which was a US phenomenon spread to the rest of the world. Where it collided with the Post WWI treaties, hyperinflation and/or fascism set in.

Plenty of European beligerance toward Japan too.

Ultimately, it's lead to arms traders realising there's more profit in the instruments of modern mechanised war, than there is in the commodities being "secured".

[exboyfil]

34. I agree we were at the carving table as well

Along with sending military to back White Russia. I agree with you that it is very likely the Lusitania was set up for domestic effect.

"The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft."

[rakeeb]

3. the graphic states that

Afghanistan and Iraq were the most expensive wars in history, but then the bar graph directly below that statement shows WW2 to be the most expensive.

Other than that, this graphic is well-designed to get the point across in a single (scrolling) glance.

[The Straight Story]

6. About that:

The economic cost of the war has been estimated at US$1500 billion.
Of this, the US spent 21%, Britain 20%, Germany 18% and the USSR 13%.
(Source: The Penguin Atlas of World History ; Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann; Originally published as Atlas zur Weltgeschichte).

...

According to my Oxford Companion to WWII in strictly monetary terms here was the breakdown for the major players in their currencies:
UK-Pounds Sterling 20,500,000,000 US-$306,000,000,000 Germany-Reichmarks 414,000,000,000 Japan-Yen 174,000,000,000 Italy- Lire 278,500,000,000 USSR- Ruble 582,000,000,000
I'm not sure if the US figure even takes into acount the 50 billion in Lend lease aid that was given out.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_World_War_2_cost

[Agschmid]

12. Yah that was confusing to me too. n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. The most profitable and least stimulative government spending. Military. K&R n/t

[progressoid]

5. USA! USA! USA!

[Beowulf]

7. What about the wars with American Indians?

Grenada? Panama? What about proxy wars? I think this list is really light.

[geardaddy]

8. They've got the Indian Wars in the graphic

1865-1891. But yeah, I'd argue the list is light.

[think]

16. Here's a link to a list of all US military "interventions" rather than "wars":

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

[malthaussen]

9. Wow, we fought the USSR in Korea?

Stalin should be notified at once!

-- Mal

[Downtown Hound]

11. Soviet pilots were active in the Korean War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War

[malthaussen]

14. Well, that's an interesting tidbit, thanks.

We could argue about whether it is sufficient to rank the USSR as a belligerent in the conflict, but I'm easy to get along with.

-- Mal

[Downtown Hound]

10. This list doesn't take into account the constant gang warfare

that has also plagued America pretty much since its inception. Whether it's the Blood and Crips or Al Capone, America's streets have been killing grounds for hundreds of years.

This is why I never get all gushy over military parades and shit like that. I have nothing against individual soldiers, even have a few as friends, but I hate the constant glorification of war and death in our culture. The bottom line is, as long as we have a huge ass military, we'll find ways to use it. Otherwise, what's the point in having it? This is not lost on The Powers That Be.

[lonestarnot]

13. Don't forget the war over dog shit.

[ashling]

15. Unfortunately that graphic is woefully incomplete

[The2ndWheel]

20. That's how nations figure out who's going to make the rules

America wouldn't be if not for war. It's how territory is carved up.

Look at a continent like Africa, or a region like parts of the Middle East. The borders were drawn up by outside interests. War didn't get to do its job the way it did in America, or Europe. Party because of the success of America and Europe in making up the rules, which of course benefit the victor.

[bob321]

26. Wow

That's crazy. We've been involved in way too many wars!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. Terribly sad history.

In 1944 Charles Erwin Wilson, CEO of GM, said "America needs a war based economy". He was still CEO when Eisenhower appointed him Sec't. of Defense. While Eisenhower warned against the MIC in his final speech, he was the president who built it.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. They left out the Bannana Wars.

We sent the Marines to support various governments in Central America during the 1920s and 1930s.

[NeoConsSuck]

30. We invaded Panama under Bush senior. Where is that?

[indepat]

31. $1.4 trillion to keep us safe from foreign terraists while the Congress must think it's just hunky-

dory to have gazillions of assault-type weapons just lying around waiting for some stochastic terrorist to prod a crazed loony to act out on a stirred-up hatred by massacring a multitude of locals: what a dichotomous asininity imo.