Was ‘mother of all bombs’ a smart use of our money?
On April 13, President Trump dropped the largest non-nuclear weapon ever deployed in combat. Of course, just as everything any president does, this has drawn mixed reactions across the board. This is neither an endorsement of nor a hate letter toward the current administration. It is merely a brief discussion about one of Trump’s decisions and the economics behind it.
The cost of the “mother of all bombs,” as it is called, was somewhere in the ballpark of $16 million. Mind you, that is solely the cost to build the bomb and does not incorporate the cost of the entire mission. While the exact count is unclear, the number of ISIS fighters killed in the attack is estimated at 96. That equates to roughly $167,000 of taxpayer money, per kill.
Maybe a strong statement like this was necessary. It is hard to disagree with a concentrated strike on extremist terrorist groups. But at this cost, it may be hard to justify. While different numbers are often reported, we know ISIS, at the very least, has tens of thousands of fighters. So what effect did this attack really have? The bomb took out less than 100 ISIS members – a minute fraction of the whole.
While it is hard to get angry at the president for taking out the bad guy, it is also hard not to question his tactics from an economic standpoint.