The trouble with war measures is that they require wars. I recently read a commenter on another Website who wrote that his grandfather, around 1943 or so, referred to the 1930s as the "good old days." I kid you not. That fellow's grampaw thought that the Great Depression years were relatively good as compared with life in '43.
I don't see any way that the U.S. public would endure the economic collapse that your measure would engender unless it were part of an all-out, full-draft, multimillion-troop, multimillion-death shooting war. That kind of belt-tightening and pain are easier to endure when a fourth to a third of the youngsters are suffering and dying on the front lines. It makes the civvies feel fortunate by comparison, which makes almost anything endurable.
In a way, it's a pity that the Greatest Generation were so tight-lipped about their experiences during World War 2. [My maternal grandfather, an M.D., never spoke of what his war work was; my mother had to find out after he passed away.] Had they been less stiff-lipped, we'd find out what "war is hell" really meant. Complainers may be irritating, but honest and well-meaning ones inform.
[Of course, I'm one to talk: I hardly complain about anything.]
We do have the resources to do the thing I'm suggesting without anybody dying from it. A year later we'd be four times better off than we'd ever been, and OPEC would be gone along with every rogue regime on the planet.