Reading up on some of these systems is wild. For example THAAD munitions are wildly expensive, but also a ballistic projectile that physically knocks hypersonic missiles out of the air in flight 200km away. Ultimately $13 million seems reasonable to save a few city blocks in a major city. It just doesn't make sense to use against small arms like disposable drones.

▲

bushbaba 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That 13mil also covers r&d costs as well as the actual manufacturing costs. If we needed 10000+ the cost would go down

▲

asdf88990 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A city block demolished or abandoned is pretty close next to each other on the Operational and Out of Service scale when it comes to economic input.

Also, consider VSL (value of a statistical life) which is around 5-10 million in most of developed world.

	▲	GenerocUsername 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So each missile costs ~2 human lifetimes to produce? But has the potential to save hundreds if used precisely

▲

throwaway27448 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like the better strategy is to not be worth bombing to begin with. It can be extremely expensive to act like israel on the global stage and I strongly recommend we don't do that any more than we already are. Americans are pretty notorious at encouraging and being unwilling to avoid blowback and avoiding all sense, and this seems trivially avoidable by not using our military to perpetrate evil. For the eighth fucking decade in a row.

▲

bruce511 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You'll get downvoted for this because the US believes it is in the right.

The US sees itself as a "policeman" not a "gangster", they are out to save the world, not conquer it.

And yet, the line between the two is very blurry. Kuwait was justified, Iraq contrived. Afghanistan meaningless. Iran is a solution looking for a problem (nooo they can't have nuclear weapons, but who trashed JPOA?)

The 20th century was no better. The righteous of WW2 allows any excess, Vietnam being a poster child.

For the US to change they first need to accept they are the bad guy. And that's a very difficult thing to accept. The shiny uniform for example is what the good guy wears.

But in the end the gangster and police can be hard to tell apart.

▲

adamsmark an hour ago | parent [-]

The US used to see itself as a policeman. It is now kinda going gangster.

You can't police a multipolar world - you can when you're the sole superpower in a unipolar word where "policing" can be a euphemism.

I think there is now a general or at least generational attitude shift about world policeman type stuff vs smash, grab and bully in America.

	▲	ivell an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Even in the past, US was more of a gangster supporting its gang rather than a fair hearted policeman. Its support to Pakistan during Bangladesh (East Pakistan) genocide is well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_Telegra...