"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message


Missiles often cost more than the target.

Nonsense. If it kills the target, it paid for itself. There's no point in
trying to play accountant as well as CP/G.

I believe this argument when taken to extremes will have negative result.
If every target deserves the most expensive munition then many targets
will have no munitions. And of course excessive cheapness taken to
extremes will also have negative results. Cannot we both agree that
somewhere in the middle is the correct answer?


Missile expensive? You bet!
But guess what? There's a plant in California that'll make *all of them you
want*.

Hm. I was under the impression that the Pentagon had a limited budget,
and could not in fact afford all the missiles it wanted.

Heck, I can promise you a Hellfire costs more than most cars - yet a
Hellfire was used to destroy a car-full of al-Qeda terrorists a year or so
back. Should the UAV pilot have waved off and not killed 'em?

Of course not. The correct comparision is not the cost of the missile
vs. the cost of the car. The correct comparision is the cost of the missile
vs the lives of the "car-full" of terrorists and the damage they would
likely do us.