> We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub? Nowadays an M1 Abrams tank costs around $8 million. This means that for the price of

> We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub? Nowadays an M1 Abrams tank costs around $8 million. This means that for the price of 3 tanks, they can track and ultimately destroy an enemy asset that costs around $800 million new, can't be replaced, and can destroy an entire fleet of billion-dollar ships. The expense is well justified. Now, if only the US didn't kept wasting billions of dollars in assets that can be destroyed by any navy with a diesel electric sub.