4 ms·

I dunno if it's that much of a bargain. A Tomahawk carries a 1000 lbs. warhead. These shells weigh a total of like 225 lbs., of which 25 lbs. or so is explosive

I dunno if it's that much of a bargain. A Tomahawk carries a 1000 lbs. warhead. These shells weigh a total of like 225 lbs., of which 25 lbs. or so is explosives.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
This is a precision weapon (take out a building or a bunker) so a massive warhead is not the point. Its for Marine support
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You can take out a bunker or a building with precision, without naval assets, or a railgun.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    Are there any alternatives with the same reaction time though?
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      It would be cheaper to just have drones or manned craft nearby, waiting to fire. It would be cheaper to just have a missile boat ready to fire a tomahawk. It's not as though we're short on options of ways to deliver ordinance on a target. What we're short of are good reasons to do so, that aren't concocted for the worst possible reasons. Think about it... what was the last war we actually needed to be involved in?
      - ryanx435 10y ago
        world war 2, also korea. I guess you could count vietnam if you think of it as a proxy war between the US and russia (same with us supporting the afghans back in the 70s). Oh, also the iraq war in 1991. The second one not so much. Afghanistan post 9/11 was probably needed, although we messed it up. but overall warfare isn't really about the price of the tools used, especially when the US spends more than the next 5 countries combined. Our strategy is and has been to outspend our enemies and maintain military advantage through sheer economic attrition.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Korea, I'd say was the last, and frankly that was pretty murky. Iraq in '91 I disagree with, but I can see the argument for it. '91 Iraq though showed the kind of adversary we faced though... and that was no adversary at all. Afghanistan sure as hell didn't require our failed invasion, and hopefully has shown us that outspending people with surplus AK's, in caves, is a bad idea. As for outspending, we're doing that, and as a result we're basically killing our economy. How many trillions can we flush down the desert before we start to look like Russia after economic collapse?
        ryanx435 10y ago
        there is a very strong argument to be made that the US's complete domination of the iraqi's in 1991 directly led to the fall of the soviet union because it showed how strong the US had become since the end of the vietnam war and made it very clear to the russian people that the US would win any non-nuclear confrontation with them. Iraq was considered a top-tier military force at the time and we went through them like a knife through butter. This is especially important because just 2 years earlier the soviets had finished their withdrawal from afghanistan after suffering a humiliating and demoralizing defeat.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  Well a Tomahawk is also a precision weapon, which can take out a single building.

I dunno if it's that much of a bargain. A Tomahawk carries a 1000 lbs. warhead. These shells weigh a total of like 225 lbs., of which 25 lbs. or so is explosives.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

This is a precision weapon (take out a building or a bunker) so a massive warhead is not the point. Its for Marine support

M_Grey 10y ago
You can take out a bunker or a building with precision, without naval assets, or a railgun.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Are there any alternatives with the same reaction time though?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    It would be cheaper to just have drones or manned craft nearby, waiting to fire. It would be cheaper to just have a missile boat ready to fire a tomahawk. It's not as though we're short on options of ways to deliver ordinance on a target. What we're short of are good reasons to do so, that aren't concocted for the worst possible reasons. Think about it... what was the last war we actually needed to be involved in?
    - ryanx435 10y ago
      world war 2, also korea. I guess you could count vietnam if you think of it as a proxy war between the US and russia (same with us supporting the afghans back in the 70s). Oh, also the iraq war in 1991. The second one not so much. Afghanistan post 9/11 was probably needed, although we messed it up. but overall warfare isn't really about the price of the tools used, especially when the US spends more than the next 5 countries combined. Our strategy is and has been to outspend our enemies and maintain military advantage through sheer economic attrition.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Korea, I'd say was the last, and frankly that was pretty murky. Iraq in '91 I disagree with, but I can see the argument for it. '91 Iraq though showed the kind of adversary we faced though... and that was no adversary at all. Afghanistan sure as hell didn't require our failed invasion, and hopefully has shown us that outspending people with surplus AK's, in caves, is a bad idea. As for outspending, we're doing that, and as a result we're basically killing our economy. How many trillions can we flush down the desert before we start to look like Russia after economic collapse?
        ryanx435 10y ago
        there is a very strong argument to be made that the US's complete domination of the iraqi's in 1991 directly led to the fall of the soviet union because it showed how strong the US had become since the end of the vietnam war and made it very clear to the russian people that the US would win any non-nuclear confrontation with them. Iraq was considered a top-tier military force at the time and we went through them like a knife through butter. This is especially important because just 2 years earlier the soviets had finished their withdrawal from afghanistan after suffering a humiliating and demoralizing defeat.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
Well a Tomahawk is also a precision weapon, which can take out a single building.