3 ms·
I wonder if that price is due to low production and that the price would come down with mass production in war. Maybe not the case here but I always assume this
by quantumhobbit 10y ago
I wonder if that price is due to low production and that the price would come down with mass production in war. Maybe not the case here but I always assume this is the case with expensive new weapons that are likely mostly r&d costs being spread across relatively few orders in peacetime.
- cstross 10y agoPartly, but mass production in time of war simply isn't a thing in this day and age — hot wars between roughly-comparable adversaries (as opposed to the asymmetric conflicts such as counter-insurgency campaigns) are generally over in double-to-triple-digit hours, a couple of weeks at most. So the policy of most developed nations' militaries is "come with whatever you've got" and don't plan on building more kit until it's over.
- PJDK 10y agoAdd to that statement a "probably...". For example WWII started with months of "phoney war" where both sides moved onto a war footing, followed by a short violent blitzkrieg. WWII is also shows powers capable of exercising restraint, even Hitler, conducting a war he was obviously losing, opted to not use chemical weapons. WWIII could be fought in a couple of hours or it could go on for years with neither side willing to press the biggest button.