4 ms·
Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me, especially given that it’s fire and forget and capable of hi
by CSSer 5y ago
Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me, especially given that it’s fire and forget and capable of hitting them where their armor is thinnest. The pentagon’s latest numbers claim that out of 112 Javelins fired in Ukraine so far, 100 have hit their target[0].
[0] https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_conflict_war/analysis_us_javelin_anti-tank_missile_used_in_ukraine_becomes_a_nightmare_for_russian_tanks.amp.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_invasion_co...
- Melkman 5y agoIt's 250k and a bit: the launcher is reusable.
- MonkeyClub 5y agoJavelin: 250k Launcher: 250k Getting to engage the Russkies via proxy while maintaining moral high ground and zero American casualties: priceless
- imtringued 5y ago>Half a million to destroy something that costs a million or more seems like a decent bargain to me That's fine as long as you don't forget that a tank is designed to do the same thing. Nobody builds a $6 million tank to destroy $3 million worth of targets.
- yakak 5y agoSure they do, that is the nature of asymmetric warfare. In any US fiasco, a guy making 24k could call in a 500k airstrike on any antique of military origin. The point of engaging in a foreign war isn't a profit for a government to distribute to its citizens, it is to reallocate or destroy assets of the populace within the country to ensure a majority of internal power is consolidated on internal allies of the entity that can declare war.