5 ms·
Even if it were true, it wouldn't necessarily matter. Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of
by robonerd 5y ago
Even if it were true, it wouldn't necessarily matter. Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of attrition between opponents with balanced resources. It's also hard to put a dollar value on the experienced tankers killed by those missiles. The loss of hardware is only part of that picture.
- nickff 5y agoIn addition to losses directly caused by the Javelins themselves, these missiles force the enemy to change tactics, often slowing their advance and making the battlefield safer for friendly forces (such as by destroying anti-air vehicles).
- TMWNN 5y ago>Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of attrition between opponents with balanced resources. Israel's Iron Dome system was and is criticized for its missiles costing far more than the rudimentary Palestinian projectiles they shoot down. While true, the true measure is whether the Iron Dome missiles are worth more than the damage the Palestinian weapons would cause.
- true_religion 5y agoThere is also psychological damage to your populace to take into account. In Israel’s case, the iron dome prevents enough civilian deaths that the public and war hawk politicians don’t clamor for a “real” war against Palestine. An actual war could quickly spiral out of control if third parties intervene, and the cost of that is far greater the attrition of using a missile defense that’s too good at its job.