7 ms·

> We should make military decisions based on how much the target costs Yes?.. > You don't understand why that's ridiculous? No?.. Don't you understand how th

> We should make military decisions based on how much the target costs Yes?.. > You don't understand why that's ridiculous? No?.. Don't you understand how the cost of action is the base of military economy? This is hardly a military decision, it's purely a PR decision.

adeelk93 4y ago
In a war of attrition, yes, but this is a one-off. It’s not purely PR, I am sure the primary motivation is actually counterintelligence, which is why they are recovering it over shallow water.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > which is why they are recovering it over shallow water. They shot the payload with a missile over the sea. What's there to recover?
IAmGraydon 4y ago
It's you who doesn't understand. We don't care how much the target costs. We care about how much not taking it down can cost us. We stand to learn a lot from capturing the surveillance platform. This alone is priceless. We send a message that Chinese aircraft that violate our airspace and leave in tact. If data was stored onboard, it's possible that we prevented a large cache of surveillance data from making it back to China. So that $400,000 missile had a benefit that is hard to quantify, but is easily in the multiple millions of dollars. Your argument makes no sense. Let's say a sniper is in a building and is about to fire on a high value target. Before he can fire, we hit that building with a missile to take him out. According to you, we paid $400,000 to take out a sniper and his $1 bullet. The truth is that we spent $400,000 to protect a high value asset that may have been worth far more.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > We don't care how much the target costs. Except with military you actually have to, which is perfectly demonstrated right now in Ukraine. > We stand to learn a lot from capturing the surveillance platform. This alone is priceless. Well since it was shot down over the sea, by a missile targeting the payload, it definitely won't be the case. Sorry, I don't see the point of this conversation, when you base your reasoning on a fantasy, instead of a factual chain of events.

adeelk93 4y ago

In a war of attrition, yes, but this is a one-off. It’s not purely PR, I am sure the primary motivation is actually counterintelligence, which is why they are recovering it over shallow water.

foverzar 4y ago
> which is why they are recovering it over shallow water. They shot the payload with a missile over the sea. What's there to recover?

IAmGraydon 4y ago

It's you who doesn't understand. We don't care how much the target costs. We care about how much not taking it down can cost us. We stand to learn a lot from capturing the surveillance platform. This alone is priceless. We send a message that Chinese aircraft that violate our airspace and leave in tact. If data was stored onboard, it's possible that we prevented a large cache of surveillance data from making it back to China. So that $400,000 missile had a benefit that is hard to quantify, but is easily in the multiple millions of dollars. Your argument makes no sense. Let's say a sniper is in a building and is about to fire on a high value target. Before he can fire, we hit that building with a missile to take him out. According to you, we paid $400,000 to take out a sniper and his $1 bullet. The truth is that we spent $400,000 to protect a high value asset that may have been worth far more.

foverzar 4y ago
> We don't care how much the target costs. Except with military you actually have to, which is perfectly demonstrated right now in Ukraine. > We stand to learn a lot from capturing the surveillance platform. This alone is priceless. Well since it was shot down over the sea, by a missile targeting the payload, it definitely won't be the case. Sorry, I don't see the point of this conversation, when you base your reasoning on a fantasy, instead of a factual chain of events.