> A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you tha

> A $10k drone taking out a $2M tank seems like a good trade, even if it takes 10 drones to do it. I certainly agree with that, but I'd like to caution you that sticker-price comparison is very limited, it papers over a ton of very important details and can lead you completely astray. For instance, suppose you use $10k of ammunition to shoot down a $100 mortar shell; the sticker-price analysis says that's a bad trade, but what about the context? What if the mortar shell would have otherwise landed on equipment or personnel valued in millions of dollars? With that context, it's clear that it was actually a very good trade. That's just scratching the surface though, what if one side has is backed by strong economies and can afford $10k more than the other side can afford $100? What if one side has huge stockpiles and the other doesn't? What if the war is going to be over in hours and so attrition warfare simply isn't relevant? The whole context of the exchange must be considered.