4 ms·
I think this is pretty effective. These systems cost a lot to develop. If they are worthless then that money could definitely have been better spent elsewhere.
by medo-bear 2y ago
I think this is pretty effective. These systems cost a lot to develop. If they are worthless then that money could definitely have been better spent elsewhere. There is a real sense of worry about the financial burden of Ukraine conflict amongst Ukraine's supporters
- ceejayoz 2y ago> These systems cost a lot to develop. If they are worthless then that money could definitely have been better spent elsewhere. We're basically using Ukraine to dispose of an outdated system ("In 2007, the U.S. Army terminated the ATACMS program due to cost, ending the ability to replenish stocks"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS) we intend to deprecate. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile is intended to replace it and has seen its first deliveries last year. There's little indication they're worthless, and an article breathlessly citing someone saying "This is a signal to the whole world, not just the West, that Western weapons are no match for Russian arms" is not a change to that.