I'm not sure why people keep considering the cost of the target like this. In the grand strategic scope it sort of matters. If you want to win a war economicall

I'm not sure why people keep considering the cost of the target like this. In the grand strategic scope it sort of matters. If you want to win a war economically you need to inflict more damage on them than they can afford, but a lot of people seem to think that means that if I spend a dollar on a munition it should cause a dollar in damage to my enemy. But even in this Grand view it doesn't work that way because each side has a different amount of dollars. What a military really needs to look at is how much damage can that target do if they don't break it first. If a target only cost $1,000 but can somehow do a million dollars in damage to me and me spending $900,000 to service that target is $100,000 savings. This is why during some wars the US was using cruise missiles on teams of dudes in Toyotas with discarded anti-aircraft guns strapped to the back. It's not those 'shitty technicals' were worth the millions of dollars like a tomahawk, it's that those things could drive around and do millions of dollars worth of damage if unopposed. If all you're cheaper assets are already working on something you might assign a multi-million dollar munition unless the target can't do as much damage as firing the munition. Because an unserviced enemy target can generally cause an unlimited amount of damage in wartime it generally becomes cost effective to take any opportunity to disable an enemy asset.