Interestingly this story makes me wonder whether economic consequences even enter the picture when choosing to engage. I never would have imagined an admiral as

Interestingly this story makes me wonder whether economic consequences even enter the picture when choosing to engage. I never would have imagined an admiral asking themselves "Is this worth the cost of a $1.5 million missile?" I reckon that it would be a binary decision based on threat alone. Are there any guidelines in the military where the commanding officer is instructed to perform any sort of cost benefits analysis when making the decision to engage a hostile? Would a dramatically lowered cost greatly increase the likelihood that the navy will be more willing to act as an aggressor?