Discussion » Questions » Military » Some say a Tomahawk missile is over a million each implying they are to be used sparingly but is it not the same cost never used
O-uknow

Some say a Tomahawk missile is over a million each implying they are to be used sparingly but is it not the same cost never used

and then gone obsolete?

Posted - April 9, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6988
    Or you can send in soldiers or bomb. This way, there is no risk to American lives. 
      April 9, 2017 12:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 6477
    No risk? are you very sure? 
      April 9, 2017 1:26 PM MDT
    0

  • 6988
    Yes, send in the missles, spare the soldiers. It was tested in Baghdad.  
      April 10, 2017 1:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    oh dear oh dear.. deja vu
      April 10, 2017 1:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 372
    It means don't use them for some silly gesture like bombing an airfield that is up and running 24 hours later.
      April 9, 2017 12:18 PM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    - "The Sword in its Scabbard is a treasure beyond compare." A Zen saying.

    So Yes! Let us keep not using them until they become useless piles of dust on the storage shelves, that is a much greater 'treasure' than going to war.
      April 9, 2017 12:24 PM MDT
    2

  • 5614
    There is the sword and there is the demonstrated will to use it. What is one without the other?
      April 9, 2017 2:44 PM MDT
    0

  • Touche.
      April 9, 2017 12:30 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Hmm and I thought people were saying that the point was that they were there as a deterrent...well that'swhat they say about the nuclear weapons... so I figured this would be the same... just goes to show that's an empty arguement
      April 9, 2017 1:30 PM MDT
    0

  • 5614
    There is the deterrent and there is the demonstrated will to actually use it. What is one without the other? Shortly after Obama there was no will so no deterrent. Hopefully we got that back. This post was edited by O-uknow at April 9, 2017 2:48 PM MDT
      April 9, 2017 2:47 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    lol to the Obama reference.. so that's fact is it? or just your opinion :P Before you answer I should say I don't care either way cos I am a Brit :P
      April 9, 2017 2:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 5614
    Remember "red line in the sand"? Not opinion just history.
      April 9, 2017 2:58 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    My point is.. much of what's given by supporters of one party is conjecture rather than fact.  The whole point as to the efficacy of *deterrents* is full of conjecture.. just saying..
      April 9, 2017 3:11 PM MDT
    0

  • 5354
    And they have been a deterrrent (and still are) a deterrent against attacks on US territory. Should such an attack occur they will and should be used (unless some nitwits have already used them to bomb airfields in Syria).
      April 10, 2017 12:29 PM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    i dont think they should be using them at all
      April 9, 2017 2:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 5614
    That or send in troops to do the same thing. Which do you prefer?
      April 9, 2017 2:41 PM MDT
    1

  • Couldn't we have just minded our own business and done nothing?   Especially an act of war that wasn't approved by Congress?
      April 9, 2017 2:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 5354
    Send in troops. All the trops you want, just make sure that the generals and officers leading those troops are the sitting President and the senators who voted  for intervening in such a warlike way. This post was edited by JakobA the unAmerican. at April 10, 2017 12:42 PM MDT
      April 10, 2017 12:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 13395
    Some old surplus stovepipe with a bomb placed in it , a rocket propulsion system and a guidance system should not cost more than a few grand or so. 

    The military is always paying way too much for their gadgets. 
      April 9, 2017 3:05 PM MDT
    0