[JoeAltmaier]

In a better world we'd not need weapons. But give these guys a break: this weapon is essentially all about the cost-cutting. It replaces million-dollar missiles, which are definitely single-use. It doesn't need resupplying with powder - it makes its own propellant (electricity). Each round takes around 1 cu ft, so a single ship can carry hundreds/thousands instead of a dozen.

This is you tax dollars at work, cutting costs for everybody.

[PavlovsCat]

That at best makes this the exception to the rule, and is a drop in the ocean. Yeah, it saves money. Kinda like cleaning a needle makes it more safer to inject heroin you found on someone who died of bad heroin. Technically, this is true, if you accept a few premises I personally don't buy into.

Do you really think this changed:

The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton

And it also doesn't change the fact that how much value something destroys doesn't increase the value of it. If anything, it's how much value it protects that does. There's generally tax payers and demagogues on both sides, fucking their own populations much harder than their "enemies", and the more value gets destroyed in that process, the sadder the outcome for humanity. Exactly because it's all mostly a racket, such a mythos of heroism and adoring the technical excellency of it has been created, and because it's so shameful, people defend it so pettily, and uselessly. Like I would care about downvotes when speaking my conscience.