Someone pointed out that the cost of the ammo in the ammo dump is a lot less than the cost of the US missile that was shot at it.
“ Someone pointed out that the cost of the ammo in the ammo dump is a lot less than the cost of the US missile that was shot at it.”
Yeah, we were lobbing cruise missiles at $1MM each into Afghanistan just to make the rubble bounce. Ike was right.
Depends on what and how much of the what is being destroyed per shot. Even dumb artillery shells, in the quantities Russian has been firing, are collectively cheap. And much less costly to Ukraine for them to blow up in Russian dump than in their cities. And at least some of what Russia has been firing are somewhat precise missiles. Likely cheaper than our stuff, but how many rounds can you get with one hit. How many secondary explosions can that one hit generate to multiply your results. And if Russia has to move their ammo dumps further back to escape the greater range of our missiles its that much more stress on their weakness, logistics. Very good strategy from Ukrainian viewpoint. Especially when someone else is paying for the shots.
I don't think you can build your cost-benefit analysis on that alone.
On its face, it may seem a waste to fire a $1 million missile to destroy $250,000 worth of dumb artillery shells, until you factor in that those dumb artillery shells can potentially do $10 million in property damage and create untold numbers of casualties.
At that point, the $1M missile seems like money well spent.
Two of the four HIMARS missile systems have already been destroyed. The Biden/Zelensky(y) regime is certainly getting a lot of bang for the buck. /sarc/
The cost of the ammo in the ammo dump, is the lives of those it would otherwise have killed.