Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Scuds vs Patriots
Message-ID: <1991Jan27.112304.29269@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 27 Jan 91 11:23:04 GMT
References: <1991Jan25.033140.12146@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
In article <1991Jan25.033140.12146@cbnews.att.com> wolit@mhuxd.att.com (Jan I Wolitzky) writes:
|
|
|From: wolit@mhuxd.att.com (Jan I Wolitzky)
|I've heard figures of around $700K for the price of a single Patriot
|missile.  Does anyone know how much Saddam paid for the 50's-era
|Scuds?  I would imagine they were fairly cheap.  Given that he's
|been destroying two of the Patriots with each of his Scuds, his
|tactic might be very cost-effective.

So what? Cost-effectiveness is not necessarily important. It's
not like he starts with $500 million of arms and we start with
$500 million of arms and the guy who runs out first loses.

I'm not saying cost-effectiveness is totally unimportant, but
we certainly don't have to maintain parity to achieve our goals.

A more interesting question is how many SCUDs and Patriots are
left and how fast can Raytheon make more Patriots? I expect
there won't be too many new SCUDs in Iraq's hands.

--
When someone drinks and drives and hurts someone, the abuser is blamed.
When someone drinks and handles a gun and hurts someone,
the media calls for a gun ban.