I don't think that's what they meant.

More along the lines of comparing $200 drones to $200,000 missiles. The economics of warfare and asymmetric warfare.

I think they were making a point about the kinds of things that a society can choose to spend its tax dollars on.

I find that hard to reconcile given what I was responding to:

"Love it. What could be a good addition IMHO is to add approximate costs of the placed systems, and cost of the ammunition used during the simulation ( for both attack and defense )."

I don't follow, sorry. The comment of yours that prompted my reply was in response to this comment:

> Like the Eisenhower speech. Every missile is 10 new schools, food to feed 100 families for a year, etc.