The CBC reports that Japan faces a cost in the "tens of billions" to rebuild damage from the recent Richter 8.9 earthquake.
Given that the 65 F-35s are now expected to cost $30 billion, it implies that Japan's costs to rebuild back to first-world status from one of the strongest earthquakes in history will be equal to the cost of forty to sixty five F-35s.
Some will think, "Oh, I guess that means the earthquake didn't do so much damage"...
While others will think, "Woah, we're spending too much for 65 special-purpose jets, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives, and especially when they'll probably hardly ever be used."
Which of those two perspectives is more rational and/or realistic?
Given that the 65 F-35s are now expected to cost $30 billion, it implies that Japan's costs to rebuild back to first-world status from one of the strongest earthquakes in history will be equal to the cost of forty to sixty five F-35s.
Some will think, "Oh, I guess that means the earthquake didn't do so much damage"...
While others will think, "Woah, we're spending too much for 65 special-purpose jets, especially when there are cheaper and equally effective alternatives, and especially when they'll probably hardly ever be used."
Which of those two perspectives is more rational and/or realistic?
Last edited: