Affordability is the most recent buzzword on the political landscape. I thought I would use it in terms of a recent illegal, or at least allegedly illegal, drug interdiction.

On Sept. 2, the U.S. Navy’s Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier group attacked a fast boat off the Venezuelan coast using aircraft and missiles, disabling the vessel and killing nine people on the first strike.

While it is unknown the type of missiles that were used, an AI service developed by an Elon Musk company estimates the first strike cost between $1 million and $2.5 million. With the vessel then disabled, 41 minutes later an additional two missiles killed the two survivors, at an additional cost of $500,000 to $2.5 million. The total estimated cost comes to between $1 million and $5 million.

Contrast this with a Dec. 2 operation in the Pacific by the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro, which used a sharpshooter to disable an alleged drug vessel. The drugs were seized and the operators arrested. Total cost for operation of the Munro was approximately $50,000, and the expended ordinance is estimated at $38.

If interdiction, arrest and seizure of drugs is the goal, it would seem using the armed forces in the form of the deadliest carrier strike force on Earth is not only less efficient, morally reprehensible, possibly illegal — and also very unaffordable.

I’m wondering what the Department of Government Efficiency might say about this use of taxpayer funds?

-- Paul G. Southland