(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Iron Dome: missile defense works -- we really mean it this time (but don't expect any evidence)

13 Dec 2012 02:23 PM   |   5386 clicks   |   Atomic Scientists Bulletin
Showing 1-50 of 95 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Fark Reddit or bust     
All I saw was "iron" and "missile", so I take it we finally developed an Iron Man suit for everyone?

13 Dec 2012 02:24 PM
liam76     
Because the history of missile defense is replete with unwarranted claims of success, Congress should seek independent verification of Iron Dome's performance before providing Israel with additional funding for the system.

Defending from that level of missile technology doesn't really mean it will work where US wants to use it.

13 Dec 2012 02:25 PM
iheartscotch     
Sometimes; I wonder if we should just let the Israelies have at the rest of the Middle East.

/ not often though

13 Dec 2012 02:26 PM
ocschwar     
Because the history of missile defense is replete with unwarranted claims of success, Congress should seek independent verification of Iron Dome's performance before providing Israel with additional funding for the system.

They can hire someone to stay in a hotel in Ashkelon next time it flares up. It's not like Israel has a good way to conceal the performance data for Iron Dome.

13 Dec 2012 02:30 PM
meanmutton     
I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

13 Dec 2012 02:31 PM
error 303     
While a missle defense system that can shoot down 90%-95% of incoming missles would be an excellent defensive capability, one of the biggest bonuses a missle defense system that can shoot down even 25% of incoming wepaons is that when it comes to large scale missles, often reducing the chance of success from 100% to 75% will require an enemy to fire a second missle, or even a third, to really guarentee taking out the intended target.

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of much larger hostilities with more modern weapons, and I get that ICBMs armed with multiple nuclear warheads are different than the junk Hamas is using, but the actual value of a missle defense system isn't entirely tied to just it's ability to knock down missles, but how much uncertainty it can add to an aggressor's plan.

Now, is it cost effective to operate that sort of system for this type of threat? I don't really have an answer for that.

13 Dec 2012 02:31 PM
Banned on the Run     
FTFA: Iron Dome has reportedly received $275 million from the United States so far, and there is another $600 million in the defense bill for 2013
and
Israel seems to have shared little information to date, and so there is no way for observers outside the Israeli defense forces to know how successful Iron Dome actually was.

I'm quite pro-Israel, but if we're paying for the fu*king thing, shouldn't we be getting performance data back?

13 Dec 2012 02:35 PM
Banned on the Run     

meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?


It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.

13 Dec 2012 02:38 PM
Banned on the Run     

Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.


*one encounter

13 Dec 2012 02:38 PM
Nogale     
I saw an Iron Dome intercept with my own two eyes and heard three others (it makes a distinctive boom, louder than a rocket strike, actually.)

I'd be happy to testify before Congress.

13 Dec 2012 02:39 PM
Arkanaut    [TotalFark]  

Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.


Perhaps, but Israel has a lot more resources than Hamas.

13 Dec 2012 02:39 PM
liam76     

meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?


Weighing lives is part of every countries economic evaluations, they just don't advertise it.

13 Dec 2012 02:40 PM
Dinodork     

Banned on the Run:

It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.


It's not always that simple. 1400 rockets launched unopposed hitting urban areas results in costs to Israel much greater than the costs of the Iron Dome interceptors. Plus the cost of the loss of life.

And this doesn't even take into account the 800 rockets fired from Gaza this year before the latest flareup.

Iron Dome pretty much just ensured that Hamas succeeded in killing more Gazans than Israel even managed.

13 Dec 2012 02:47 PM
darth_badger     
Will Iron Dome protect Israel from Iron Sky?

13 Dec 2012 02:49 PM
Nogale     

13 Dec 2012 02:52 PM
Kirby Muxloe     
Sounds like the solution is a better field trial. Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds. Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

Bonus: We could make serious money selling to both sides of the "conflict". Hell, we could even sell footage on Pay-Per-View.

13 Dec 2012 02:56 PM
papajoefong     
Ted Postal is still around? I like the suggestion of using commercial video cameras to capture and analyze missile intercepts. The frame rate of commercial cameras (those used for recording television) are not remotely high enough for any sort of accurate analysis. Ted Postal makes his living by standing on the sidelines and saying "It can't be done! Look at me! Give me money and I'll produce data to show it can't be done!"

Also, missiles may have guidance systems, but once they're out of their boos phase, they follow predicable, ballistic trajectories. That's why they're call "ballistic missiles."

Also, Phalanx is a Gatling gun that fires at a high rate and chews up the incoming threat. It only works when the incoming weapon is really close. And about to hit you. Probably in the face. If you hear Phalanx going off, duck because shiat is about to get real. Good luck porting that model over to a theater-wide, much less nation-wide, defense system against ICBMs. You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.

The author has no idea what he's talking about.

13 Dec 2012 03:00 PM
ocschwar     
Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds.

The US is more than welcome to test Iron Dome against other armaments in some isolated location.
But that would probably not satisfy your bloodlust.

Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

If that were true, Israelis would have gone Arab on their asses, and the casualties in the latest flareup would not have been less than the casualties that Syria inflicts on itself EVERY DAY.

13 Dec 2012 03:03 PM
Nogale     

Kirby Muxloe: Sounds like the solution is a better field trial. Give Hamas some real armament and see how well "iron Dome" does against something better than fireworks/modified mortar rounds. Of course, we'd need to modify the scoring system, given that Israelis don't seem to view the Palestinians as human.

Bonus: We could make serious money selling to both sides of the "conflict". Hell, we could even sell footage on Pay-Per-View.


Israel puts its own citizens at risk by trying to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. Gaza is a very small area - if the IDF "didn't see Palestinians as human" it would level any and all hint of terrorist infrastructure without regard for collateral damage.

Where is your indignation when it comes to Israeli civilians coming under continual rocket fire or being killed in terror attacks?

You can criticize Israel's policies, but making blanket inaccurate claims like yours just shows that you've swallowed the Palestinian PR line whole hog (pardon the expression.)

13 Dec 2012 03:04 PM
Loren     
Iron Dome is shooting at targets that are much easier to hit than ballistic missiles.

Furthermore, it's using a shrapnel kill which means the defenders don't really know if the inbound is dead or not--fine if your objective is to reduce the threat but not a good idea when the target is sufficient high value that you keep shooting until you know the inbound is down. (Or it's outside your engagement envelope.)

There's also not the issue of salvage-fused warheads. Salvage-fusing does nothing to get the missile through to it's target but if you do it right it can be a great help in getting the *NEXT* one through.

Lets say you're trying to nuke Washington. There are a lot of good interceptors, you don't have enough missiles to deplete the racks. What do you do? You harden your missiles a bit and design them to salvage fuse. You then trickle them in rather than firing them all at once.

Missile #1 comes into range and is knocked down easily--but when the missile records the hit of the interceptor it triggers the warhead. This is high above the city and does no harm except possible EMP effects. (Yes, the warhead can function in this situation. Electricity from the sensor travels a *LOT* faster than the shock wave from the interceptor hit. You simply need a bit of space between the sensor and the warhead.) However it leaves behind a cloud of ionization--oops, your radar can't see through that. Missile #2 comes into range--it only gets tracked once it clears the ionization. Again, the interceptor comes up but this time it's at less than half of the range of the interceptor when it'shiat. Again we have a cloud of ionization, this time closer to the target.

Each missile gets closer until you get through. The defenders can perfectly well know what you're going to do and yet there is no counter other than intercepting them in space--and there you face decoy hell.

13 Dec 2012 03:05 PM
error 303     

papajoefong: Also, Phalanx is a Gatling gun that fires at a high rate and chews up the incoming threat. It only works when the incoming weapon is really close. And about to hit you. Probably in the face. If you hear Phalanx going off, duck because shiat is about to get real. Good luck porting that model over to a theater-wide, much less nation-wide, defense system against ICBMs. You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.

The author has no idea what he's talking about.


Plus some varients of the Phalanx use DU, which is oh so popular these days...

13 Dec 2012 03:08 PM
Mikey1969     

iheartscotch: Sometimes; I wonder if we should just let the Israelies have at the rest of the Middle East.

/ not often though


I think a wall is the solution, like 300 ft high. Give 6 months for everyone who wants out to get out, then wall all of those farkers up and give 'em about 10 isolated years to iron out their shiat. Open the gates in the wall, but don't tear it down for 5 more years. If these morons start their little reindeer games again, then close and lock the wall again. Eventually they'll figure it out.

13 Dec 2012 03:12 PM
justoneznot     
Even if it is effective, why are we paying for it? Is Israel broke? What are we getting in return?

13 Dec 2012 03:13 PM
ocschwar     
Lets say you're trying to nuke Washington. There are a lot of good interceptors, you don't have enough missiles to deplete the racks. What do you do? You harden your missiles a bit and design them to salvage fuse. You then trickle them in rather than firing them all at once.


That's the thing, though. America has enemies, and America has rivals. Our enemies are batshiat crazy and brutal, but that means what nation states they have, they run into the ground without getting that level of military organization and power. Our rivals could nuke DC if they wanted to, but they're only rivals. They're not crazy, and they don't want shiat to get real any more than we do.

(Bet we could goad the Chinese into another peaceful space race, though. Whether we win or lose, science will win.)

13 Dec 2012 03:13 PM
Mikey1969     

papajoefong: You would need a bajillion of them and by the time they kicked in, it would be too late for Seattle, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc.


You can leave Phoenix out. Sheriff Joe swears that he bought the .50 cal machine gun the county now owns to protect Phoenix from terrorists either in airplanes or rogue semi trucks. Personally, I think the old fart is going to be in for a hell of a surprise if he shoots at ANY target other than the range. He doesn't seem to have factored in the idea that those >50 cal bullets have to come down somewhere.

13 Dec 2012 03:15 PM
you have pee hands     

justoneznot: Even if it is effective, why are we paying for it? Is Israel broke? What are we getting in return?


If Iron Dome can change the persistent Gaza-Israel conflict from one where Hamas lobs rockets into Israel and Israel responds with airstrikes to one where Hamas lobs rockets into Israel and Israel shoots them down but doesn't need to retaliate because it doesn't suffer casualties, the sliver of hope for more stability in the middle east is worth the price. Even if 'you can't punch me because I've got my hand on your forehead and you have short arms' is a strange sort of diplomacy.

13 Dec 2012 03:18 PM
papajoefong     

Loren:
Missile #1 comes into range and is knocked down easily--but when the missile records the hit of the interceptor it triggers the warhead. This is high above the city and does no harm except possible EMP effects. (Yes, the warhead can function in this situation. Electricity from the sensor travels a *LOT* faster than the shock wave from the interceptor hit. You simply need a bit of space between the sensor and the warhead.) However it leaves behind a cloud of ionization--oops, your radar can't see through that. Missile #2 comes into range--it only gets tracked once it clears the ionization. Again, the interceptor comes up but this time it's at less than half of the range of the interceptor when it'shiat. Again we have a cloud of ionization, this time closer to the target.


I don't think you could adequately harden a threat against the amount of kinetic energy generated by a hit-to-kill intercept. With hypervelocity impacts, the two things don't intersect and explode like cars on the interstate might. Instead, they effectively pas through one another, leaving a fan/trail of molten warhead/interceptor behind. This would really come down to a matter of velocity, angle, positioning, etc. and would be extremely dependent on the details.

Loren: Each missile gets closer until you get through. The defenders can perfectly well know what you're going to do and yet there is no counter other than intercepting them in space--and there you face decoy hell.


Thinking nationally or globally, this is probably acceptable. If it takes the enemy 5 attempts to break through and destroy 1 city, that's 4 other cities that survive.

13 Dec 2012 03:21 PM
MyRandomName     

Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.


Why are you ignorantly ignoring the costs to build infrastructure if the Hamas missiles hit?

13 Dec 2012 03:26 PM
proteus_b     

meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?


This is indeed an important point. Yes, the defense costs a great deal more than the shooting of the rockets. But the value that we place on our lives is much greater than the enemy places on theirs.

13 Dec 2012 03:27 PM
you have pee hands     

papajoefong: Thinking nationally or globally, this is probably acceptable. If it takes the enemy 5 attempts to break through and destroy 1 city, that's 4 other cities that survive.


The major powers like US and Russia have far more nukes than anyone has capable interceptors. Even the countries that have fewer warheads could swamp possible responders with a bunch of dummies. From a technical sense it's impressive that anyone can pull a space intercept off, but practically it's mostly just military dick wagging.

13 Dec 2012 03:31 PM
Karac     

papajoefong: Loren: Each missile gets closer until you get through. The defenders can perfectly well know what you're going to do and yet there is no counter other than intercepting them in space--and there you face decoy hell.

Thinking nationally or globally, this is probably acceptable. If it takes the enemy 5 attempts to break through and destroy 1 city, that's 4 other cities that survive.


Too bad we still have enough nukes to eradicate our species 5 times over.

13 Dec 2012 03:32 PM
Alonjar     
Bah... the system works rather well. There are tons of videos on youtube of Israeli citizens recording them intercepting rockets over their homes/cities.

13 Dec 2012 03:32 PM
mrinfoguy     
The same argument was probably pitched for automobiles when the horse and buggy were on their way out.
Technology needs time and failures to achieve the plateaus that lead to a stable, fool proof system.
Anyone still using the first version of the I-phone?

/me neither

13 Dec 2012 03:33 PM
HotWingConspiracy     

MyRandomName: Why are you ignorantly ignoring the costs to build infrastructure if the Hamas missiles hit?


Pot holes aren't too expensive to fill.

Still though, the articles glaring error is not putting any value on human safety.

13 Dec 2012 03:35 PM
J.R. 'Bob' Chinaski    [TotalFark]  

Loren: Iron Dome is shooting at targets that are much easier to hit than ballistic missiles.

Furthermore, it's using a shrapnel kill which means the defenders don't really know if the inbound is dead or not--fine if your objective is to reduce the threat but not a good idea when the target is sufficient high value that you keep shooting until you know the inbound is down. (Or it's outside your engagement envelope.)

There's also not the issue of salvage-fused warheads. Salvage-fusing does nothing to get the missile through to it's target but if you do it right it can be a great help in getting the *NEXT* one through.

Lets say you're trying to nuke Washington. There are a lot of good interceptors, you don't have enough missiles to deplete the racks. What do you do? You harden your missiles a bit and design them to salvage fuse. You then trickle them in rather than firing them all at once.

Missile #1 comes into range and is knocked down easily--but when the missile records the hit of the interceptor it triggers the warhead. This is high above the city and does no harm except possible EMP effects. (Yes, the warhead can function in this situation. Electricity from the sensor travels a *LOT* faster than the shock wave from the interceptor hit. You simply need a bit of space between the sensor and the warhead.) However it leaves behind a cloud of ionization--oops, your radar can't see through that. Missile #2 comes into range--it only gets tracked once it clears the ionization. Again, the interceptor comes up but this time it's at less than half of the range of the interceptor when it'shiat. Again we have a cloud of ionization, this time closer to the target.

Each missile gets closer until you get through. The defenders can perfectly well know what you're going to do and yet there is no counter other than intercepting them in space--and there you face decoy hell.


No counter...other than launching an all out attack on the country firing those missiles. And they DON'T have a missile defense shield, too bad for them
this isn't missile command, we can shoot stuff back.

13 Dec 2012 03:36 PM
Galwran     
the shrapnel from the explosion of the interceptor is supposed to hit the threat rocket and blow up its warhead.

No it isn't. The idea is just to break critical missile components. A properly made warhead will not explode without triggering the detonator (which happens when it impacts the target), but if you hit (for example) the ailerons etc the missile will not fly or function as intended.

13 Dec 2012 03:37 PM
proteus_b     

HotWingConspiracy: Still though, the articles glaring error is not putting any value on human safety.


not to mention the reason the u.s.a. sponsors in the first place---a real live r and d lab, already built and active...

13 Dec 2012 03:38 PM
Banned on the Run     

HotWingConspiracy: MyRandomName: Why are you ignorantly ignoring the costs to build infrastructure if the Hamas missiles hit?

Pot holes aren't too expensive to fill.

Still though, the articles glaring error is not putting any value on human safety.


That was addressed. Even though iron dome worked well, Israelis were still afraid and scrambled for cover and had their lives disrupted.
The rocket attacks are psychological/political/symbolic, not military.

13 Dec 2012 03:40 PM
FuturePastNow     

Mikey1969: Sheriff Joe swears that he bought the .50 cal machine gun the county now owns to protect Phoenix from terrorists either in airplanes or rogue semi trucks. Personally, I think the old fart is going to be in for a hell of a surprise if he shoots at ANY target other than the range. He doesn't seem to have factored in the idea that those >50 cal bullets have to come down somewhere.


Fun fact: on December 7, 1941, most of the civilian casualties and damage in Honolulu were caused by U.S. Navy antiaircraft shells falling on the city.

13 Dec 2012 03:41 PM
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

Loren: Iron Dome is shooting at targets that are much easier to hit than ballistic missiles.


This-ity-this-this-this, ya'll.

13 Dec 2012 03:42 PM
The Larch     

Alonjar: Bah... the system works rather well. There are tons of videos on youtube of Israeli citizens recording them intercepting rockets over their homes/cities.


Like this one, that shows a few million dollars worth of iron dome interceptors exploding far off in the distance in the night?

I'm glad that you're able to determine that they managed to intercept rockets, but the rest of us don't have your magic. How can you tell what they're doing, other than displaying a flashy fireworks show?

13 Dec 2012 03:42 PM
J.R. 'Bob' Chinaski    [TotalFark]  

mrinfoguy: The same argument was probably pitched for automobiles when the horse and buggy were on their way out.
Technology needs time and failures to achieve the plateaus that lead to a stable, fool proof system.
Anyone still using the first version of the I-phone?

/me neither


I think that's the point the article also misses. Even if Israel lied and it was only 70% effective (which they have every reason to make the number as high as they can) that's better than those missiles hitting targets. And I'm sure the thinking is that anything less than 100% needs improvement.

I highly doubt that they did 400 live target tests of the system before putting it up, the data they get from why it failed during the occasions it did will help the upgrades that are sure to be made.

13 Dec 2012 03:46 PM
dittybopper    [TotalFark]  

mrinfoguy: The same argument was probably pitched for automobiles when the horse and buggy were on their way out.
Technology needs time and failures to achieve the plateaus that lead to a stable, fool proof system.
Anyone still using the first version of the I-phone?

/me neither


Nope. I still use Morse. It's a mature, stable technology.

/No, seriously, I do.

13 Dec 2012 03:46 PM
J.R. 'Bob' Chinaski    [TotalFark]  

The Larch: Alonjar: Bah... the system works rather well. There are tons of videos on youtube of Israeli citizens recording them intercepting rockets over their homes/cities.

Like this one, that shows a few million dollars worth of iron dome interceptors exploding far off in the distance in the night?

I'm glad that you're able to determine that they managed to intercept rockets, but the rest of us don't have your magic. How can you tell what they're doing, other than displaying a flashy fireworks show?


So you're saying there were no missiles launched by Hamas at all and that Israel is just throwing up fireworks to keep both its citizens in check and get money from the US?

13 Dec 2012 03:50 PM
The Larch     

Galwran: the shrapnel from the explosion of the interceptor is supposed to hit the threat rocket and blow up its warhead.

No it isn't. The idea is just to break critical missile components. A properly made warhead will not explode without triggering the detonator (which happens when it impacts the target), but if you hit (for example) the ailerons etc the missile will not fly or function as intended.


The Qassam rockets are just tubes stuffed with sugar and fertilizer for propellant, with some extra fertilizer in a coffee can for a warehead, with a shotgun shell, spring, and nail for a detonator.

Heck, they often just leave off the warhead because it's cheaper that way and the rocket flies farther.

If the warhead isn't detonated in the air by the interceptor, then the interceptor is worse than useless. Even if the warhead is detonated, parts of the rocket and the interceptor are still going to fall back to earth, potentially doing just as much damage as the Qassam was going to do anyhow.

Iron Dome is almost entirely psychological. It has little or no tactical value. Of course, almost the entire situation over there is psychological, so it's not like another psychological weapon is somehow a bad thing.

13 Dec 2012 03:51 PM
The Larch     

pedobearapproved: The Larch: Alonjar: Bah... the system works rather well. There are tons of videos on youtube of Israeli citizens recording them intercepting rockets over their homes/cities.

Like this one, that shows a few million dollars worth of iron dome interceptors exploding far off in the distance in the night?o.

I'm glad that you're able to determine that they managed to intercept rockets, but the rest of us don't have your magic. How can you tell what they're doing, other than displaying a flashy fireworks show?

So you're saying there were no missiles launched by Hamas at all and that Israel is just throwing up fireworks to keep both its citizens in check and get money from the US?


I apologize that I did not make my point clearly enough for you to understand. I will work on that in the future.

I do not doubt that Hamas fired Qassam rockets into Israel. I do not doubt that Israel fired missiles from the iron dome system to intercept those Qassam rockets. I do not doubt that the fabulous displays of lights in the sky from the iron dome missile interceptors exploding in the air was done in response to a barrage of Qassam rockets.

However, I see absolutely no evidence from that video, or from any of the other videos that I've seen, that any Qassam rockets were destroyed by the Iron Dome interceptors. This does not mean that I am implying that the Qassam rockets do not exist; it simply means that I see no evidence of their destruction in mid-air before they hit the ground in that video.

Is that better? Have I made myself clear?

13 Dec 2012 03:58 PM
mrinfoguy     

dittybopper: mrinfoguy: The same argument was probably pitched for automobiles when the horse and buggy were on their way out.
Technology needs time and failures to achieve the plateaus that lead to a stable, fool proof system.
Anyone still using the first version of the I-phone?

/me neither

Nope. I still use Morse. It's a mature, stable technology.

/No, seriously, I do.


......-..-..-.. ..... ..-...-.-...-..-.-- .---..-...-....-....-.. ..-. .....-...-..-.--. .- --...........-... ...-.--...-.--

13 Dec 2012 03:58 PM
Insatiable Jesus     
Not a fan of Israel's by any means, but maybe we shouldn't know how well this thing works. Maybe it doesn't work for shiat, but now Hamas and everybody else thinks it does and so won't be lobbing any more big firecrackers over the line. It may be more effective as myth than as fact.

13 Dec 2012 03:58 PM
Banned on the Run     

MyRandomName: Banned on the Run: meanmutton: I love the part where they discuss the economics of launching a rocket versus intercepting one. Yes, that's the economic evaluation -- how much did they spend to send a rocket and how much did we spend to shoot it down not, say, how many people's lives and how much property is saved by knocking down rocket attacks?

It's not about on encounter. It's about 1400 Hamas rockets for $1,400,000 vs. 400 Israeli ones for $20,000,000.

Attrition wins wars.

Why are you ignorantly ignoring the costs to build infrastructure if the Hamas missiles hit?


For the ones that actually hit buildings? Concrete construction in a war zone -- $5000 per hit. Peanuts.

More math -- Between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries,[

1 death/300 rockets, 1 injury/20-30 rockets
At $1000/rocket, Hamas spend $300K to kill each Israeli, $20-30K to injure one, and $1000 to scare the crap out of 50,000 Jews.
Rockets are purely psychological, as is the $400/scared Israeli citizen that Israel spent.

13 Dec 2012 04:06 PM
Kibbler     
I can't imagine why anyone would quote Max Boot. If you look up "completely discredited kneejerk neocon" in the dictionary, you see his picture.

13 Dec 2012 04:07 PM
Showing 1-50 of 95 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined