7 ms·

This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. It also has little redeeming social value aside from pokin

This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. It also has little redeeming social value aside from poking at the current president and missile defense, all of which can happen in other ways. For those reasons, I consider it irresponsible journalism. I like the general subject, and I'd love to hear more about it, but this is not good. It's just going to encourage more launches -- and perhaps more deaths.

kingkawn 9y ago
It is very important that we know from real life examples that the missile defense systems they are claiming will protect us are not functional, and that the resource allocation and strategic planning being made around these false promises be re-evaluated.
- skj 9y ago
  What is most important is that we avoid death and destruction from these missiles. Part of that is understanding the weaknesses of the existing systems and working to improve them. Another part of that may be convincing the attackers that the missiles are ineffective. Unfortunately life is not a linear program and we often don't find maxima at the extremes.
  - kingkawn 9y ago
    If these systems have been deployed and are meant to stop missile attacks but the only way they work is if people believe that they work, then they are worse than useless and need to be exposed before our dependence on them grows any further.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    > Another part of that may be convincing the attackers that the missiles are ineffective. This raises an interesting question: is there evidence that anti-missile systems have actually deterred missile attacks? The Iron Dome system has a (disputed) success rate vastly higher than the Patriot system, but I can't find evidence that missile attacks against Israel have substantially declined in response to its deployment. Perhaps better organized entities like national militaries would react more thoroughly, but that also raises the specter of a displacement effect that fails to save lives. I definitely agree with you that "improving defenses" and "promoting defenses as deterrents" may be conflicting aims, but I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place.
    - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
      "...I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place..." I find it fascinating this HN thing we do where we skim over a comment, decide whether author agrees with us or not politically, and then pile on. I didn't say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect. The topic was not part of my comment. At all. My only point was a simple and pragmatic one: if you have a stockpile of missiles, and you shoot one? Having somebody give you a moment-by-moment account of what happened on that missile's journey is a quite valuable thing that you will use the next time you shoot one of your missiles. My comment had zero to do with missile defense (aside from noting my interest in the subject). It was just pointing out that in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. I'm not going to comment on missile defense. Not relevant to the point I was making.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        > This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. You said this but then failed to cite anything from the article remotely supporting your claim. > in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. Saudi Arabia is not us. Hell, I don't even like KSA, an autocratic regime with a value system completely antithetical to ours but yeah, with a boatload of oil.
        classicsnoot 9y ago
        I think it is important to remember that personal feelings have almost no bearing on geopolitics. Plenty of French and British citizens couldn't have cared less about the Sudetenland or Poland. Governments are obviously made up of people, just like corporations, but they seem to become an entity unto themselves. I see this often when Europeans talk about policy initiatives in the US (and vice versa by Americans when discussing mass immigration in Europe). While KSA does not (yet) enjoy a mutual defense pact with the USA on paper, neither does Israel. And yet, in certain circumstances, an attack on Haifa is an attack on the West. I don't particularly like Bibi and his buddies, but that doesn't change the strategic geopolitical situation in the slightest. So the KSA is sometimes an extension of the US, for better or for worse, which is what i think the commenter you were responding to was implying.
  - ssijak 9y ago
    What is the most important is that USA stops causing and going into wars all around the globe. After that nobody will threaten to nuke you. Double win.
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  It is important. It's just not important enough to kill a bunch of people when they didn't have to die. Like I said, I like the topic and would love to hear more on it. I keep seeing the role of editor missing in mainstream news. This is the kind of article that could have been published with judicious editing without ending up a bomb damage assessment for terrorists. I don't think you get to point out how important the topic is and get a free pass regarding impact. Articles like this have consequences.
- ufmace 9y ago
  That's quite a conclusion to draw from one article about one test about an early-generation system deployed in a developing country. How does that lead to believing that no such system currently works or could ever work?
QAPereo 9y ago
Missile security through obscurity... oy.
ovi256 9y ago
I do not think NYT reporters have magic sources, access or analytic ability. They seem to have used public sources of information as sources. The Houthis, or their allies, should have enough analysts to piece the same sources together and arrive at the same conclusion.
timthelion 9y ago
"It's just going to encourage more launches" - no it won't. The current missile defense systems do not have a deterrent effect. They are expensive to launch and the 3rd world missiles that they intercept are much cheaper. Even a successful interception is a victory for the agressor.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  On some level it's a statistics game. Even in the absence of a defense system X/Y missiles will hit the target depending on the details. A defense system reduces that number further. Better to get the system refined when the stakes are low. When the Houthis miss the airport and they're a lot more likely to hit sand than city. When NK misses some city in SK (not necessarily Seoul because they can hit that with conventional artillery) they're much more likely to hit something we don't want them to hit. Now, the latter situation may not be relevant within the lifetime of this system but having the system be "battle tested" serves to make it even less likely. This sort of scaled to all defensive and deterrent systems. The more successful they are the more the generals in the war room will say "We can't just do $offensive_thing because it's not likely enough to be effective in the face of $defensive_thing"
rhapsodic 9y ago
I disagree with you, but since your comment appears to be thought-out and made in good faith, I upvoted it to counteract the downvotes it's getting.

kingkawn 9y ago

It is very important that we know from real life examples that the missile defense systems they are claiming will protect us are not functional, and that the resource allocation and strategic planning being made around these false promises be re-evaluated.

skj 9y ago
What is most important is that we avoid death and destruction from these missiles. Part of that is understanding the weaknesses of the existing systems and working to improve them. Another part of that may be convincing the attackers that the missiles are ineffective. Unfortunately life is not a linear program and we often don't find maxima at the extremes.
- kingkawn 9y ago
  If these systems have been deployed and are meant to stop missile attacks but the only way they work is if people believe that they work, then they are worse than useless and need to be exposed before our dependence on them grows any further.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  > Another part of that may be convincing the attackers that the missiles are ineffective. This raises an interesting question: is there evidence that anti-missile systems have actually deterred missile attacks? The Iron Dome system has a (disputed) success rate vastly higher than the Patriot system, but I can't find evidence that missile attacks against Israel have substantially declined in response to its deployment. Perhaps better organized entities like national militaries would react more thoroughly, but that also raises the specter of a displacement effect that fails to save lives. I definitely agree with you that "improving defenses" and "promoting defenses as deterrents" may be conflicting aims, but I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place.
  - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
    "...I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place..." I find it fascinating this HN thing we do where we skim over a comment, decide whether author agrees with us or not politically, and then pile on. I didn't say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect. The topic was not part of my comment. At all. My only point was a simple and pragmatic one: if you have a stockpile of missiles, and you shoot one? Having somebody give you a moment-by-moment account of what happened on that missile's journey is a quite valuable thing that you will use the next time you shoot one of your missiles. My comment had zero to do with missile defense (aside from noting my interest in the subject). It was just pointing out that in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. I'm not going to comment on missile defense. Not relevant to the point I was making.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      > This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. You said this but then failed to cite anything from the article remotely supporting your claim. > in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. Saudi Arabia is not us. Hell, I don't even like KSA, an autocratic regime with a value system completely antithetical to ours but yeah, with a boatload of oil.
      - classicsnoot 9y ago
        I think it is important to remember that personal feelings have almost no bearing on geopolitics. Plenty of French and British citizens couldn't have cared less about the Sudetenland or Poland. Governments are obviously made up of people, just like corporations, but they seem to become an entity unto themselves. I see this often when Europeans talk about policy initiatives in the US (and vice versa by Americans when discussing mass immigration in Europe). While KSA does not (yet) enjoy a mutual defense pact with the USA on paper, neither does Israel. And yet, in certain circumstances, an attack on Haifa is an attack on the West. I don't particularly like Bibi and his buddies, but that doesn't change the strategic geopolitical situation in the slightest. So the KSA is sometimes an extension of the US, for better or for worse, which is what i think the commenter you were responding to was implying.
- ssijak 9y ago
  What is the most important is that USA stops causing and going into wars all around the globe. After that nobody will threaten to nuke you. Double win.
DanielBMarkham 9y ago
It is important. It's just not important enough to kill a bunch of people when they didn't have to die. Like I said, I like the topic and would love to hear more on it. I keep seeing the role of editor missing in mainstream news. This is the kind of article that could have been published with judicious editing without ending up a bomb damage assessment for terrorists. I don't think you get to point out how important the topic is and get a free pass regarding impact. Articles like this have consequences.
ufmace 9y ago
That's quite a conclusion to draw from one article about one test about an early-generation system deployed in a developing country. How does that lead to believing that no such system currently works or could ever work?

QAPereo 9y ago

Missile security through obscurity... oy.

ovi256 9y ago

I do not think NYT reporters have magic sources, access or analytic ability. They seem to have used public sources of information as sources. The Houthis, or their allies, should have enough analysts to piece the same sources together and arrive at the same conclusion.

timthelion 9y ago

"It's just going to encourage more launches" - no it won't. The current missile defense systems do not have a deterrent effect. They are expensive to launch and the 3rd world missiles that they intercept are much cheaper. Even a successful interception is a victory for the agressor.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
On some level it's a statistics game. Even in the absence of a defense system X/Y missiles will hit the target depending on the details. A defense system reduces that number further. Better to get the system refined when the stakes are low. When the Houthis miss the airport and they're a lot more likely to hit sand than city. When NK misses some city in SK (not necessarily Seoul because they can hit that with conventional artillery) they're much more likely to hit something we don't want them to hit. Now, the latter situation may not be relevant within the lifetime of this system but having the system be "battle tested" serves to make it even less likely. This sort of scaled to all defensive and deterrent systems. The more successful they are the more the generals in the war room will say "We can't just do $offensive_thing because it's not likely enough to be effective in the face of $defensive_thing"

rhapsodic 9y ago

I disagree with you, but since your comment appears to be thought-out and made in good faith, I upvoted it to counteract the downvotes it's getting.