4 ms·

Iron Dome is what you build when your thinking is flawed. It solves the wrong problem and actually perpetuates the problem it was intended to solve.

bawolff 5y ago
How so? It seems like a reasonable (albeit very expensive) solution to the type of asymmetric warfare threats israel has faced in the past and probably will in the future.
- nivertech 5y ago
  It is no longer asymmetrical, as it was during the intifada with its stabbing attacks and suicide bombers. Now it's a full-scale war (or at least that's how missile attacks on the population centers called in any other country except Israel).
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I think its pretty clearly not full scale war. Neither Gaza nor Israel has been reduced to a pile of rubble, which is what full-scale war would imply at the very least. As far as asymmetrical goes, i think its still pretty clear the parties have very different levels of resources. Neither of those words can be applied independently without context. If both sides only have rockets than it would not be asymmetrical.
    - nivertech 5y ago
      Resources doesn't matter, what matters is intent only. If somebody intended to steal something or to kill someone, he/she will still end up in jail. Please read what I wrote about 9/11. Al-Qaeda's resources were a tiny fraction of what Hamas has, yet US started a full-scale war in the Middle East and ultimately destroyed Al-Qaeda and eventually assassinated OBL. If you use Geneva conventions and so called "International Law", then I'm not aware of any recent military conflict which didn't had elements considered a war crime. I guess IDF is the only army in the world who operates according to these rules and has legal approval for every military operation. The truth is it's only applied to a weaker countries, and never to [list of countries redacted], or UN "peace keepers" who frequently committed real war crimes like raping women they were sent to protect.
      - notacoward 5y ago
        > so called "International Law" Are you expressing contempt for the principle of international law, or its implementation? Either way, it sure would be a shame if you were to accuse others of violating laws you don't believe in. Like, for example: > UN "peace keepers" who frequently committed real war crimes Whoop, there it is. > I'm not aware of any recent military conflict which didn't had elements considered a war crime One war crime does not justify another. That's a basic principle of all law. > I guess IDF is the only army in the world who operates according to these rules They don't. They have repeatedly been found in violation of those laws, but nothing can be enforced because... > The truth is it's only applied to a weaker countries ... and Israel, especially with the US as its frequent lone ally in the UN security council, is not a weak country.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        The wikipedia definition is: "Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly" Not sure where intent comes into it. Re, international law. That's not something i mentioned, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Could you say why you think their thinking is flawed, and what you think the correct thinking is?
- nivertech 5y ago
  Because "The best defense is a good offense." [1] There is a reason why no other country has a system like the Iron Dome, they simply don't need it. They prevent such a problem from arising in the first place by moving the battle into enemy territory and using a disproportionate response. Example: 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed 3,000 people in the US, resulted in 800,000 people killed and 37 million people displaced in the Middle East and other parts of the world.[2] There are no more repeat Al-Qaeda attacks on US. Now imagine that the US response to 9/11 attacks instead was building and deploying a better air defense system, and not moving the fight to the enemy (and their allies') territory. With each additional private jet hitting a building in NYC, they would incrementally improve their air defense capabilities. At first they would ignore attacks hitting the neighborhoods like Harlem, and only really respond to attacks on Manhattan. But even a response on Manhattan attacks would've been bombing some sand dunes in the desert, and politely asking terrorists and their families to vacate caves before bombing them from the air. Eventually the system will become "good enough", so it will become possible to ignore all attacks altogether, and convince the public that they have to live with the small civilian casualties from time to time. Al-Qaeda would become a specialist in the creation of third-generation kamikaze stealth aircraft, while OBL would constantly brag on Al Jazeera how he brought Big Satan to his knees. Of-course this scenario seems more SciFi-y than Iron Dome's Star Wars-like fireworks. And that's because unlike Israel, US is a normal, healthy, and strong country, with better thinking and decision making processes. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_off... [2] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Why either/or? Why not both/and? Israel also does disproportionate response, and moving the attack to enemy territory, and preventing accumulation of materiel in geographically-near adversaries' hands. And they have Iron Dome, because they still have missiles shot at them from time to time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bawolff 5y ago

How so? It seems like a reasonable (albeit very expensive) solution to the type of asymmetric warfare threats israel has faced in the past and probably will in the future.

nivertech 5y ago
It is no longer asymmetrical, as it was during the intifada with its stabbing attacks and suicide bombers. Now it's a full-scale war (or at least that's how missile attacks on the population centers called in any other country except Israel).
- bawolff 5y ago
  I think its pretty clearly not full scale war. Neither Gaza nor Israel has been reduced to a pile of rubble, which is what full-scale war would imply at the very least. As far as asymmetrical goes, i think its still pretty clear the parties have very different levels of resources. Neither of those words can be applied independently without context. If both sides only have rockets than it would not be asymmetrical.
  - nivertech 5y ago
    Resources doesn't matter, what matters is intent only. If somebody intended to steal something or to kill someone, he/she will still end up in jail. Please read what I wrote about 9/11. Al-Qaeda's resources were a tiny fraction of what Hamas has, yet US started a full-scale war in the Middle East and ultimately destroyed Al-Qaeda and eventually assassinated OBL. If you use Geneva conventions and so called "International Law", then I'm not aware of any recent military conflict which didn't had elements considered a war crime. I guess IDF is the only army in the world who operates according to these rules and has legal approval for every military operation. The truth is it's only applied to a weaker countries, and never to [list of countries redacted], or UN "peace keepers" who frequently committed real war crimes like raping women they were sent to protect.
    - notacoward 5y ago
      > so called "International Law" Are you expressing contempt for the principle of international law, or its implementation? Either way, it sure would be a shame if you were to accuse others of violating laws you don't believe in. Like, for example: > UN "peace keepers" who frequently committed real war crimes Whoop, there it is. > I'm not aware of any recent military conflict which didn't had elements considered a war crime One war crime does not justify another. That's a basic principle of all law. > I guess IDF is the only army in the world who operates according to these rules They don't. They have repeatedly been found in violation of those laws, but nothing can be enforced because... > The truth is it's only applied to a weaker countries ... and Israel, especially with the US as its frequent lone ally in the UN security council, is not a weak country.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      The wikipedia definition is: "Asymmetric warfare (or asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly" Not sure where intent comes into it. Re, international law. That's not something i mentioned, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Could you say why you think their thinking is flawed, and what you think the correct thinking is?

nivertech 5y ago
Because "The best defense is a good offense." [1] There is a reason why no other country has a system like the Iron Dome, they simply don't need it. They prevent such a problem from arising in the first place by moving the battle into enemy territory and using a disproportionate response. Example: 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed 3,000 people in the US, resulted in 800,000 people killed and 37 million people displaced in the Middle East and other parts of the world.[2] There are no more repeat Al-Qaeda attacks on US. Now imagine that the US response to 9/11 attacks instead was building and deploying a better air defense system, and not moving the fight to the enemy (and their allies') territory. With each additional private jet hitting a building in NYC, they would incrementally improve their air defense capabilities. At first they would ignore attacks hitting the neighborhoods like Harlem, and only really respond to attacks on Manhattan. But even a response on Manhattan attacks would've been bombing some sand dunes in the desert, and politely asking terrorists and their families to vacate caves before bombing them from the air. Eventually the system will become "good enough", so it will become possible to ignore all attacks altogether, and convince the public that they have to live with the small civilian casualties from time to time. Al-Qaeda would become a specialist in the creation of third-generation kamikaze stealth aircraft, while OBL would constantly brag on Al Jazeera how he brought Big Satan to his knees. Of-course this scenario seems more SciFi-y than Iron Dome's Star Wars-like fireworks. And that's because unlike Israel, US is a normal, healthy, and strong country, with better thinking and decision making processes. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_offense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_best_defense_is_a_good_off... [2] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Why either/or? Why not both/and? Israel also does disproportionate response, and moving the attack to enemy territory, and preventing accumulation of materiel in geographically-near adversaries' hands. And they have Iron Dome, because they still have missiles shot at them from time to time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]