3 ms·

I would say that: Israel has experienced realistic conditions. Any of the local hotbeds over the last few decades (Iraq, Ukraine, etc) have had realistic condit

I would say that: Israel has experienced realistic conditions. Any of the local hotbeds over the last few decades (Iraq, Ukraine, etc) have had realistic conditions, which are now decades old or haven't resulted in any success (effective defense). There's no good reason to expect to be able to protect any given area from a missile attack. If the coverage is good enough in a small area, a nuke right out side the defense range will do enough secondary damage to render it irrelevant. To illustrate, if you want to destroy Israel, the practical approach is to fire a nuke at Palestine.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Israel has defended against slow starting, small tin-rockets from known locations. It has not defended against extremely fast ICBMs, which can detonate and create immense destruction even from a considerable height.
eesmith 4y ago
Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs. There's a reason the Aegis Combat System isn't the same as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Pakistan can likely build a 150 kt bomb (says Wikipedia). Go to NUKEMAP and try it out. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=31.7733151&lng=35.1867903&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=5443&psi=20,5,1&zm=12 https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=31.7733151&l... . What good is the Iron Dome against that? > There's no good reason to expect to be able to protect any given area from a missile attack. The defense systems in the linked-to article are meant to intercept and destroy missiles far enough away that even if they explode at that point they do not cause damage to the target. One THADD hit its target at 147 km altitude, says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... . Try NUKEMAP again, with a 147 km altitude (use "Advanced options", select Airburst settings of "burst height", and enter 147 with "km" in the pulldown menu. You won't even see the 1psi over-pressure damage at that height.)
- mnw21cam 4y ago
  If a nuclear warhead is intercepted, it generally doesn't detonate. It requires a very carefully-timed and managed sequence of events to make a warhead detonate, deliberately so.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I was responding to Supermancho's comment "nuke right out side the defense range will do enough secondary damage". Assuming the nuke could detect that it was about to be destroyed, and so detonated, would it still be able to do damage? Or, if the max altitude for Iron Dome were known, and the nuke set off just above that range, what damage would it do? The third tier of the missile defense system (destruction during boost, coast, or descent; descent is the third) is meant to avoid Supermancho's scenario.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs. > What good is the Iron Dome against that? I agree. > The defense systems in the linked-to article are meant to intercept and destroy missiles far enough away that even if they explode at that point they do not cause damage to the target. These still don't work. The article and certain hawks say they will do enough to justify the awful cost that has been debated since the idea was born. The first time I heard a discussion about this was on slashdot in 1999. I think it's wishful thinking paired with Defense spending greed. shrug
- chipsa 4y ago
  > Aegis Combat System isn't the same as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System For all intents and purposes, WRT the US, they are the same thing. Aegis baseline 9 and newer can conduct BMD and AAW at the same time.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    My ignorance of theterminology is clearly at fault. My point remains - Israel's system is not mean to defend against ballistic missiles.
    - chipsa 4y ago
      After review, I think you were talking about the Arrow (or Hetz) system? These are meant to defend against ballistic missiles, but not ICBM class (Though, the Arrow 3 appears to be similar in capabilities as the SM-3, which is capable of regional (not national) ICBM interception).
      - eesmith 4y ago
        To the contrary, I didn't know about Israel's development of defenses beyond the Scud-style attacks. https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arrow.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arrow.htm says Arrow 2 can "destroy an incoming missile from its launch at an altitude of 10 to 40km". NUKEMAP says a 150 kt nuke says 10 km gives some damage and 3rd degree burns, but not major destruction, which requires a maximum altitude of 1.5 km. If I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Operat... correctly, my comment remains true - "Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs", which is the type of missile meant in the linked-to essay. Thank you for pointing me to that new (to me) information!

actionfromafar 4y ago

Israel has defended against slow starting, small tin-rockets from known locations. It has not defended against extremely fast ICBMs, which can detonate and create immense destruction even from a considerable height.

eesmith 4y ago

Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs. There's a reason the Aegis Combat System isn't the same as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. Pakistan can likely build a 150 kt bomb (says Wikipedia). Go to NUKEMAP and try it out. https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=31.7733151&lng=35.1867903&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=5443&psi=20,5,1&zm=12 https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=150&lat=31.7733151&l... . What good is the Iron Dome against that? > There's no good reason to expect to be able to protect any given area from a missile attack. The defense systems in the linked-to article are meant to intercept and destroy missiles far enough away that even if they explode at that point they do not cause damage to the target. One THADD hit its target at 147 km altitude, says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_De... . Try NUKEMAP again, with a 147 km altitude (use "Advanced options", select Airburst settings of "burst height", and enter 147 with "km" in the pulldown menu. You won't even see the 1psi over-pressure damage at that height.)

mnw21cam 4y ago
If a nuclear warhead is intercepted, it generally doesn't detonate. It requires a very carefully-timed and managed sequence of events to make a warhead detonate, deliberately so.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I was responding to Supermancho's comment "nuke right out side the defense range will do enough secondary damage". Assuming the nuke could detect that it was about to be destroyed, and so detonated, would it still be able to do damage? Or, if the max altitude for Iron Dome were known, and the nuke set off just above that range, what damage would it do? The third tier of the missile defense system (destruction during boost, coast, or descent; descent is the third) is meant to avoid Supermancho's scenario.
Supermancho 4y ago
> Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs. > What good is the Iron Dome against that? I agree. > The defense systems in the linked-to article are meant to intercept and destroy missiles far enough away that even if they explode at that point they do not cause damage to the target. These still don't work. The article and certain hawks say they will do enough to justify the awful cost that has been debated since the idea was born. The first time I heard a discussion about this was on slashdot in 1999. I think it's wishful thinking paired with Defense spending greed. shrug
chipsa 4y ago
> Aegis Combat System isn't the same as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System For all intents and purposes, WRT the US, they are the same thing. Aegis baseline 9 and newer can conduct BMD and AAW at the same time.
- eesmith 4y ago
  My ignorance of theterminology is clearly at fault. My point remains - Israel's system is not mean to defend against ballistic missiles.
  - chipsa 4y ago
    After review, I think you were talking about the Arrow (or Hetz) system? These are meant to defend against ballistic missiles, but not ICBM class (Though, the Arrow 3 appears to be similar in capabilities as the SM-3, which is capable of regional (not national) ICBM interception).
    - eesmith 4y ago
      To the contrary, I didn't know about Israel's development of defenses beyond the Scud-style attacks. https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arrow.htm https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arrow.htm says Arrow 2 can "destroy an incoming missile from its launch at an altitude of 10 to 40km". NUKEMAP says a 150 kt nuke says 10 km gives some damage and 3rd degree burns, but not major destruction, which requires a maximum altitude of 1.5 km. If I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Operat... correctly, my comment remains true - "Israel has no experience countering nuclear ICBMs", which is the type of missile meant in the linked-to essay. Thank you for pointing me to that new (to me) information!