4 ms·

It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones jus

It's true. There's photo and video evidence plus confirmation from multiple separate sources (different countries). You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. Their stated goal was to overwhelm the missile defense system and it clearly failed. > The cost of the attack seemed to be 1/10th the cost of the defense so that does appear to be a net win for the attackers. Not really. First, Iran is far worse off. Second, it showed that their missiles are crap. Many of them failed on launch and some crashed in Iraq (they intended to fire more). But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. Lastly, you should calculate the cost if the missiles would have hit the target. > I worry that the west will become over confident with our missile defence and use it as an excuse to push conflict as close to nuclear exchange as possible. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell; 'like teenagers playing a game of nuclear chicken' I partially agree with that notion. Still, as an Israeli I'd rather have that defense system over ideology. I can tell you that if a missile had hit anything important the outrage would have been terrible and the retaliation would have been immediate. In that sense at least, it gives the space to take a breath and deliberate.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
>But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warfare for 6 months, while responding to Houthi and Hezbollah strikes, who has also lost much of the goodwill and support it had from its international partners, who needed those partners that are starting to get sick of them to defend from a very early telegraphed missile strike. You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? One thing I appreciate about HN the variety of perspectives I'd never be exposed to otherwise
- invalidname 2y ago
  FYI I probably won't be able to answer much since dang limited my account after I took offense at people who think my country shouldn't exist. But I'll bite. Israel isn't remotely close to stretching its forces. The army is actually pushing hard for retaliation and most forces from Gaza are already at home by now. There's an importance of "perceived power" in this region. It's crucial to Israeli survival that it appears powerful. This is also a much "easier" war for Israel as it can fight against a "normal" army. The Hezbolla and Hamas are problematic as they aren't official armies (although they do have battalions and structures), they hide in civilian populations and make combat difficult. Hamas never brought the army remotely close to its limits; during the entire campaign in Gaza many of the people drafted were actually up north waiting for Hezbolla. Houthi missiles are just stupid, Yemen is too far away. The problem is the costs of far east goods that results from the blockade. But that's mostly an annoyance. All three of these fronts (and Syrian sourced attacks) are really from one source: Iran. They have been pulling the strings as part of an ongoing shadow war. Some believe it would be best to attack the head of the snake. All of the problems Israel is experiencing with its allies are the main reason it didn't retaliate (at least not yet).
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Well, everything you say is quite surprising to me. But thanks for sharing your perspective. I've certainly never heard most of these points before. It's pretty clear that Israel is stretching the extent it can take its conscripts to. Otherwise they wouldn't be debating drafting haredis (at great political risk). They wouldn't be pulling out of Gaza. Allies and the upper brass themselves wouldn't be saying the conscript army needs rest. And you wouldn't be seeing the big, news-making mistakes the conscript army is making after 6 months of urban warfare. The idea that a war against Iran would be easy is, quite frankly bonkers. It sounds like something Netanyahu would say to everyone's groans and disappointment. It sounds like Putin's hubris before he invaded Ukraine... >Some believe it would be best to attack the head of the snake. This reads like it's not serious about the practicalities of war. It honestly reads like Hamas propaganda talking about how they're going to directly kill Netanyahu when such a move is realistically impossible for them.
rokkitmensch 2y ago
You wouldn't. That's not a meaningful claim about what other people would or wouldn't do. The juice looks entirely worth the squeeze from here. Iran now knows exactly the saturation point of your defenses with all allies engaged.
- invalidname 2y ago
  You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not making a claim on what people would do. That's just standard military practice when a missile is fired you fire back at the source to prevent additional firing. Iran has no clue about the saturation point and got nothing. First, this was 100% synthetic since Israel knew about the attack and was very prepared. It got help from Jordan, US, UK and even the Saudis. According to army sources Israel already practiced for missile volumes with double the intensity. The fact that a couple went through doesn't indicate saturation, it just indicates the complexity of the problem space. Also, this is relevant to a point in time. Missile defenses are easy to bolster with additional resources. Right now light dome isn't even active yet and might be a game changer (energy based interception). Software and sensors improve very rapidly and additional deployments are easy. What we do know is that a large number of Iranian missiles crashed in Iraq and Iran because they are so badly made... Anyone in the market for Iranian tech now understands the quality of their product and its usefulness.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > Anyone in the market for Iranian tech now understands the quality of their product and its usefulness. No matter, Putin is desperate enough to buy anyway.
  - rokkitmensch 2y ago
    I believe the US is struggling to reach production of 650 Patriots a year. Given the shambolic state of our industrial base, I strongly doubt that any of the other platforms are in better logistical shape. I am deeply concerned that the US armories will be empty in two years at this rate.
maxglute 2y ago
>You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. The reality is 300+ ordnances is chump change. US attack on Syrian in 2018 consisted of 100 TLAMs/tomahawks with alleged ~70% interception rate on generations old RU hardware. The ability to intercept subsonic munitions at this point is basically known (hence why US pushing hard for stealth subsonics that are harder to engage), and being able to shoot down drones and cruise missiles is table stakes for any advanced military. Even more so with advanced notice. So Israel + co being able to take out 100% of subsonic munition is given, considering HOW MUCH MORE defense capabilities it has relative to Syria on 8x less land coverage*. The real kicker is the number of ballistics that slipped through, especially with US alleging 50% were duds that never launched properly. Assuming half of IR ballistics were duds, we're looking at ~10/50, 20%+ interception failures on small salvo (50-100 missiles is small), by one of the most sophisticated and dense anti missile networks in the world. The that ghetto salvo of 300 ordnances mix from Iran can penetrate that is the real news, how missile defense has surely improved, which is great against small states with limited capabilities, but not nearly enough for any adversary that can throw high 100s-1000s. Defense analysts suggest this was a calibrated retaliation because 300+ missiles and drones is really not that much. * Should be noted a carrier strike group with defensive DDGs screening the carrier 100km+ away constitutes larger defensive perimetre larger than the size of Israel. Consider if a carrier group has more defense than the entire country of Israel with US+UK+Jordan help from local basing and DDGs. Consider what 10 ballistics do to a carrier. IR demonstrated that sending cheap garbage with 50% dud rate is enough to satuate the best defense that (a lot of) money can buy.
- invalidname 2y ago
  You're mixing cruise missiles and ballistic missiles which are very different things to intercept. Also comparing the volumes the US is able to fire with the volumes for an embargoed poor nation like Iran is probably not at the same scale. 300+ is more than was fired in a single attack against any country ever. Calling it small is disingenuous. It's possible that many of the duds weren't part of the initial tally published but it's unclear from the reports. The significance here is the time-frame. This was done rapidly at a relatively short distance. As long as the defending side has enough missiles the volume doesn't matter (admittedly this is a big ask) what matters is the concurrent intensity required to overwhelm the defenses. But this is a pretty bad example regardless. First, Israel is tiny. Its a smaller area to defend and that means fewer deployments/radars etc.. Iran is still just far enough to defend against. Missiles fired by their troops in Lebanon are much harder to intercept. There's just not as much time. There was an intelligence warning and everyone was prepared.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

>But this was also a unique situation where Israel held back. In a typical case a firing would receive an immediate deadly response. E.g. planes and missiles from Israel returning the favor. Thus the cost for Iran would have been much higher. I feel like we are observing separate conflicts altogether. Israel whose conscript army is nearing its end in terms of endurance, who has been bogged down in urban guerilla warfare for 6 months, while responding to Houthi and Hezbollah strikes, who has also lost much of the goodwill and support it had from its international partners, who needed those partners that are starting to get sick of them to defend from a very early telegraphed missile strike. You think that Israel would even consider an immediate deadly response to open a fourth front in a war they can't afford, a war the public is getting sick of, and a war that the very disliked leader of the nation is cynically prolonging to maintain his waning grip on power? One thing I appreciate about HN the variety of perspectives I'd never be exposed to otherwise

invalidname 2y ago
FYI I probably won't be able to answer much since dang limited my account after I took offense at people who think my country shouldn't exist. But I'll bite. Israel isn't remotely close to stretching its forces. The army is actually pushing hard for retaliation and most forces from Gaza are already at home by now. There's an importance of "perceived power" in this region. It's crucial to Israeli survival that it appears powerful. This is also a much "easier" war for Israel as it can fight against a "normal" army. The Hezbolla and Hamas are problematic as they aren't official armies (although they do have battalions and structures), they hide in civilian populations and make combat difficult. Hamas never brought the army remotely close to its limits; during the entire campaign in Gaza many of the people drafted were actually up north waiting for Hezbolla. Houthi missiles are just stupid, Yemen is too far away. The problem is the costs of far east goods that results from the blockade. But that's mostly an annoyance. All three of these fronts (and Syrian sourced attacks) are really from one source: Iran. They have been pulling the strings as part of an ongoing shadow war. Some believe it would be best to attack the head of the snake. All of the problems Israel is experiencing with its allies are the main reason it didn't retaliate (at least not yet).
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Well, everything you say is quite surprising to me. But thanks for sharing your perspective. I've certainly never heard most of these points before. It's pretty clear that Israel is stretching the extent it can take its conscripts to. Otherwise they wouldn't be debating drafting haredis (at great political risk). They wouldn't be pulling out of Gaza. Allies and the upper brass themselves wouldn't be saying the conscript army needs rest. And you wouldn't be seeing the big, news-making mistakes the conscript army is making after 6 months of urban warfare. The idea that a war against Iran would be easy is, quite frankly bonkers. It sounds like something Netanyahu would say to everyone's groans and disappointment. It sounds like Putin's hubris before he invaded Ukraine... >Some believe it would be best to attack the head of the snake. This reads like it's not serious about the practicalities of war. It honestly reads like Hamas propaganda talking about how they're going to directly kill Netanyahu when such a move is realistically impossible for them.

rokkitmensch 2y ago

You wouldn't. That's not a meaningful claim about what other people would or wouldn't do. The juice looks entirely worth the squeeze from here. Iran now knows exactly the saturation point of your defenses with all allies engaged.

invalidname 2y ago
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm not making a claim on what people would do. That's just standard military practice when a missile is fired you fire back at the source to prevent additional firing. Iran has no clue about the saturation point and got nothing. First, this was 100% synthetic since Israel knew about the attack and was very prepared. It got help from Jordan, US, UK and even the Saudis. According to army sources Israel already practiced for missile volumes with double the intensity. The fact that a couple went through doesn't indicate saturation, it just indicates the complexity of the problem space. Also, this is relevant to a point in time. Missile defenses are easy to bolster with additional resources. Right now light dome isn't even active yet and might be a game changer (energy based interception). Software and sensors improve very rapidly and additional deployments are easy. What we do know is that a large number of Iranian missiles crashed in Iraq and Iran because they are so badly made... Anyone in the market for Iranian tech now understands the quality of their product and its usefulness.
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > Anyone in the market for Iranian tech now understands the quality of their product and its usefulness. No matter, Putin is desperate enough to buy anyway.
- rokkitmensch 2y ago
  I believe the US is struggling to reach production of 650 Patriots a year. Given the shambolic state of our industrial base, I strongly doubt that any of the other platforms are in better logistical shape. I am deeply concerned that the US armories will be empty in two years at this rate.

maxglute 2y ago

>You don't fire 300+ missiles and drones just as a "show of force". It's expensive. The reality is 300+ ordnances is chump change. US attack on Syrian in 2018 consisted of 100 TLAMs/tomahawks with alleged ~70% interception rate on generations old RU hardware. The ability to intercept subsonic munitions at this point is basically known (hence why US pushing hard for stealth subsonics that are harder to engage), and being able to shoot down drones and cruise missiles is table stakes for any advanced military. Even more so with advanced notice. So Israel + co being able to take out 100% of subsonic munition is given, considering HOW MUCH MORE defense capabilities it has relative to Syria on 8x less land coverage*. The real kicker is the number of ballistics that slipped through, especially with US alleging 50% were duds that never launched properly. Assuming half of IR ballistics were duds, we're looking at ~10/50, 20%+ interception failures on small salvo (50-100 missiles is small), by one of the most sophisticated and dense anti missile networks in the world. The that ghetto salvo of 300 ordnances mix from Iran can penetrate that is the real news, how missile defense has surely improved, which is great against small states with limited capabilities, but not nearly enough for any adversary that can throw high 100s-1000s. Defense analysts suggest this was a calibrated retaliation because 300+ missiles and drones is really not that much. * Should be noted a carrier strike group with defensive DDGs screening the carrier 100km+ away constitutes larger defensive perimetre larger than the size of Israel. Consider if a carrier group has more defense than the entire country of Israel with US+UK+Jordan help from local basing and DDGs. Consider what 10 ballistics do to a carrier. IR demonstrated that sending cheap garbage with 50% dud rate is enough to satuate the best defense that (a lot of) money can buy.

invalidname 2y ago
You're mixing cruise missiles and ballistic missiles which are very different things to intercept. Also comparing the volumes the US is able to fire with the volumes for an embargoed poor nation like Iran is probably not at the same scale. 300+ is more than was fired in a single attack against any country ever. Calling it small is disingenuous. It's possible that many of the duds weren't part of the initial tally published but it's unclear from the reports. The significance here is the time-frame. This was done rapidly at a relatively short distance. As long as the defending side has enough missiles the volume doesn't matter (admittedly this is a big ask) what matters is the concurrent intensity required to overwhelm the defenses. But this is a pretty bad example regardless. First, Israel is tiny. Its a smaller area to defend and that means fewer deployments/radars etc.. Iran is still just far enough to defend against. Missiles fired by their troops in Lebanon are much harder to intercept. There's just not as much time. There was an intelligence warning and everyone was prepared.