4 ms·

In 1993, while in college, I wrote a paper about the fallacies of the Patriot Missile effectiveness. What I learned in writing it was that the so-called accurac

In 1993, while in college, I wrote a paper about the fallacies of the Patriot Missile effectiveness. What I learned in writing it was that the so-called accuracy of the Patriot was grossly exaggerated. The mainstream media, and indeed the country, needed some symbol to rally around and the Patriot Missile became that symbol. The battery's very name started the process. The US touted a 95% accuracy. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/03/patriot_games.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... In reality, a "success" didn't mean disarming the scud. It meant flying on a trajectory sufficiently close to the scud to have disabled it if all else worked as designed.

Spooky23 13y ago
There should be some sort of penalty for re-inventing language for gain. This reminds me of the Columbia Accident Board Report, which pointed out that NASA & contractors redefined the meaning of "foreign object impact" to exclude foam from the fuel tank.
otoburb 13y ago
The touted 95% accuracy was the primary reason US expats would sometimes leave their houses when the sirens sounded with their home cams to try to catch the Patriots intercepting incoming Scud missiles during the Gulf War. I lived on the civilian airport during my youth in Riyadh during the Gulf War. The other expats thought the Americans were crazy no matter what the supposed accuracy. It wasn't until after the war that we all realized the interception rates in the field were so much lower. Pretty surreal.
- dmourati 13y ago
  Would have been sweet to connect back then and add your anecdote to my paper. I was an Computer Engineering major and this was the final paper for my only writing course. I learned a ton about the media on that project.
- bill_from_tampa 13y ago
  I was in the Air Force in Riyadh during the Gulf War - living in "Eskan Village" - south west of town, and just north of a Patriot missle battery. Many US servicemen (including myself) went up on the roofs of their housing units to watch the Scud/Patriot fireworks every night -- I don't think anybody had any illusions that we were "protected" by the Scuds -- everybody knew the shrapnel would land somewhere, even if in slightly smaller bits -- people felt "safe" just because of the math of probability - the risk of you being hit by anything falling from the sky was quite low, given the size of Riyadh! You could stand on the water tower on your roof and see lit cigarettes for blocks around (other guys up on their roofs watching the show). Ahh! Good times...
  - otoburb 13y ago
    Seriously, thank you for your service. >>I don't think anybody had any illusions that we were "protected" by the Scuds [...] Maybe servicemen were in the know, but non-military US expats drank the kool-aid. Alternatively, maybe they were encouraged by the military personnel watching the fireworks and extrapolated their own conclusions from there.
- ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
  Well, it helped that the Scuds had a 5% accuracy rate.
- midas007 13y ago
  The question then: is lying to people kinder than freaking them out with the truth?
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    This breaks down when your lie goes a full circle around the feedback loop and now someone above you is making the decision to pursue further a solution that was based on a lie.
  - sopooneo 13y ago
    I think that's a very interesting question. However, it is necessary to take into account the loss of credibility an exposed lie will produce, and how that will affect the efficacy of the technique in the future.
ttctciyf 13y ago
I wonder if you're in a position to comment on a couple of recollections I have from the first Iraq war (which I was aware of via TV news here in the UK, no direct involvement) - things that I've wondered about over the years? The first: I remember a report on the UK's Channel 4 News which included some footage of Patriot missiles in flight. Now this is a long time ago, and I only saw the clip once, but what I recall is that shortly after launch, rather than a clean arc, one missile seemed to describe some crazy set of mid-air loops (which I immediately interpreted as a software error) before what seemed to be a sudden dive into the ground. The voice-over didn't refer to this apparent failure directly, but you could sense a certain awkwardness. Have you ever heard of any incident matching this? The second: as you'll know, the Patriot wasn't designed for a direct hit on incoming missiles, but was intended to get within a critical radius and then explode, triggering an explosion in the incoming missile's warhead. My friend theorised that the Iraqis exploited this by repeatedly launching missiles without payloads, so that even successfully exploding Patriots had little effect other than to deplete the military budget by X hundred thousand bucks a throw. Do either of these sound familiar or plausible? Things that I've wondered about for years!
- dmourati 13y ago
  Number 1 I can't offer any comment. I didn't delve too much into the programming of the missile though I have a similar recollection regarding the bug listed in the OP. As to two, yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. One other "success" mode of the Patriot was to explode and turn the scud in to many fragments (de facto fragmentation bomb). These fragments in turn could (and in some cases did) reach or approximate their initial target and do massive damage in excess of a single scud hit.
  - ttctciyf 13y ago
    Thanks for the reply!
    - dmourati 13y ago
      Thanks for yours. Some more data: McPeak's data, drawn from a variety of coalition sources, indicates that between January 18 and February 26, 1991, 40 Scuds were launched against Israel and 46 against Saudi Arabia. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.ht...
snacktimetoday 13y ago
The success rate was hugely exaggerated. I witnessed first hand missiles coming into and near Israel. Missile defence is a funny thing, especially when it comes to budgets and politics. There is often this cost/benefit of perfectly intercepting a missile/at all vs. just letting it hit. It sounds sick, but it really is a problem. Right now in Israel, we have an issue with our kipat barzel system. Originally they said it was a stupid idea and too expensive, but it has really proven itself in the field. This brings several problems. First, people are dumb sometimes and think when it is deployed near them that they are perfectly safe. Interception rates for this system are also no where near 100%. Secondly, shooting what amounts to flying garbage with this thing is really expensive. You might as well burn money to keep warm in the winter. What is much different from a lot of other systems like the Patriot is it really factors all kinds of things like will it hit a projectile that will impact a populated area or will the target just explode in the middle of no where? The same problems with people rallying around the Patriot are happening now. Luckily though it's being put into perspective and supplemented with systems that do other kinds of interception. At least the army realised that multiple kinds of interception are necessary and something like the Patriot will not be appropriate in every situation. These systems range from actually blowing up the targets to confusing them to throwing garbage at them to make them explode at the wrong time.
- ckozlowski 13y ago
  I forget the source of the quote, but it went something like this: "The Scud isn't a military weapon, it's a terror weapon. And when you have an anti-terror weapon that the public perceives works, then it works."

Spooky23 13y ago

There should be some sort of penalty for re-inventing language for gain. This reminds me of the Columbia Accident Board Report, which pointed out that NASA & contractors redefined the meaning of "foreign object impact" to exclude foam from the fuel tank.

otoburb 13y ago

The touted 95% accuracy was the primary reason US expats would sometimes leave their houses when the sirens sounded with their home cams to try to catch the Patriots intercepting incoming Scud missiles during the Gulf War. I lived on the civilian airport during my youth in Riyadh during the Gulf War. The other expats thought the Americans were crazy no matter what the supposed accuracy. It wasn't until after the war that we all realized the interception rates in the field were so much lower. Pretty surreal.

dmourati 13y ago
Would have been sweet to connect back then and add your anecdote to my paper. I was an Computer Engineering major and this was the final paper for my only writing course. I learned a ton about the media on that project.
bill_from_tampa 13y ago
I was in the Air Force in Riyadh during the Gulf War - living in "Eskan Village" - south west of town, and just north of a Patriot missle battery. Many US servicemen (including myself) went up on the roofs of their housing units to watch the Scud/Patriot fireworks every night -- I don't think anybody had any illusions that we were "protected" by the Scuds -- everybody knew the shrapnel would land somewhere, even if in slightly smaller bits -- people felt "safe" just because of the math of probability - the risk of you being hit by anything falling from the sky was quite low, given the size of Riyadh! You could stand on the water tower on your roof and see lit cigarettes for blocks around (other guys up on their roofs watching the show). Ahh! Good times...
- otoburb 13y ago
  Seriously, thank you for your service. >>I don't think anybody had any illusions that we were "protected" by the Scuds [...] Maybe servicemen were in the know, but non-military US expats drank the kool-aid. Alternatively, maybe they were encouraged by the military personnel watching the fireworks and extrapolated their own conclusions from there.
ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
Well, it helped that the Scuds had a 5% accuracy rate.
midas007 13y ago
The question then: is lying to people kinder than freaking them out with the truth?
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  This breaks down when your lie goes a full circle around the feedback loop and now someone above you is making the decision to pursue further a solution that was based on a lie.
- sopooneo 13y ago
  I think that's a very interesting question. However, it is necessary to take into account the loss of credibility an exposed lie will produce, and how that will affect the efficacy of the technique in the future.

ttctciyf 13y ago

I wonder if you're in a position to comment on a couple of recollections I have from the first Iraq war (which I was aware of via TV news here in the UK, no direct involvement) - things that I've wondered about over the years? The first: I remember a report on the UK's Channel 4 News which included some footage of Patriot missiles in flight. Now this is a long time ago, and I only saw the clip once, but what I recall is that shortly after launch, rather than a clean arc, one missile seemed to describe some crazy set of mid-air loops (which I immediately interpreted as a software error) before what seemed to be a sudden dive into the ground. The voice-over didn't refer to this apparent failure directly, but you could sense a certain awkwardness. Have you ever heard of any incident matching this? The second: as you'll know, the Patriot wasn't designed for a direct hit on incoming missiles, but was intended to get within a critical radius and then explode, triggering an explosion in the incoming missile's warhead. My friend theorised that the Iraqis exploited this by repeatedly launching missiles without payloads, so that even successfully exploding Patriots had little effect other than to deplete the military budget by X hundred thousand bucks a throw. Do either of these sound familiar or plausible? Things that I've wondered about for years!

dmourati 13y ago
Number 1 I can't offer any comment. I didn't delve too much into the programming of the missile though I have a similar recollection regarding the bug listed in the OP. As to two, yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. One other "success" mode of the Patriot was to explode and turn the scud in to many fragments (de facto fragmentation bomb). These fragments in turn could (and in some cases did) reach or approximate their initial target and do massive damage in excess of a single scud hit.
- ttctciyf 13y ago
  Thanks for the reply!
  - dmourati 13y ago
    Thanks for yours. Some more data: McPeak's data, drawn from a variety of coalition sources, indicates that between January 18 and February 26, 1991, 40 Scuds were launched against Israel and 46 against Saudi Arabia. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.ht...

snacktimetoday 13y ago

The success rate was hugely exaggerated. I witnessed first hand missiles coming into and near Israel. Missile defence is a funny thing, especially when it comes to budgets and politics. There is often this cost/benefit of perfectly intercepting a missile/at all vs. just letting it hit. It sounds sick, but it really is a problem. Right now in Israel, we have an issue with our kipat barzel system. Originally they said it was a stupid idea and too expensive, but it has really proven itself in the field. This brings several problems. First, people are dumb sometimes and think when it is deployed near them that they are perfectly safe. Interception rates for this system are also no where near 100%. Secondly, shooting what amounts to flying garbage with this thing is really expensive. You might as well burn money to keep warm in the winter. What is much different from a lot of other systems like the Patriot is it really factors all kinds of things like will it hit a projectile that will impact a populated area or will the target just explode in the middle of no where? The same problems with people rallying around the Patriot are happening now. Luckily though it's being put into perspective and supplemented with systems that do other kinds of interception. At least the army realised that multiple kinds of interception are necessary and something like the Patriot will not be appropriate in every situation. These systems range from actually blowing up the targets to confusing them to throwing garbage at them to make them explode at the wrong time.

ckozlowski 13y ago
I forget the source of the quote, but it went something like this: "The Scud isn't a military weapon, it's a terror weapon. And when you have an anti-terror weapon that the public perceives works, then it works."