3 ms·
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 come
by 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 agoI 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."