7 ms·

The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

46 points by lsh123 12y ago

cup 12y ago
I've seen quotes that suggest the missiles cost between 20 and 100,000 dollars. How is it suitanable to continue using the Iron Dome at such a high cost?
- scarmig 12y ago
  In the USA, a human life is typically valued (for risk analysis etc) at $5M or so. Break even happens if a single missile would prevent a death 2% of the time. That excludes the psychological costs, property damage, and other possible negative results.
  - aroman 12y ago
    Source, or is this sarcasm?
    - mehwoot 12y ago
      This has been calculated a number of times using various methods but it usually averages in the $5-10 million range, talking about the practical cost of someone dying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
- zachrose 12y ago
  Probably in much the same way that the US spends $6e11 on the military every year. Sustainability has different meanings in different contexts.
- mistermann 12y ago
  Depends who's footing the bill.
- danmaz74 12y ago
  AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.
  - ars 12y ago
    You know incorrectly. The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. In general any money the US spends is earmarked for US companies, so it's a form of subsidy to US companies. The interceptors are made in Israel, so the US doesn't pay for them.
    - dingaling 12y ago
      > The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. The US military does not use Iron Dome yet the $1 billion spent from DoD allocations so far on the system actually outweighs total Israeli spending. In March an agreement was signed to increase US contractor participation in manufacture so that it becomes eligible for FMS funding. The US solution to the same problem is C-RAM: http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html
      - ars 12y ago
        Your numbers are off. The US wants to invest that much, but has not actually done so. Meanwhile Israel has invested (or plans to, it's not clear) at least $1 billion, on R&D and a manufacturing line. That number doesn't make sense anyway - they built 9 batteries, 2 to 4 of which Israel did before the US got involved. Each costs 50 million. 5*50 million = 250 million which is approximately what the US actually spent (rather than talked about, or planned to, spend).
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Is this an actual cost per additional missile, or is this dividing the entire cost of the system or the cost for producing a batch of missiles?
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > How is it suitanable to continue using the Iron Dome at such a high cost? Hamas is going to make a Soviet Union. Like the SU back in Cold War times, Hamas doesn't realize they've entered a vicious money-spending circle they cannot win. The only reason why Hamas isn't dead and bankrupt yet is that there is actual war going on and the population will support them until death.
  - kamaal 12y ago
    >>doesn't realize they've entered a vicious money-spending circle they cannot win. I think they do. From : http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-death-toll-rises-in-gaza-fighting-israel-thwarts-infiltration-attempts/2014/07/21/114b697a-10bf-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-... "We’ll never go back to the slow death,Our demands are fair and they are humane. Our people have decided." (Its a choice between getting blockaded for a long time and going down slowly) Vs (going down fighting).
- Bootvis 12y ago
  Well, if you want to look at it purely from a money perspective it might not be sustainable but it sure is cheaper than having an impact in a populated area. Costs of a hit in populated area: - Loss of life and productivity - Hospitalization of injured - Covering material damage - Large disruption of life These easily cost 100k.
thesimpsons1022 12y ago
The only way the Iron Dome works is as a propaganda tool for Israel.
bpodgursky 12y ago
There's no evidence to speak of in the article--just calculations speculating that the success rate should be low. At best, it calls for Israel to produce evidence that the system is indeed working.
- thesimpsons1022 12y ago
  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-21/israels-iron-dome-weapons-expert-warns-of-major-flaws http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-21/israels-iron...
beloch 12y ago
Interesting analysis. If the Iron Dome is mere security theater then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets. Enough property damage may make Israelis' behind the Iron Dome realize that it's only the shelters that offer real safety. I'm curious about Hamas' choice in rockets though. Would larger rockets present as easier targets for the Iron Dome? If so, then the Iron Dome does indeed serve an important purpose by limiting Hamas to rockets small enough to be harmless to shelters. If not, then why would Hamas not use rockets large enough to penetrate a shelter? Finally, let's assume the ineffectiveness of the Iron Dome was commonly known. Given the sharp increase in IDF casualties after the ground invasion started, would it still have made sense to invade if there was no fear that Israelis might lose confidence in the Iron Dome?
- thesimpsons1022 12y ago
  It is important to consider that Hamas doesn't have much "choice" in their missiles. They just use whatever they can get their hands on.
- ars 12y ago
  > then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets As many other posters have shown, the analysis is incorrect. And Israel did in fact wait a while and just let them shoot. They escalated to a ground phase because of terror tunnels - missiles are a lower priority. You can tell because of where Israel is targeting during the ground phase - they have not gone deep into Gaza, but are staying right near the border where the tunnels start.
absherwin 12y ago
This article is based on the flawed assumption that where the rocket explodes is irrelevant. His criteria for success is frontal impact which the author claims is the only way to destroy this midair. Regardless of this, if the impact alters the trajectory to bring down the rocket in a less populated area, fewer people die. The author has been a vocal critic of missile defense systems for decades. While that doesn't negate his arguments, it suggests a potential motivation for his artificial definition of success. Edit: As the comment below points out, the rocket's trajectory could be changed so as to increase casualties. While that's true, it won't do so on average for several reasons. A rocket is only targeted if the system believes it has a high probability of striking a populated area. Since the expected losses are high, average will be better. In fact, average should be much better because the distribution of population density is so skewed. A small percentage of land is in dense regions. In this particular case, there's the added advantage that the most populous cities are relatively far away from Gaza so early impact is better.
- sjtrny 12y ago
  > alters the trajectory to bring down the rocket in a less populated area, fewer people die It might also cause more deaths.
  - erikb 12y ago
    It might but it is unlikely, considering that a rocket is aimed to be most efficient. Deviating it from it's course should be enough to decrease the effect. An exception to this might be that the rocket aims a city of thousands, who get sheltered successfully, which means the rocket would kill about zero people. When the rocket now gets deviated it might hit a target with hundred people who didn't get sheltered. Therefore the result for the population might be worse. My feeling (and I am definitely not an expert) is that this is comparatively unlikely, though.
    - jdotjdot 12y ago
      You also may be giving too much credit to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's ability to aim rockets at the intended targets. Plenty of the time they hit the middle of nowhere, or they've actually even hit Palestinian-dominated areas (Hebron and Bethlehem) [1][2] In many situations, it makes far more sense to save the Iron Dome counter-missles. [1]: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712463 http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712463 [2]: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4542242,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4542242,00.html
trhway 12y ago
technology-wise the thing like Iron Dome could have and should have been deployed 20 years ago. Today the missile based defense system against short range relatively slow missiles is becoming obsolete (and thus whether the Iron Dome missiles are effective is becoming not that important) with coming up of the systems like this http://defense-update.com/20131214_us-army-tests-high-power-laser-weapon.html#.U84AjLH08rw http://defense-update.com/20131214_us-army-tests-high-power-...
codezero 12y ago
There have been a shockingly low number of deaths on the Israeli side, does this mean that if the Iron Dome wasn't even deployed, that the rockets launched from Palestine would cause little to no human losses? I had assumed that the large imbalance of deaths between Israel and Palestine was because of Israel's technological advantage (Iron Dome), and not that the Palestinian rockets were largely ineffective.
- honzzz 12y ago
  It's caused by multiple factors (some of them are based on Israel's technological advantage) - shelters are everywhere, Israelis are trained really well (even falling to the ground before a rocket impact reduces casualties), they have sophisticated warning system - they even have an app for that [1] Obviously I cannot tell how efficient Iron Dome is but they certainly have other effective tools at their disposal. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249866/Red_Alert_app_warns_of_imminent_missile_attacks_in_Israel_ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249866/Red_Alert_app...
junto 12y ago
Out of interest, what is the trigger mechanism for the rockets warhead? Would an Iron Dome missile have a higher success rate if it had a strong enough blast radius that meant it only needed to explode near an incoming Hama's missile, rather than actually having to hit the warhead directly?
spingsprong 12y ago
If it's not working, that's a pretty bad sign for the US ballistic missile defense system. I'm assuming it's easier to hit a Mach 3 Grad than a Mach 20 ICBM
- jarin 12y ago
  It's not pretty, but that's why we have ballistic missile subs as a deterrent. There are always more counter-countermeasures than countermeasures.
erikb 12y ago
It's painful to see someone try a scientific approach (which is good!) but already fails in the assumptions. There are probably many ways a defense rocket could harm an incoming missile without hitting it directly up front. Destroying it's back might and should result in the warhead not reaching it's designated target, which is already a success. Even exploding near a missile might change the air environment of this rocket enough to harm it's target trajectory. Last but not least every kind of pressure might result in damage to the rocket's proper functioning and thereby result in it's early triggering or not triggering at all. While I also believe that a tool like the Iron Dome might be inefficient for it's pure militaristic purpose (it might have psychological purposes as well) the article is not much help in deciding whether this assumption is true or not, because the assumptions are already flawed.
- Too 12y ago
  Changing the trajectory so that the rocket accidentally hits a civillian target instead of the designated millitary one night not be considered a success by everyone..
  - ars 12y ago
    Um, the rockets are not aimed at military targets, they are aimed at civilian targets. How can you possibly not know this? Since the rocket is only intercepted when it's expected to teach a populated area, any change will be for the better.
- Arnt 12y ago
  Name some of the ways? Speaking as layman, it sounds plausible that a hit on the back would work while the target missile is ascending, but not when it's already descending towards the target.
  - ars 12y ago
    If you watch videos it seems the hits are made during the ascent.
  - erikb 12y ago
nrubin 12y ago
From what I understand, many of the statistics quoted about Iron Dome are for "attempted interceptions". This skews the effectiveness of the system towards high-priority scenarios, maybe those that are more likely to produce a winning outcome for Iron Dome. As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire, so the IDF really only wants to fire them during scenarios that are high risk -- e.g., a rocket fired toward the Negev is much lower priority than a rocket fired at Tel Aviv. On another note, I think that as programmers it's an interesting exercise to speculate as to the nature of the computer systems Iron Dome employs in order to mitigate attacks. AFAIK, Iron Dome rockets are only fired when high-value areas are targeted or there is a high probability of success. Can you imagine the kinds of online learning models we employ nowadays, being able to evaluate a set of inputs in <10s ? Even a complex Bayesian inference algorithm that could solve for a probable strike area in that short time with reasonable accuracy is incredible. As colloquial evidence, a family member of mine recently posted a photo of Iron Dome intercepting a rocket almost directly over his home. So maybe it's not that accurate or that effective, but when it does work it's worth almost every dollar or shekel spent.
- kamaal 12y ago
  >>As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire I was wondering how they deal with DDoS scenarios. Lets say the enemy just mixes genuine rockets with dummy one's and keeps firing. They could essentially create a scenario where a lot of Iron dome missiles can be wasted destroying dud rockets.
  - ars 12y ago
    The enemy does actually do that now. Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same, but they do fire many at once. So what the system does is calculate the trajectory of the rocket to see if it will hit anything populated, only a small portion of them do.
    - kamaal 12y ago
      >>Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same If this is the case. Then in the presence of Iron dome, only impact those rockets have is in scaring away people. It hardly makes any sense to fire a barrage of rockets in this case. A more optimal strategy is fire them a few at a time spread out over a period of time. Either way Iron dome will still remain expensive.
eytanlevit 12y ago
Israeli here, and this is not going to be a very subjective opinion, but rather a simple observations after being through a few wars with thousands of rockets shot each. In the 2nd Lebanon war(2006), Hezbollah shot ~120 rockets/day at north Israel and Haifa, and the destruction was both visible and painful. 44 civilians dead. Multiple buildings in Haifa destroyed. I remember the pictures, so many of them. We had the alarms, we had the bomb shelters then, but still, the rockets destroyed and killed. In the current conflict, almost zero dead, almost zero buildings destroyed, and this is while Hamas is shooting roughly the same number of rockets(~120/day), bigger rockets and to a far more densely populated areas than ever targeted by either Hamas OR Hezbollah(Tel Aviv, Rishon Leziyon where most of Israeli population and commerce is). There is a reason why Hezbollah and Hamas equipped themselves with tens of thousands of rockets, because it used to work, but not anymore. I've even had a discussion previously today with my dad that if accuracy of Iron Dome would increase to 99%, we could actually turn off the siren system and maybe just ignore Hamas rockets, keep living normally, thus preventing the need to use offensive military force and prevent casualties on both sides. Unfortunately we've recently learned that Hamas has already developed a new tactic, building tunnels under the border into Israeli towns and have 10-20 Hamas soldiers come with handcuffs and syringes with anastasia to kidnap Israeli civilians. We've already discovered ~15 such tunnels, and there is much talk that we need an "Iron Dome" for discovering tunnels in the very special geological structure of the sand around Gaza. I personally need an Iron Dome for my soul, after seeing so many pictures of Israelis and Gazans dead, having difficult conversations with my kids and having a difficult time building my startup when all I can think of is this war. Fucking war. (While writing this I was interrupted due to 3 rockets shot at Tel Aviv, 2 intercepted, 1 hit a house, the first time for central Israel in this war.. the irony).
- ars 12y ago
  This should be at the top. You can make any theoretical analysis you want, but nothing trumps actual reality. And the actual reality is there is much less damage in Israel compared to previous attacks.
- nmeofthestate 12y ago
  "Hamas is shooting roughly the same number of rockets(~120/day), bigger rockets" I didn't realise this - I thought the majority of Gaza-fired rockets were fabricated in Gaza and pretty ineffectual, hence the 29 casualties since 2001.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
giladbau 12y ago
Sounds like the Israeli government has joined the American government in their favorite pastime: covering and manipulating. Just like 9/11, the moon landing and the JFK "assassination", here is yet ANOTHER proof that our governments are making up stories to keep us docile and complacent. Well done, Israel. Well done.
gojomo 12y ago
A meta-point about understanding hostilities-in-progress: As curious analytical types, or as motivated participants in political debates about proper defense systems and policies, we'd like to know what's really going on, and sooner rather than later. But note that in the "fog of war", confusion about what's really working and what isn't can be important. Lots of bad information will circulate, either due to natural misunderstandings or the calculated propaganda efforts of affected groups. Maybe a myth of Iron Dome potency serves other purposes, covering for other tactics or shifting enemy behavior usefully. Or alternatively, maybe a myth of Iron Dome impotency and cost-ineffectiveness serves other purposes. This of course makes contemporaneous democratic, open-society discussion of war a nearly-intractable task. It could be years (if ever) before outsiders and laypeople get a reasonable idea of what's really going on. This doesn't mean it's not worth discussing, just that confidence in any evidence or conclusions should be kept very, very low for quite a while.
bigbee 12y ago
Another Israeli here. I watched those intercepts taking place over my head. Add to that the numerous YouTube videos of such intercepts and let's call the lot "experimental evidence". That should trump the article's theoretical analysis imo :)

46 points by lsh123 12y ago

cup 12y ago

I've seen quotes that suggest the missiles cost between 20 and 100,000 dollars. How is it suitanable to continue using the Iron Dome at such a high cost?

scarmig 12y ago
In the USA, a human life is typically valued (for risk analysis etc) at $5M or so. Break even happens if a single missile would prevent a death 2% of the time. That excludes the psychological costs, property damage, and other possible negative results.
- aroman 12y ago
  Source, or is this sarcasm?
  - mehwoot 12y ago
    This has been calculated a number of times using various methods but it usually averages in the $5-10 million range, talking about the practical cost of someone dying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life
zachrose 12y ago
Probably in much the same way that the US spends $6e11 on the military every year. Sustainability has different meanings in different contexts.
mistermann 12y ago
Depends who's footing the bill.
danmaz74 12y ago
AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.
- ars 12y ago
  You know incorrectly. The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. In general any money the US spends is earmarked for US companies, so it's a form of subsidy to US companies. The interceptors are made in Israel, so the US doesn't pay for them.
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > The US does spend money on the system, but that's because they want it themself, so they invested in it. The US military does not use Iron Dome yet the $1 billion spent from DoD allocations so far on the system actually outweighs total Israeli spending. In March an agreement was signed to increase US contractor participation in manufacture so that it becomes eligible for FMS funding. The US solution to the same problem is C-RAM: http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html http://www.msl.army.mil/Pages/C-RAM/default.html
    - ars 12y ago
      Your numbers are off. The US wants to invest that much, but has not actually done so. Meanwhile Israel has invested (or plans to, it's not clear) at least $1 billion, on R&D and a manufacturing line. That number doesn't make sense anyway - they built 9 batteries, 2 to 4 of which Israel did before the US got involved. Each costs 50 million. 5*50 million = 250 million which is approximately what the US actually spent (rather than talked about, or planned to, spend).
Houshalter 12y ago
Is this an actual cost per additional missile, or is this dividing the entire cost of the system or the cost for producing a batch of missiles?
mschuster91 12y ago
> How is it suitanable to continue using the Iron Dome at such a high cost? Hamas is going to make a Soviet Union. Like the SU back in Cold War times, Hamas doesn't realize they've entered a vicious money-spending circle they cannot win. The only reason why Hamas isn't dead and bankrupt yet is that there is actual war going on and the population will support them until death.
- kamaal 12y ago
  >>doesn't realize they've entered a vicious money-spending circle they cannot win. I think they do. From : http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-death-toll-rises-in-gaza-fighting-israel-thwarts-infiltration-attempts/2014/07/21/114b697a-10bf-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinian-... "We’ll never go back to the slow death,Our demands are fair and they are humane. Our people have decided." (Its a choice between getting blockaded for a long time and going down slowly) Vs (going down fighting).
Bootvis 12y ago
Well, if you want to look at it purely from a money perspective it might not be sustainable but it sure is cheaper than having an impact in a populated area. Costs of a hit in populated area: - Loss of life and productivity - Hospitalization of injured - Covering material damage - Large disruption of life These easily cost 100k.

thesimpsons1022 12y ago

The only way the Iron Dome works is as a propaganda tool for Israel.

bpodgursky 12y ago

There's no evidence to speak of in the article--just calculations speculating that the success rate should be low. At best, it calls for Israel to produce evidence that the system is indeed working.

thesimpsons1022 12y ago
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-21/israels-iron-dome-weapons-expert-warns-of-major-flaws http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-21/israels-iron...

beloch 12y ago

Interesting analysis. If the Iron Dome is mere security theater then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets. Enough property damage may make Israelis' behind the Iron Dome realize that it's only the shelters that offer real safety. I'm curious about Hamas' choice in rockets though. Would larger rockets present as easier targets for the Iron Dome? If so, then the Iron Dome does indeed serve an important purpose by limiting Hamas to rockets small enough to be harmless to shelters. If not, then why would Hamas not use rockets large enough to penetrate a shelter? Finally, let's assume the ineffectiveness of the Iron Dome was commonly known. Given the sharp increase in IDF casualties after the ground invasion started, would it still have made sense to invade if there was no fear that Israelis might lose confidence in the Iron Dome?

thesimpsons1022 12y ago
It is important to consider that Hamas doesn't have much "choice" in their missiles. They just use whatever they can get their hands on.
ars 12y ago
> then it makes it makes sense that the IDF won't simply sit back and let Hamas fire away until they run out of rockets As many other posters have shown, the analysis is incorrect. And Israel did in fact wait a while and just let them shoot. They escalated to a ground phase because of terror tunnels - missiles are a lower priority. You can tell because of where Israel is targeting during the ground phase - they have not gone deep into Gaza, but are staying right near the border where the tunnels start.

absherwin 12y ago

This article is based on the flawed assumption that where the rocket explodes is irrelevant. His criteria for success is frontal impact which the author claims is the only way to destroy this midair. Regardless of this, if the impact alters the trajectory to bring down the rocket in a less populated area, fewer people die. The author has been a vocal critic of missile defense systems for decades. While that doesn't negate his arguments, it suggests a potential motivation for his artificial definition of success. Edit: As the comment below points out, the rocket's trajectory could be changed so as to increase casualties. While that's true, it won't do so on average for several reasons. A rocket is only targeted if the system believes it has a high probability of striking a populated area. Since the expected losses are high, average will be better. In fact, average should be much better because the distribution of population density is so skewed. A small percentage of land is in dense regions. In this particular case, there's the added advantage that the most populous cities are relatively far away from Gaza so early impact is better.

sjtrny 12y ago
> alters the trajectory to bring down the rocket in a less populated area, fewer people die It might also cause more deaths.
- erikb 12y ago
  It might but it is unlikely, considering that a rocket is aimed to be most efficient. Deviating it from it's course should be enough to decrease the effect. An exception to this might be that the rocket aims a city of thousands, who get sheltered successfully, which means the rocket would kill about zero people. When the rocket now gets deviated it might hit a target with hundred people who didn't get sheltered. Therefore the result for the population might be worse. My feeling (and I am definitely not an expert) is that this is comparatively unlikely, though.
  - jdotjdot 12y ago
    You also may be giving too much credit to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's ability to aim rockets at the intended targets. Plenty of the time they hit the middle of nowhere, or they've actually even hit Palestinian-dominated areas (Hebron and Bethlehem) [1][2] In many situations, it makes far more sense to save the Iron Dome counter-missles. [1]: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712463 http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712463 [2]: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4542242,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4542242,00.html

trhway 12y ago

technology-wise the thing like Iron Dome could have and should have been deployed 20 years ago. Today the missile based defense system against short range relatively slow missiles is becoming obsolete (and thus whether the Iron Dome missiles are effective is becoming not that important) with coming up of the systems like this http://defense-update.com/20131214_us-army-tests-high-power-laser-weapon.html#.U84AjLH08rw http://defense-update.com/20131214_us-army-tests-high-power-...

codezero 12y ago

There have been a shockingly low number of deaths on the Israeli side, does this mean that if the Iron Dome wasn't even deployed, that the rockets launched from Palestine would cause little to no human losses? I had assumed that the large imbalance of deaths between Israel and Palestine was because of Israel's technological advantage (Iron Dome), and not that the Palestinian rockets were largely ineffective.

honzzz 12y ago
It's caused by multiple factors (some of them are based on Israel's technological advantage) - shelters are everywhere, Israelis are trained really well (even falling to the ground before a rocket impact reduces casualties), they have sophisticated warning system - they even have an app for that [1] Obviously I cannot tell how efficient Iron Dome is but they certainly have other effective tools at their disposal. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249866/Red_Alert_app_warns_of_imminent_missile_attacks_in_Israel_ http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9249866/Red_Alert_app...

junto 12y ago

Out of interest, what is the trigger mechanism for the rockets warhead? Would an Iron Dome missile have a higher success rate if it had a strong enough blast radius that meant it only needed to explode near an incoming Hama's missile, rather than actually having to hit the warhead directly?

spingsprong 12y ago

If it's not working, that's a pretty bad sign for the US ballistic missile defense system. I'm assuming it's easier to hit a Mach 3 Grad than a Mach 20 ICBM

jarin 12y ago
It's not pretty, but that's why we have ballistic missile subs as a deterrent. There are always more counter-countermeasures than countermeasures.

erikb 12y ago

It's painful to see someone try a scientific approach (which is good!) but already fails in the assumptions. There are probably many ways a defense rocket could harm an incoming missile without hitting it directly up front. Destroying it's back might and should result in the warhead not reaching it's designated target, which is already a success. Even exploding near a missile might change the air environment of this rocket enough to harm it's target trajectory. Last but not least every kind of pressure might result in damage to the rocket's proper functioning and thereby result in it's early triggering or not triggering at all. While I also believe that a tool like the Iron Dome might be inefficient for it's pure militaristic purpose (it might have psychological purposes as well) the article is not much help in deciding whether this assumption is true or not, because the assumptions are already flawed.

Too 12y ago
Changing the trajectory so that the rocket accidentally hits a civillian target instead of the designated millitary one night not be considered a success by everyone..
- ars 12y ago
  Um, the rockets are not aimed at military targets, they are aimed at civilian targets. How can you possibly not know this? Since the rocket is only intercepted when it's expected to teach a populated area, any change will be for the better.
Arnt 12y ago
Name some of the ways? Speaking as layman, it sounds plausible that a hit on the back would work while the target missile is ascending, but not when it's already descending towards the target.
- ars 12y ago
  If you watch videos it seems the hits are made during the ascent.
- erikb 12y ago

nrubin 12y ago

From what I understand, many of the statistics quoted about Iron Dome are for "attempted interceptions". This skews the effectiveness of the system towards high-priority scenarios, maybe those that are more likely to produce a winning outcome for Iron Dome. As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire, so the IDF really only wants to fire them during scenarios that are high risk -- e.g., a rocket fired toward the Negev is much lower priority than a rocket fired at Tel Aviv. On another note, I think that as programmers it's an interesting exercise to speculate as to the nature of the computer systems Iron Dome employs in order to mitigate attacks. AFAIK, Iron Dome rockets are only fired when high-value areas are targeted or there is a high probability of success. Can you imagine the kinds of online learning models we employ nowadays, being able to evaluate a set of inputs in <10s ? Even a complex Bayesian inference algorithm that could solve for a probable strike area in that short time with reasonable accuracy is incredible. As colloquial evidence, a family member of mine recently posted a photo of Iron Dome intercepting a rocket almost directly over his home. So maybe it's not that accurate or that effective, but when it does work it's worth almost every dollar or shekel spent.

kamaal 12y ago
>>As an Israeli, I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire I was wondering how they deal with DDoS scenarios. Lets say the enemy just mixes genuine rockets with dummy one's and keeps firing. They could essentially create a scenario where a lot of Iron dome missiles can be wasted destroying dud rockets.
- ars 12y ago
  The enemy does actually do that now. Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same, but they do fire many at once. So what the system does is calculate the trajectory of the rocket to see if it will hit anything populated, only a small portion of them do.
  - kamaal 12y ago
    >>Firing a dud is pointless since the cost of the rocket is the same If this is the case. Then in the presence of Iron dome, only impact those rockets have is in scaring away people. It hardly makes any sense to fire a barrage of rockets in this case. A more optimal strategy is fire them a few at a time spread out over a period of time. Either way Iron dome will still remain expensive.

eytanlevit 12y ago

Israeli here, and this is not going to be a very subjective opinion, but rather a simple observations after being through a few wars with thousands of rockets shot each. In the 2nd Lebanon war(2006), Hezbollah shot ~120 rockets/day at north Israel and Haifa, and the destruction was both visible and painful. 44 civilians dead. Multiple buildings in Haifa destroyed. I remember the pictures, so many of them. We had the alarms, we had the bomb shelters then, but still, the rockets destroyed and killed. In the current conflict, almost zero dead, almost zero buildings destroyed, and this is while Hamas is shooting roughly the same number of rockets(~120/day), bigger rockets and to a far more densely populated areas than ever targeted by either Hamas OR Hezbollah(Tel Aviv, Rishon Leziyon where most of Israeli population and commerce is). There is a reason why Hezbollah and Hamas equipped themselves with tens of thousands of rockets, because it used to work, but not anymore. I've even had a discussion previously today with my dad that if accuracy of Iron Dome would increase to 99%, we could actually turn off the siren system and maybe just ignore Hamas rockets, keep living normally, thus preventing the need to use offensive military force and prevent casualties on both sides. Unfortunately we've recently learned that Hamas has already developed a new tactic, building tunnels under the border into Israeli towns and have 10-20 Hamas soldiers come with handcuffs and syringes with anastasia to kidnap Israeli civilians. We've already discovered ~15 such tunnels, and there is much talk that we need an "Iron Dome" for discovering tunnels in the very special geological structure of the sand around Gaza. I personally need an Iron Dome for my soul, after seeing so many pictures of Israelis and Gazans dead, having difficult conversations with my kids and having a difficult time building my startup when all I can think of is this war. Fucking war. (While writing this I was interrupted due to 3 rockets shot at Tel Aviv, 2 intercepted, 1 hit a house, the first time for central Israel in this war.. the irony).

ars 12y ago
This should be at the top. You can make any theoretical analysis you want, but nothing trumps actual reality. And the actual reality is there is much less damage in Israel compared to previous attacks.
nmeofthestate 12y ago
"Hamas is shooting roughly the same number of rockets(~120/day), bigger rockets" I didn't realise this - I thought the majority of Gaza-fired rockets were fabricated in Gaza and pretty ineffectual, hence the 29 casualties since 2001.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

giladbau 12y ago

Sounds like the Israeli government has joined the American government in their favorite pastime: covering and manipulating. Just like 9/11, the moon landing and the JFK "assassination", here is yet ANOTHER proof that our governments are making up stories to keep us docile and complacent. Well done, Israel. Well done.

gojomo 12y ago

A meta-point about understanding hostilities-in-progress: As curious analytical types, or as motivated participants in political debates about proper defense systems and policies, we'd like to know what's really going on, and sooner rather than later. But note that in the "fog of war", confusion about what's really working and what isn't can be important. Lots of bad information will circulate, either due to natural misunderstandings or the calculated propaganda efforts of affected groups. Maybe a myth of Iron Dome potency serves other purposes, covering for other tactics or shifting enemy behavior usefully. Or alternatively, maybe a myth of Iron Dome impotency and cost-ineffectiveness serves other purposes. This of course makes contemporaneous democratic, open-society discussion of war a nearly-intractable task. It could be years (if ever) before outsiders and laypeople get a reasonable idea of what's really going on. This doesn't mean it's not worth discussing, just that confidence in any evidence or conclusions should be kept very, very low for quite a while.

bigbee 12y ago

Another Israeli here. I watched those intercepts taking place over my head. Add to that the numerous YouTube videos of such intercepts and let's call the lot "experimental evidence". That should trump the article's theoretical analysis imo :)