4 ms·

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?

by cup 12y ago

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.

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?

by 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.