Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

noahpinion.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 125 posts

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#21

Post by bglazer »

datascienced wrote: post #11

My gut is Iran wanted the missiles to be intercepted. They wanted to show they are not pushovers but don’t want to escalate too much. In some sense the whole thing was a fireworks display by the countries involved. Like a warning shot.

They telegraphed the attack by launching a wave of drones that took hours to arrive. One theory is that they were trying to do a combined drone and missile strike to increase the load on Israeli defenses.

If so, it didn’t work at all. So, allowing the Israelis to have hours of advance notice was either terrible tactics or an overt signal that they don’t want to escalate. I think it was probably the latter.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#22

Post by leetcrew »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #3

Isn't the problem with these missile defense systems that the per-unit cost is very high? And so in a longer term battle (like Russia vs Ukraine) one side can drain the other's defenses and $$ through the continuous use of cheap drones where the cost of the missile defense rocket far exceeds the cost of the sent drone?

yes and no. the difference in cost between the weapon and the countermeasure matters, but it's not the whole story. the value of the thing being defended also matters. in the absence of a viable alternative, it's easily worth burning $1-2mm per interceptor to prevent a mission kill on a $2bn destroyer or a strike on a major population center.

not saying this is you personally, but people seem to view this kind of thing as being similar to RTS, where players start on even footing on a symmetrical map, and games are won or lost by stringing together resource-efficient "trades". real world conflicts aren't like that. western countries have relatively deep pockets and low tolerance for casualties (and collateral damage to an extent). as a result, they are willing to pay a premium for training, survivable equipment, and precision munitions. it's a different doctrine altogether.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#23

Post by bluGill »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #15

Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead saber-rattling. It would seem wise for Iran to both to satiate the demands of their constituents desire for retribution without triggering escalation. That Israel was told to 'take the win' by the US seems to be as good as result for Iran as one could possibly…

They needed to do more damage. iran looks really bad when after such a large attack they hit to little. Iran didn't suceed in any retribution. (other than money spent on a defense test)

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#25

Post by bluGill »

zug_zug wrote: post #18

I'll agree with the specifics that it looks like some military technologies are more effective than we realized. I do not think that it's a fair logical leap to say "therefore the US should keep spending a significant portion of its national budget on it." I think the biggest predictors of whether humankind is alive in 1,000 years are not military at all, and perhaps inversely proportional to military spending. If in…

You don't get to choose when you are attacked. So despite your wishful thinking you need to prepare for war if you want to see results of your other actions.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#26

Post by le-mark »

bb88 wrote: post #16

Metrics of success are going to be: Ratio of cost of defense vs attack. The US and it's allies spent X on the missiles. Iran spent Y on the attack. If the ratio of X/Y is 1k or more, then it's probably not a feasible long term solution. IOW we're spending a billion to defend against a million dollars worth of materiel (no that's not a misspelling). Percentage of effectiveness to cost. If a smart missile is more effec…

This same calculus is mentioned four times in this thread as of now. It completely ignores the human cost, as in lives saved, and cost infrastructure not destroyed and capabilities not degraded. It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#27

Post by cjbgkagh »

bluGill wrote: post #23
cjbgkagh wrote: post #15

Do we know for sure what has been reported is true, was it really only a few? Perhaps we should consider that the goal wasn't to do a lot of damage but instead saber-rattling. It would seem wise for Iran to both to satiate the demands of their constituents desire for retribution without triggering escalation. That Israel was told to 'take the win' by the US seems to be as good as result for Iran as one could possibly…

They needed to do more damage. iran looks really bad when after such a large attack they hit to little. Iran didn't suceed in any retribution. (other than money spent on a defense test)

Iran has no great options available to them, and of the terrible options on the table I think they picked the best one for them. Now if Israel wants to attack Iran directly they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’ll cost Israel public support at a time where public support for Israel is rapidly waning.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#28

Post by bb88 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #3

Isn't the problem with these missile defense systems that the per-unit cost is very high? And so in a longer term battle (like Russia vs Ukraine) one side can drain the other's defenses and $$ through the continuous use of cheap drones where the cost of the missile defense rocket far exceeds the cost of the sent drone?

We've had the idea of directed energy beams, but I don't know. The US likes to spend big money at small problems. And then we're surprised when Ukraine (e.g.) uses low cost tech to make big advances.

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#29

Post by [deleted] »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #27
bluGill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They needed to do more damage. iran looks really bad when after such a large attack they hit to little. Iran didn't suceed in any retribution. (other than money spent on a defense test)

Iran has no great options available to them, and of the terrible options on the table I think they picked the best one for them. Now if Israel wants to attack Iran directly they have to make a mountain out of a molehill and it’ll cost Israel public support at a time where public support for Israel is rapidly waning.

[deleted]

Re: Why so many of us were wrong about missile defense

#30

Post by bb88 »

le-mark wrote: post #26
bb88 wrote: post #16

Metrics of success are going to be: Ratio of cost of defense vs attack. The US and it's allies spent X on the missiles. Iran spent Y on the attack. If the ratio of X/Y is 1k or more, then it's probably not a feasible long term solution. IOW we're spending a billion to defend against a million dollars worth of materiel (no that's not a misspelling). Percentage of effectiveness to cost. If a smart missile is more effec…

This same calculus is mentioned four times in this thread as of now. It completely ignores the human cost, as in lives saved, and cost infrastructure not destroyed and capabilities not degraded. It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.

I take offense to being labeled a bad-faith actor trying to control a narrative. It's just an argument. You either agree with me or don't.

In war the economics are money and people. E.g. We could invade Iran. It might cost $300bn US and 100k personnel dead and 200k wounded. It's just pure economics.

US corporations make the same judgment when it comes to safety every day. A drug might kill 5 people from side effects but save 40,000. Is it worth it?

Post reply on HN