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

41–50 of 125 posts

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

#41

Post by aprilthird2021 »

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.

>It almost like a concerted effort of bad faith actors to popularize a narrative.

That's not fair at all. This is simply how wars are fought in the modern era. We all wish we could have saved lives and infrastructure in Afghanistan, in Ukraine, etc. ad infinitum, but as democracies, we have to consider the material costs of war. And guerilla enemies can outlast us (as the Taliban did) by spending little and getting us to spend far more.

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

#42

Post by aprilthird2021 »

delichon wrote: post #36

> The attack included about 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles. If Israel attacks Iran with 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles is that a proportionate response?

What is the point of such questions? Everyone who does an Int'l Relations class in college knows that eye for an eye is not the way any modern nation calculates its actions. It's all about the countries in your sphere of influence and what they (and sometimes, if they're democracies, their constituents) will accept and what they will bristle at you doing.

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

#43

Post by rokkitmensch »

ein0p wrote: post #38
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…

Pure ineffectual saber rattling. If it wasn’t, they’d first hit air defense installations. They know where they are. Iran wanted Israel to not intercept just a few of the things it knew it couldn’t intercept. It’d be absolutely moronic for Israel to respond to something so obvious. Next time they might not be so “lucky”.

50M in offensive spend to burn through 1.3BN in defensive munitions seems highly effective to me. Great intel-gathering op.

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

#44

Post by aprilthird2021 »

bluGill wrote: post #25
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.

We can be prepared for war without the enormous amount of waste we spend on "defense".

We make so many tanks and gear that we outfit rural police with equipment they will never need just to get it out of warehouses

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

#45

Post by rasz »

delichon wrote: post #36

> The attack included about 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles. If Israel attacks Iran with 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles is that a proportionate response?

US gas prices might go up, so no https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/04/15/...

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

#47

Post by pseudo0 »

ein0p wrote: post #38
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…

Pure ineffectual saber rattling. If it wasn’t, they’d first hit air defense installations. They know where they are. Iran wanted Israel to not intercept just a few of the things it knew it couldn’t intercept. It’d be absolutely moronic for Israel to respond to something so obvious. Next time they might not be so “lucky”.

Apparently they provided 72 hours advance notice to neighbors (who probably tipped off the US and Israel, given the US warnings of an imminent attack). The Iranians presumably expected the information to leak. The US also had naval and air assets parked in the region to assist. It's hard to imagine a more favorable scenario for the defender. That makes it rather dangerous to try to generalize the performance in this instance to future events.

It also makes this whole exercise seem like dramatic saber-rattling rather than a serious effort to damage Israel's military capabilities.

> Iraqi, Turkish and Jordanian officials each said Iran had provided early warning of the attack last week, including some details.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iranian-notice-att...

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

#48

Post by ein0p »

rokkitmensch wrote: post #43
ein0p wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure ineffectual saber rattling. If it wasn’t, they’d first hit air defense installations. They know where they are. Iran wanted Israel to not intercept just a few of the things it knew it couldn’t intercept. It’d be absolutely moronic for Israel to respond to something so obvious. Next time they might not be so “lucky”.

50M in offensive spend to burn through 1.3BN in defensive munitions seems highly effective to me. Great intel-gathering op.

That was far more than 50M. Heavy ballistic rockets aren’t cheap even in Iran. And Iran could have used them to cause several times the amount of damage just by hitting a couple of AD deployment points. I think Israel understands that too, hence the difficulty with deciding how or whether to respond

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

#49

Post by paulryanrogers »

cryptoxchange wrote: post #19
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.

Every analyst I respect has the same take. This guy even glosses over that it wasn’t a general on a tarmac this time, but a general in a consulate that was extrajudicially murdered. Iran had to respond in a show of force to reestablish deterrence, without escalating the conflict, drawing the US in. Two kids are on the playground, one has a big brother. They’re both constantly bothering each other. The kid without the…

Do we know what motivated Israel's assassination of the Iranian general? It seems unwise to resort to assassination unprovoked.

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

#50

Post by rokkitmensch »

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.

This calculus has been rejected four times in this thread now. It completely ignores any recognition of armament economics. It's almost like a concerted effort from lizard deep state street team actors working for internet points to popularize a jingoistic ra-ra USG narrative.
Post reply on HN