Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle • Hacker News Board

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#11

Post by yazaddaruvala » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:41 PM UTC

mark_l_watson wrote: post #9

Wow, what an unbalanced article! No mention of casualties on the other side. Disgusting one-sided coverage. I am really disappointed in the Washington Post. Bad job. I find that Israeli news sources like Haaretz are more balanced re: the middle east than the US news is - strange. Al Jazeera is another reasonable source for middle east news. Forget about US news coverage of the middle east. As an American, I find I of…

So I agree one sided articles are generally very bad in regard to difficult situations like this. But in my opinion that is because they try to illicit sympathy for that particular side. However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology.

Perhaps it was just me but at the end of this article I felt drawn to neither side. The only thoughts I had on the matter were, "Man that is cool. Its too bad people have to be in harms way for such technology to get funding, but thanks for pioneering the simplest versions of the tech we need to stop asteroids".

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#12

Post by Tycho » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:44 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #3

the oppressed people on the other side now engage in a financial war. for the price they would build one rocket with explosive payload, now they can build some 4 dummy ones. making the invading state pay 20k x3 more than before. while also recruiting more people, who would be averse to the violence before.

All they're doing is creating an excuse for Israel to move in and crush them.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#13

Post by noir_lord » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:46 PM UTC

denom wrote: post #4

The "Iron Dome" will not change the current situation in a way that, say, political negotiation will. It's really frustrating to watch the same process play itself out. Throw a few more bombs in, stir the ashes (so to say) and repeat in 2 years. Is the ongoing plan to degrade the operational capacity of Hamas _just so_ that they cannot seriously threaten? Does the Iron Dome entail perpetual open warfare? It's clear t…

This is pretty close to my summation to my gf the other evening

"Every few years Hamas launches rockets at Israel, Israel then uses the opportunity to smash the crap out of Hamas for a few days while "international concern" grows, at a certain point Israel stops the attacks, the international community claims a victory and Hamas gets a bloody nose, nothing changes and it all happens again in 2-3 years"

I suspect sometimes I'm too cynical..then I read the news.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#14

Post by rocky1138 » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:49 PM UTC

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #11

mark_l_watson wrote: post #9

Wow, what an unbalanced article! No mention of casualties on the other side. Disgusting one-sided coverage. I am really disappointed in the Washington Post. Bad job. I find that Israeli news sources like Haaretz are more balanced re: the middle east than the US news is - strange. Al Jazeera is another reasonable source for middle east news. Forget about US news coverage of the middle east. As an American, I find I of…

So I agree one sided articles are generally very bad in regard to difficult situations like this. But in my opinion that is because they try to illicit sympathy for that particular side. However, in this case.. the post seemed to be about a new cool technology. Perhaps it was just me but at the end of this article I felt drawn to neither side. The only thoughts I had on the matter were, "Man that is cool. Its too bad…

A good test to see what the article is about is to remove the actors and states then re-read. After doing that, your analysis of the article being mostly about a cool new technology (or neat use of existing, either or) is pretty much spot on.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#15

Post by asadlionpk » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #12

gcb0 wrote: post #3

the oppressed people on the other side now engage in a financial war. for the price they would build one rocket with explosive payload, now they can build some 4 dummy ones. making the invading state pay 20k x3 more than before. while also recruiting more people, who would be averse to the violence before.

All they're doing is creating an excuse for Israel to move in and crush them.

what if Israel paid the other side to fire rockets at them to create the excuse of invading Gaza.

How unlikely is that?

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#16

Post by jds375 » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:52 PM UTC

The software design is particularly interesting. I recommend this article: "Typical command-and-control software for military gear is highly customized and hard to modify. The key to MPrest’s success, Barak says, is that the command-and-control software is simple and modular, so customers can quickly adapt it without reprogramming. The Israeli army was able to recalibrate Iron Dome batteries almost immediately, without a software rewrite, when Hamas fighters began to fire longer-range missiles.[1]"

[1] - http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-21/how-to-st...

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#17

Post by ende » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:52 PM UTC

If a smaller kid is throwing punches at you but you are able to avoid being hit by holding him at arms length, is it acceptable to throw punches with the other arm?

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#18

Post by lutorm » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:54 PM UTC

I'm impressed by how good of a job Israel does at painting itself as the victim despite being the perpetuator of 50 years of ongoing occupation.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#19

Post by ChuckMcM » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 6:55 PM UTC

From a regional warfare perspective the relative success of Iron Dome mitigates the use of stand off offensive technologies. This forces the combatants to develop alternative delivery strategies. When there is a lack of control on the ground, IEDs and operator delivered munitions seem to be the next step, but that works poorly when there is a functioning police/local military presence.

Given the constraints, I suspect the next standoff weaponry will become drone based. Something flying fast enough and high enough to be immune to small arms fire, but low enough to keep out of the kill zone of anti-air and anti-missile defense.

Re: Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ changes the face of battle

#20

Post by BuildTheRobots » Sat, Jul 12, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

noir_lord wrote: post #13

denom wrote: post #4

The "Iron Dome" will not change the current situation in a way that, say, political negotiation will. It's really frustrating to watch the same process play itself out. Throw a few more bombs in, stir the ashes (so to say) and repeat in 2 years. Is the ongoing plan to degrade the operational capacity of Hamas _just so_ that they cannot seriously threaten? Does the Iron Dome entail perpetual open warfare? It's clear t…

This is pretty close to my summation to my gf the other evening "Every few years Hamas launches rockets at Israel, Israel then uses the opportunity to smash the crap out of Hamas for a few days while "international concern" grows, at a certain point Israel stops the attacks, the international community claims a victory and Hamas gets a bloody nose, nothing changes and it all happens again in 2-3 years" I suspect some…

>Every few years Hamas launches rockets at Israel

It's not every few years, it's every few weeks. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_atta...