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

The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

thebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#31

Post by ars »

nrubin wrote: post #21

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…

> I've always heard the Iron Dome rockets are stupid expensive to fire

I'm not sure that's really true. Estimates range from $20,000 to $60,000 - that's cheap compared to the cost of a single hit on a building (which the Israeli government pays for). (And never even mind the human and economic costs.)

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#32

Post by kamaal »

mschuster91 wrote: post #27
cup wrote: post #2

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?

> 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.

>>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-...

"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).

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#33

Post by ars »

kamaal wrote: post #28
nrubin wrote: post #21

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…

>>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.

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.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#34

Post by salberts »

kamaal wrote: post #28
nrubin wrote: post #21

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…

>>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.

Why on earth would they do that? If you can launch 9 dummy rockets and 1 real or 10 juts real rockets, wouldn't you just launch real rockets?!

The effort and risk involved in launching any kind of rocket is about the same...

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#35

Post by jarin »

spingsprong wrote: post #18

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

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

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#36

Post by mehwoot »

aroman wrote: post #26
scarmig wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source, or is this sarcasm?

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

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#37

Post by Arnt »

erikb wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#38

Post by ars »

danmaz74 wrote: post #22
cup wrote: post #2

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?

AFAIK that cost is mostly paid by US taxpayers. So, I guess it's sustainable for Israel.

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.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#39

Post by ars »

eytanlevit wrote: post #25

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…

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.

Re: The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working

#40

Post by kamaal »

salberts wrote: post #34
kamaal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Why on earth would they do that? If you can launch 9 dummy rockets and 1 real or 10 juts real rockets, wouldn't you just launch real rockets?! The effort and risk involved in launching any kind of rocket is about the same...

I don't have much knowledge in this domain. But it might be worth firing dud rockets if they cost lesser than the actual ones.

If you can fire 10 rockets in the same cost as 1 genuine rocket. Then essentially the enemy can drag you into a war of attrition.

Post reply on HN