Israel's invincible Iron Dome rocket defense

[factseeker88]

Israeli Missile Defense System Intercepts Overwhelming Number Of Hamas Rockets

By Jeff Stone@JeffStone500j.stone@ibtimes.com
on July 09 2014 3:21 PM

Though Hamas fighters have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in recent days, the onslaught has had minimal impact with no reported injuries, demonstrating that the tiny country can protect its citizens with one of the most futuristic and effective missile defense systems in the world: the Iron Dome.

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-iron-dome-israeli-missile-defense-system-intercepts-overwhelming-number-hamas-rockets-1623606

 

Looks like hamas rockets are not as deadly as Israel says they are.

[iNow]

Rockets from Hamas are certainly deadly even though Israel (with help from the US) has invested heavily in preventing them from reaching and killing their citizens via the Iron Dome. What point exactly are you trying to make? If you're suggesting they're not deadly, you're wrong. They're just being defended against.

 

This is a sensitive topic that creates a lot of emotion. It's best to be as clear as possible with our words and meaning. There is certainly a case to be made that perhaps the response has been asymmetric, but that's not what you did here.

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/rockets-hamas-gazaisraeliprmessaging.html

Since the latest conflagration began, Hamas and other Palestinian factions have fired about 2,319 rockets from Gaza. <...> the Iron Dome missile defense system is effective at stopping incoming projectiles 86 percent of the time.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608752-any-ceasefire-will-be-temporary-unless-israel-starts-negotiating-seriously

 

 

In the longer run, if a more durable peace is to be built, the Israelis must seek a sovereign state for Palestinians, who, including Hamas, must in turn reiterate their support for a government that disavows violence and recognises Israel. Unless a ceasefire is couched in such terms, the poison will in time well up all over again and the cycle of violence will resume, as it has done repeatedly since 2007.

[fiveworlds]

Israel's invincible Iron Dome rocket defense

 

 

Not to a cluster bombing of fake rockets. Essentially speaking iron dome is a very costly base defense. They have a limited number of missiles to defend themselves with and have to intercept as many rockets as possible. You just keep hitting them with fake rockets then when they seem to run out launch a cluster of real/fake rockets. Or just the ordinary http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2008/12/92_nations_sign_treaty_to_ban.html

Isreal is using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iron_Dome_near_Sderot.jpg which hold approx 20 missiles each. So all you need is a decent count. Say there is 10 of them then you need 200+ rockets. They will have to reload and well...

At the moment they have drawn out firing the 2,319 rockets over days however if they fired them all in one volley they would have been way more effective. As you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014 the strikes are fairly spread out never more than 200 a day. Where as they should be firing that many within 10 minutes,

Take a look at the day 197 rockets were fired "141 of them hit Israel, and an additional 44 were intercepted by Iron Dome."

Currently iron dome strikes any target on radar that appears to be heading towards population centers. But it has zero ways of distinguishing between fake and real rockets. There is also the problem of rockets that do not appear on radar because iron dome won't see them.

Edited July 30, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Irbis]

Hamas' rockets are not deadly. They've been firing them since more than decade and the result is maybe 20 dead Israelis. The ongoing war alone killed more than 1000 Palestinians (1300 according to the newest estimates). I seem no reason to keep firing them on Issrael except the fact that missiles used to intercept them are several times costlier than these DIY rockets.

[Enthalpy]

Hamas' rockets (of which some are of standard military type provided by other countries) are unguided hence not very effective, because people are scarce even a in city.

 

Iron Dome intercepts something like 3/4 of the incoming rockets considered important. When an incoming rocket threats a less important zone, it's not targeted. 3/4 is of course a big relieve for the potential victims, but would not be enough against, say, a nuclear warhead. Presently, Iron Dome seems to have the biggest success ratio among antimissile defences.

[swansont]

Hamas' rockets are not deadly. They've been firing them since more than decade and the result is maybe 20 dead Israelis.

 

That statement would seem to contradict itself.

[Irbis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

Since 2001 15,047 various projectiles have been fired on Israel by Palestinians, which includes 10,138 rockets and 4,890 mortar shells, resulting in the death of 28 Israelis - roughly 537 projectiles for every death. Indeed a shocking effectiveness.

 

In every war between these two Palestinian casualties exceed Israeli ones by a factor of at least 20, sometimes by a factor of 100 (Operation Cast Lead)

Edited July 31, 2014 by Irbis

[iNow]

You don't even know why he corrected you, do you?

[swansont]

Dead is dead. Regardless of the effectiveness of the method.

[Enthalpy]

[...] missiles used to intercept them are several times costlier than these DIY rockets.

 

Or you can compare with the value of goods the rockets may destroy (or even, with lifes).

This reduces to the mundane observation that destroying is easier than building. Obvious to engineers and many more people.

[factseeker88]

Rockets from Hamas are certainly deadly even though Israel (with help from the US) has invested heavily in preventing them from reaching and killing their citizens via the Iron Dome. What point exactly are you trying to make? If you're suggesting they're not deadly, you're wrong. They're just being defended against.

 

This is a sensitive topic that creates a lot of emotion. It's best to be as clear as possible with our words and meaning. There is certainly a case to be made that perhaps the response has been asymmetric, but that's not what you did here.

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/rockets-hamas-gazaisraeliprmessaging.html

 

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21608752-any-ceasefire-will-be-temporary-unless-israel-starts-negotiating-seriously

 

 

 

Those words are not mine. I just brought it up for debate. Here, read it again, especially the part that says NO REPORTED INJURIES, not 86 or 90 percent intercept rate -- 100 percent

 

By Jeff Stone@JeffStone500j.stone@ibtimes.com

on July 09 2014 3:21 PM

 

Though Hamas fighters have fired hundreds of rockets into Israel in recent days, the onslaught has had minimal impact with no reported injuries, demonstrating that the tiny country can protect its citizens with one of the most futuristic and effective missile defense systems in the world: the Iron Dome.

 

http://www.ibtimes.c...rockets-1623606

[John Cuthber]

 

That statement would seem to contradict itself.

It may not be as clear cut as it looks.

There's a story (I'm in no position to verify it) that during the 1st Gulf war the scud missiles fired were pretty ineffective at killing people, but quite good at persuading people to stay at home.

The consequent reduction in road traffic deaths exceeded the death toll from the missiles.

There was a net reduction in deaths among the "enemy" due to the use of scud missiles.

[swansont]

It may not be as clear cut as it looks.

There's a story (I'm in no position to verify it) that during the 1st Gulf war the scud missiles fired were pretty ineffective at killing people, but quite good at persuading people to stay at home.

The consequent reduction in road traffic deaths exceeded the death toll from the missiles.

There was a net reduction in deaths among the "enemy" due to the use of scud missiles.

 

I'm not looking at secondary effects, though. Just the basics. Something that makes people dead is by definition deadly. One can argue about the efficiency of the cause of death (some things are more deadly than others), but not the description of whether they are deadly.

 

Much like pregnancy (you can't be a little pregnant), it's a binary state with a simple correlation.

[John Cuthber]

"(some things are more deadly than others), but not the description of whether they are deadly.

Much like pregnancy (you can't be a little pregnant), it's a binary state with a simple correlation."

Hang on, you can't have it both ways.

You can't be more pregnant than someone else.

By the same token, you can't be more deadly than something else.

It is, as you say, a binary matter. If it causes death, it's deadly.

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic...

[swansont]

"(some things are more deadly than others), but not the description of whether they are deadly.

Much like pregnancy (you can't be a little pregnant), it's a binary state with a simple correlation."

Hang on, you can't have it both ways.

You can't be more pregnant than someone else.

By the same token, you can't be more deadly than something else.

It is, as you say, a binary matter. If it causes death, it's deadly.

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic...

 

What I was trying to point out that if something is more effective at causing death is what we mean by "more deadly", not that it makes you more dead or less dead. But the mere state of being deadly means it makes people dead.

[iNow]

Those words are not mine.

I wrote several words in that post and you quoted all of them. Which words specifically are you claiming aren't yours?

[MigL]

Of course you can be 'more' or 'less' pregnant John.

 

If you're gonna have twins, you're more pregnant, and triplets makes you even more pregnant.

[moti1000]

Iron Dome intercepting 9 rockets, taken from a distance of 40 km

http://youtu.be/ZiE94ksShsc

Edited October 6, 2014 by moti1000