Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield Actually Works

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Israel's Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield Actually Works

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday November 20, 2012 @01:04AM from the reagan-strikes-back dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Sarah Tory reports that the debut of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense shield has added a new element to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the Gaza strip, one that military officials are calling a 'game-changer.' Israeli officials are claiming that the shield is destroying 90 percent of missiles and rockets it aims at that have been fired into southern Israel by Hamas. This level of success is unprecedented compared with older missile defense systems such as the American-made Patriot model used during the 1991 Gulf War. The missile-defense system can detect rocket launches and then determine the projectiles' flight paths and only intercepts rocket or artillery shells if they are headed for populated areas or sensitive targets; the others it allows to land. It takes a lot of raw computing power to rapidly build a ballistic profile of a fast-incoming projectile, make a series of quick decisions concerning potential lethality, and launch a countermeasure capable of intercepting said projectile in-flight. One reason Iron Dome is showing a much more robust capability than the Patriot system did is simply that its battle control hardware and software are several generations more advanced than those early interceptor systems. 'Israeli officials point out that Iron Dome saves money despite the fact that the interceptors cost up to $100,000 each,' writes Tory. 'The cost of rebuilding a neighborhood destroyed by a rocket attack — not to mention people wounded and lives lost — would be far greater than the cost of the interceptor.' Most important, the system buys Israel time, allowing it to plan out an appropriate response without the political pressure that would be generated by hundreds of potential deaths."

54 of 861 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

OMFG Reagan was right? by concealment · 2012-11-20 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

You mean that SDI might work after all?
That will get us out of the nuclear age. A stop rate of 90% eliminates a first strike advantage.
But what's going to replace mutually assured destruction (MAD) when the destruction isn't assuredly mutual?
These missile shields could bring us closer to nuclear war, or end it forever when the party with the shield tells everyone else to drop their nukes or vanish in sparkly glowing fireballs.
1. Re:OMFG Reagan was right? by SJHillman · 2012-11-20 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, 90% still isn't enough to stop MAD between superpowers, although it might be effective against smaller aggressors (IE: Hamas). If you launch 50 nukes at each city, half of the cities will still be destroyed. 100 nukes at each cities and 90% will be destroyed. That's well within the capabilities of the US and Russia and probably other first-world nuclear powers as well. The sheer number of missiles will still overwhelm any defense. You'd need at least three or four nines effectiveness at a minimum to prevent MAD.
2. Re:OMFG Reagan was right? by benjfowler · 2012-11-20 01:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Unlikely.
  The shitbox unguided bottle rockets that the Muslims are terrorising Israel with, aren't coming in that fast, and can be cheaply and easily intercepted.
  On the other hand, strategic weapons, like nuclear-armed reentry vehicles (which are hypersonic and can actively manoeuvre), are virtually unstoppable. Nothing under Heaven and Earth can stop these things in terminal phase.
  MAD might be around for quite a while yet.
3. Re:OMFG Reagan was right? by jittles · 2012-11-20 01:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not to mention that destroying a nuke over a populated area still lets it do significant damage in the long term.
  Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. These nukes have a lot of safety features packed into them. You certainly wouldn't want it to do a high atmosphere detonation because its EMP will have far reaching effects (satellites could be destroyed), and because it may cause a chain reaction with other missiles in the general vicinity. The worst case is that it may rain down some fissionable materials over who knows where. Its unlikely to cause a detonation, especially since these detonations have to be very controlled to create fission.
4. Re:OMFG Reagan was right? by Copperhamster · 2012-11-20 02:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, it's more complicated than that, and that's the reason that the defense system was considered 'provocative'. It's also the reason the US and USSR arsenals were so 'over the top'.
  (I read a book by someone involved with the so called 'nuclear calculus' of MAD a few years ago and assuming he wasn't lying through his teeth, it's interesting)
  Let's say you want to nuke, say, Perth in Australia and remove it from the map. Without using the really really big ones, which were never deployed much really, you are talking about 6-10 mid 80s grade warheads. Let's say 10.
  Now if you want to land 10 warheads on Perth, in the mid 80s, you need to plan to launch 18-25 or so at it.
  The book went into the details of why.
  Now because of some of those details, let's say that Australia deployed an ABM system that can stop 33% of the warheads that complete their ascent stage and separate from their missiles. We're not talking about shooting down the missiles themselves, just the warheads after they separate. (Interesting note, as of 80s grade tech, boosted fission weapons were fully 'fail deadly' and could detonate at full yield when struck by an interceptor weapon, before that weapon could destroy the hardware. Full Fusion weapons would probably 'fizzle' producing a much lower yield explosion than they were rated for.)
  Based on his math, which was complex but did follow, assuming the underlying assumptions were correct, in order to turn Perth into a crater you now need to launch 60-80 warheads at it.
  To get a 'for sure' 10 warhead kill.
  Now when MIRVs were in style that doesn't seem like so much with a dozen warheads on each missile except that an iron clad rule was that those warheads each had to come off a separate missile. Because a lot of the reason for needing so many warheads was the assumption that a good percentage of those missiles carrying them would never make it to separation stage.
  Add to this the fratacide problem of warheads. Any warhead hitting Perth within 'a short time (which he couldn't give exacts of because it was classified, but indicated it was longer than 3-4 minutes)' of any particular detonation would be killed by it's own brother explosion before it detonated. (And nuclear detonation waves were one of the few things fast enough to kill, for example, a boosted fission weapon before it could set itself off). So if you launched 60 warheads at Perth, not only do they all have to come from different missiles, but you have to plan for them to land over a at least a 4 hour period. Which allows the ABM system to be more effective because you can't swamp it with everything you have in one big go and, assuming Australia has deployed it's own nuclear weapons, also allows them to strike back at your missile launching fields and command and control facilities. Which means you need to target even MORE warheads at Perth if you want to evaporate it.
  The Big Deal here is not that 'oh heck we may only lose half our country in a nuclear war woopie!'
  The Big Provocative Deal here is that once you have that 33% kill shield in place it requires a massive expenditure of warheads on the enemies part to really for sure kill you completely. Suddenly things are not MAD and now you have to worry about 33% shield country launching conventional ground invasions of parts of your territories or spheres of influence, feeling more sure that you won't escalate the conflict to the nuclear stage because suddenly you can't ensure the destruction of the other side, when they still have the ability to annihilate you.
  Now you may ask who would be insane enough to risk that nuclear war that wipes out only half their own country, given the rest of the situation, and my answer would Godwin the thread. Also, the USSR thought Reagan was that far off the rails as well. Who's to say who else would have risked such a level of brinksmanship.
  90% would be enough for a country to act pretty much with impunity against anyone except the really big nuclear players, without fear of major nuclear damage. The thought
Re:Accuracy by SJHillman · 2012-11-20 01:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Miscalculation? Mechanical error in the defense? I imagine the margin of error is relatively significant just because it does all of this on the fly, so the best way to get a quick enough response is to guess at a few things.
Given what it's doing, however, I'd say 90% is pretty damned good.
Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. by synir · 2012-11-20 01:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm not saying Israel's defenses don't work (I've no reason to think that) but given the timing do you think we'd be told

a) If the defenses didn't work well at all
or
b) About all the instances the defenses failed to work?

Given the circumstances what we hear *especially* from official sources on either side of this conflict should be taken with quite a grain of salt.
Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by SJHillman · 2012-11-20 01:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

You need to 1) detect the launch 2) determine the trajectory 3) determine the speed 4) determine a few other factors (mass? range? payload? whether it's capable of changing trajectory mid-flight?) 5) calculate where it's going 6) determine if that counts as a populated area 7) fill in any missing variables 8) make a decision 9) direct the defense
How fast could you do this? What if there's a hundred rockets coming in at once? It's not like a dumb bomb that's dropped straight down on a given point.
Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, both parties are at fault for continuing this ridiculous feud. But is America blockading and occupying Canadian land to begin with? No.
And yes, I'm surprised that Palestine has been allowed to exist as long as it has considering the United States really doesn't give a damn about the fact that Israel continues to bulldoze their homes down for their own settlements.
Let's make it clear, I condone the actions of Hamas but Israel's actions are very heavy-handed in proportion to Hamas' attacks/
Re:Too bad... by Haxagon · 2012-11-20 01:19 · Score: 3, Informative

You seem to have left out the US and Israel funding Fatah to wage a proxy war against Hamas (democratically elected, by the corrupt system that the US and Israel pushed), the IDF killed a thirteen year old boy last month, then a twenty-three year old mentally disabled man who walked too near Gaza. Then, when the PFLP wounded four in a rocket launch near the border, Israel ASSASSINATED one of the leaders of Hamas and the strip.
Just thought you could use that background info.
Missile Command by tepples · 2012-11-20 01:19 · Score: 4, Funny

I wonder what it is about the other 10% that lets them through?
How far do you manage to get in Missile Command? Do you 100% every level up to the 810,000 point, or do you rely on bonus cities?
1. Re:Missile Command by ericloewe · 2012-11-20 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The moment they start using guided missiles, you can bet Iran and co. will be moved to the top of the list of bombing targets. It's hard to prove that a crummy hand-made rocket was made with help from someone else, but it's easy to prove that a large rocket came from somewhere else. Not to mention that it's hard to smuggle something of the size into Gaza.
2. Re:Missile Command by dywolf · 2012-11-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Um...these aren't crummy hand made rockets...they aren't some plucky underdog using baling wire and household chemicals.
  And they ARE Iranian made. It's right in the news articles about the Hamas rocket attacks:
  "Today, Hamas is armed with relatively sophisticated Iranian Fajr-5 rockets, firing them at Israel’s largest city, and tweeting that the rockets are causing havoc in Tel Aviv." - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/gaza-social-media-war/
  The rocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

So the Palestinians launch missiles at Isreal and you are upset that Isreal is pissed off about it and launches counter attacks? If Canada started launching rockets at the US, I would expect us to invade and conquer them in short order.

Well, if the US sent their military into Vancouver for "security" reasons, throwing out all the Canadians who lived there and allowed US citizens to build homes and "settle" the area and considering the US's superior military, I wouldn't blame Canada in the least for shooting rockets over the border.

I'm surprised that Palestine has been allowed to exist as long as it has.
You are either an excellent and crafty anti-Israel troll or an incredibly ill-informed person.
Best Missile Defense Shield by anti-pop-frustration · 2012-11-20 01:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Best missile defense shield : peace treaty.
1. Re:Best Missile Defense Shield by Paladeen · 2012-11-20 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wow, real intelligent contribution you just made there.
  Obviously these crazy "islamists" are much more unreasonable than the kind-hearted Israelis, who are all good liberals, devoid of any fanaticism, religious bigotry and nationalism.
Am I the only one? by Zibodiz · 2012-11-20 01:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Reading the comments, it seems I'm the only one here who thinks this is awesome. When it comes to weapons development, this is exactly the sort of weapon we should be cheering for. Whether you agree with the ones using it or not, this is a wonderful thing. A weapon which only works as a shield to block incoming attacks; that is what the weapons used by enlightened countries should have evolved into.
1. Re:Am I the only one? by OzPeter · 2012-11-20 01:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Reading the comments, it seems I'm the only one here who thinks this is awesome.
  
  I think that the difference is that other people are taking the line of thought that something more awesome than a weapons system like Iron Dome is not needing it in the first place, and that the increase of hostilities in the middle could have scary consequences.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
2. Re:Am I the only one? by happy_place · 2012-11-20 01:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It really is a triumph of human intelligence and there's a LOT of combined science and technology employed in this solution. It demonstrates the sort of ingenuity that happens in a highly cooperative intellectual landscape, when one puts aside their malicious intent, and thinks more on the need to protect rather than to kill. Combined, great minds can do great things. It's a shame too often great minds are wasted on revenge and retaliation, egos and avarice. Ethical intelligence is true intelligence.
  
  --
  http://www.beanleafpress.com
Re:Too bad... by Formalin · 2012-11-20 01:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

A better example would be if American Indians, subjugated and embargoed on their reservation, started rocket attacks on the US.
Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by rmstar · 2012-11-20 01:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does it really take so much computing power to calculate trajectory of a falling object?
It's not a falling object, it has a rocket engine.
You have to estimate acceleration, correct for mistakes, compute a plausible trajectory for it, compute a plausible trajectory for the interceptor, and since it involves objects moving at high speeds, it all has to be very accurate. You probably have a lot of crappy data sources to aggregate (radar, optical, etc) and things like wind and coriolis effects to take care of.
The optimal control problems involving launching and controlling the interceptor are already hard to write down on paper, and solving them numerically is far from trivial. And it all has to be done in real time.
In sum, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a 500-core, state-of-the-art supercomputer crunching the numbers.
Apples and Oranges by necro81 · 2012-11-20 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative

One other large difference that the summary glosses over is that there's a big difference between the Katyusha and improvised rockets of Hamas, and the much larger Scud missile used by Iraq. There's almost an order of magnitude difference in size and range, and a several-fold difference in speed.

There's a correspondingly large difference between the Tamir interceptor missiles used as part of the Iron Dome and the Patriot missile.

Still, on the whole, it's probably a good thing that we are getting better at setting our lethal weapons against each other, rather than at people.
1. Re:Apples and Oranges by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 02:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Hamas isn't using improvised rockets. It's using Iranian Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets, and Chinese-built BM-21 Grad rockets.
Patriot Failures by OzPeter · 2012-11-20 01:27 · Score: 5, Informative

There was a huge problem with the Patriot system early on where the tracking computers lost so much accuracy even after only running continuously for 8 hours that the system would fail to intercept threats. The short term solution was to reboot the system at regular intervals.

GAO Report: Patriot Missile Defense (Official report)

Patriot Missile Software Problem

Round off errors and the Patriot missile

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Missile command meets photon torpedoes! by IceNinjaNine · 2012-11-20 01:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Holy crap, check this thing out!

Color me impressed...
Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

This same hamas threw fatah members from high floors of buildings when the won their fair elections. I'm not sure elections are supposed to end that way
Everyone is Forgetting MIRV Technology by eldavojohn · 2012-11-20 01:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think MIRV technology makes this impossible. I remember reading this from a book by McNamara but Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

Thus, in both a military and an economic sense, MIRVs render ABM systems less effective, as the costs of maintaining a workable defense against MIRVs would greatly increase, requiring multiple defensive missiles for each offensive one. Decoy reentry vehicles can be used alongside actual warheads to minimize the chances of the actual warheads being intercepted before they reach their targets. A system that destroys the missile earlier in its trajectory (before MIRV separation) is not affected by this but is more difficult, and thus more expensive to implement.
Even if you made an iron dome for ballistic nuclear warheads, who ever is firing them at you is just going to make them split right before they hit your interceptor kill zone. And then you'll have less time to act or deploy your interceptors and a random number at each entry point. Could you take out some of them? Sure but it's a clam shell game.

I'm pretty sure Hamas isn't using MIRV technology and the Israelis have developed this Iron Dome tech to stop this specific kind of attack. Not ICBMs with complex nuclear payloads.

--
My work here is dung.
Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by allcoolnameswheretak · 2012-11-20 01:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not just calculating a trajectory. I'm not an expert, but I assume it involves at least:
1. Detection - multiple layers of detection systems such as
- radar
- IR
- computer vision / pattern recognition AI
all of these have to work in unison to produce a high detection ratio and eliminate false positives
2. Tracking
- tracking the object during its flight path using the aforementioned systems
3. Projection
- thinking ahead of where the object is likely to strike, a small part of this is the "trajectory calculation"
4. Threat assessment
- use projection data to assess the strategic value of impact location
5. Fire control
- make decision to intercept, if positive
- allocate the most appropriate platform
- check airspace / final safety assessments
- send warnings / signals / fire confirmation
All of this has to happen within seconds.
Re:Too bad... by ericloewe · 2012-11-20 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Heavy-handed? Try showing restraint when your backyard is being targeted by rockets.
Re:Too bad... by mrchaotica · 2012-11-20 01:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

That analogy works if and only if you consider Palestinians to be more indigenous than Israelis.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Does it really take so much computing power? by ericloewe · 2012-11-20 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's trickier than it sounds. For one, you need good radar to pick those things up and accurately track them. You need to track it long enough to know its trajectory, but not so long that you are left with no time to respond. Then, you have to get your missile to the rocket, correcting for Wind and a possible new trajectory (we are talking about crude rockets, so they can't be too stable).
Re:Accuracy by mapkinase · 2012-11-20 01:43 · Score: 5, Informative

I have heard about 2/3 rate, not 90% rate. There is little room to independently separate propaganda exaggeration from actual facts.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You disgust me. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Heavy-handed? Try showing restraint when your backyard is being targeted by rockets.
Israel stole land from the Palestinians. They then allowed their people to build "settlements" on other people's land.
And you're condemning those people for fighting back?!? And obsolving Israel of any blame and condoning their complete over reaction?!?
Israel has lost all sympathy from me.
And people like you are going to keep this shit going on and on and on.
Israel is just living with their own karma. Oh, well. Too fucking bad!
1. Re:You disgust me. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 01:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There was never an Arab state by the name "Palestine" which owned any of the land in what is known as Palestine or Israel. The West Bank was seized by Israel from Jordan in a self-defensive war in 1967, who had itself held it in an illegal occupation from 1948-1967. Prior to that the land was held by the Brits, and before them the Turks/Ottomans, before that the Crusaders, before that the Romans, and before them... the Jews.
  
  Gaza is at present fully under Arab rule, so none of your points apply there, it's not clear what they're "fighting back" against.
2. Re:You disgust me. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 02:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Palestine is a name given to a piece of land, where modern Israel now exists.
  The name was given to it by the Romans, and it was named after the Philistines, who are a people of Aegean decent (Modern Greece).
  Find more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
  There were never Arab people called Palestinians before the deceleration of the state of Israel in 1948.
3. Re:You disgust me. by LordLimecat · 2012-11-20 03:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  At some point you have to stop living with the past and deal with the people living in the middle east right NOW. I can hardly justify rocket attacks on communities of Israelis who had no part in taking the land in the first place half a century ago.
How much do missles cost anyway? by guises · 2012-11-20 01:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here's a random question for some knowledgeable person: how much of that $100,000 cost per interceptor is overhead? I realize that missiles aren't simple things, but that strikes me as way out of line with what it would actually cost to build one of these.

That goes for other missiles as well - you always hear about Tomahawks, etc., costing $1 million+, how much do they actually cost to build?
1. Re:How much do missles cost anyway? by I.+M.+Bur · 2012-11-20 03:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually you should look at the value of the target to be hit by the missile, not at the value of the missile to be intercepted. You can destroy infrastracture and equipment worth of millions of dollars with a single missile, not to mention that most of the stuff that is destroyed can't be replaced instantly. The $100,000 cost of the interceptor is small compared to that.
Re:Too bad... by sycodon · 2012-11-20 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, they were just thrown out of office.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Too bad... by lexman098 · 2012-11-20 01:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

I really don't understand the argument against Isreal on this one. They've done a lot of wrong towards Palestinians, especially on the west bank side, but hundreds of rockets are being fired from Gaza targeting civilians. Isreal's assassination was a military target. Maybe they've killed some civilians in Gaza too, which is horrible, but at least accidental. They seem to avoid that when they can. Hamas is firing rockets directly at civilians. You have to see the difference.
Re:Too bad... by robthebloke · 2012-11-20 01:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's a handy diagram that may help to explain things. Try showing restraint when your neghbourhood has been invaded, bulldozed, and then built on.
Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 02:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Only Jews would be dumb enough to try and live somewhere where everyone else fucking hates them, then act in a way to ensure that everyone continues to fucking hate them.
Because they were treated SO WELL in Europe over the years?
Re:Too bad... by dkleinsc · 2012-11-20 02:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Israel assassinated one of the leaders of Hamas
The man who was killed, Ahmed al-Jabari, wasn't just "one of the leaders of Hamas". According to Gershon Baskin, who was involved in Israeli-Hamas negotiations:
"Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn’t just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency. Mr. Jabari enforced those cease-fires only after confirming that Israel was prepared to stop its attacks on Gaza. On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt."
In other words, if Israel had really wanted a cease-fire agreement, they would have just waited for Jabari to sign the deal. Instead, they killed him.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Patriot by Dr.+Evil · 2012-11-20 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Patriot missiles were known to occassionally follow their target to *its* target.
Aside from just missing, another issue is that even if you hit the target, you need to make sure that your missile detonates when it makes contact with any part of the target.
Finally, detection isn't perfect, trajectories are approximations at the time of launch. The missile needs to adjust using information collected in-flight.
Well they would claim that wouldn't they? by uchian · 2012-11-20 02:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember how during the gulf war the patriot system was being lauded on news sites as being fantastically accurate, taking out most missiles before they landed, etc.

Only turned out later that it wasn't so accurate.

I'll give it a couple of years before I conclude whether the accuracy reported in the new system is just propaganda or not.
Re:Too bad... by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-20 02:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Strangely, it's more complicated than that. Isreal was attacked more than once by it's neighbours before 1967. It's not really unreasonable for them to want a buffer zone they control access to around their main populated region.
Re:Too bad... by jemenake · 2012-11-20 02:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, if the US sent their military into Vancouver for "security" reasons, throwing out all the Canadians who lived there and allowed US citizens to build homes and "settle" the area and considering the US's superior military, I wouldn't blame Canada in the least for shooting rockets over the border.
Exactly. At first, when you learn about a few Arab-instigated wars Israel has had to fight off, you have a little sympathy for their argument that they need Gaza, Golan, and the West Bank as buffer zones as well as a little punishment upon their aggressors, with the notion being that "You'll get this back when you've learned your lesson".

But then you find out that they're displacing the people living in those areas and then just gifting that land to Israeli settlers and you're like "WTF?!?! How are they ever going to undo that? You can't just go to the settlers and say 'Okay. Time to come back home, we are giving that land back to the Palestinians...'".

So, yeah... when Israeli's call those areas "buffer zones" or anything implying that they're temporary for as long as their neighbors are hostile toward them, I don't believe them for a second.
Re:Accuracy by zig007 · 2012-11-20 02:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Which is why it's so hard for the rest of the world to not buy into the deluge of photos of dead children, supposedly from Palestine. I mean seriously, I've seen more photos of dead children than the official numbers stated. It seems anti-semitic propaganda is alive and well in 2012.
Hm. I sure haven't.
Then on the other hand, I treat ALL information in situations like this as propaganda, which means I do not trust the "semitic" information one iota more than the "antisemitic" kind.
Additionally, the "semitic" information gatherers only has the information of the weapon systems and their operators, which, to put it mildly, usually leads to quite crappy and low estimates of the civilian casualties involved. So it is not only "anti-semitic" propaganda that is alive and well in 2012.
The correct number is usually somewhere in between.
Humanitary organisations are usually pretty close. And their numbers are horrendous enough.
To not "believe" either side of a conflict at all, is a very dangerous path.
Completely innocent people, including children, going about their normal life, are ALWAYS terribly hurt in conflict.
Especially so when they have nowhere to run, which is the common case here.
That is just a fact. Try go to a war torn area sometime and see for yourself.

--
Baboons are cute.
Re:both sides by Idarubicin · 2012-11-20 02:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

That depends--is anyone randomly lobbing unguided rockets into Gaza?

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-20 03:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Israel IS a war-torn are, which you armchair commentators don't seem to be able to understand.
Sure, people get hurt on both sides. But if we're the stronger party, it's not our fault. If they can't build hospitals fast enough, it's not our fault. If they can't organize a proper military or government, it's not our fault. It's THEIR fault for spending all their effort acquiring and firing rockets instead of working hard to bulid their own state. Israel was built by hard-working Jews, and if the Palestinians aren't civilized enough to do the same, it's NOT OUR FAULT.
If they don't want their civilians to be killed in battle, then all they have to do is not start battles. When these unprovoked rockets enter our country, are we supposed to ignore them just because our military is bigger? That's an absurd proposition. They fire, we respond. It's as simple as that, anyone saying otherwise has anti-semitic agendas. Jews have a right to live, and retaliate when faced with aggression. Why can't the Palestinians go live in some other part of the Muslim world? 1.2 billion of them and they can't find homes? Jews want a homeland too, and Israel is ours. They have enough fucking countries of their own. It's not our fault if none of them can put together a decent economy or political structure. Saudi Arabia has plenty of space, and the government there gets just as much support from the US as we do.
Muslims just want the Palestinians to suffer so they have someone to claim they are fighting for when they blow up towers in New York.
Re:Accuracy by tnk1 · 2012-11-20 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, in this case, Iron Dome doesn't have any effect on Palestinian dead, only Israeli dead and damage to Israeli neighborhoods. Presumably, Israel has facts and figures on it's own dead and destroyed property.
Are they misreporting to make their own population feel safer? That is possible, although of a somewhat different quality than lying about killing Palestinians.
I don't want Palestinians dead, but what do you do when people start shooting off rockets at your country? To some extent, the Palestinians need to control their own people or at least keep them from launching rockets at people somehow. Otherwise, it's a bunch of artillery strikes and rocket launches at inhabited areas on both sides.
Re:Accuracy by tnk1 · 2012-11-20 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

You see, this is what I don't understand about people looking at this. This isn't a numbers game. Yes, the Palestinians will eat the brunt of any casualties. Not only are they not represented by a military with a systematic defensive capability, their "military" doesn't even really care much for civilian casualties.
Israel is going to have fewer casualties because they're going to be significantly better at preventing attacks on their people. That doesn't mean the threat is not real, nor does it mean that Israel should have to stand for random rocket barrages on their territory. Would there be a ground assault on Gaza if there were no rockets being launched? Of course not. So how is this about the Israeli election, other than the fact that the Israelis are being targeted at a time where everyone knows that they would want to respond strongly to any attack.
I keep hearing about "proportional" response, but honestly, what does that do other than maintain the status quo? And how do you have a "proportional" response to weapons fired from civilian areas? Even the most surgical of strikes is going to hit civilians.
I would like nothing better than for the Palestinians to have a normal economy and have peace, but honestly, it always seems like they have to keep poking Israel with rockets or attacks. And while many Palestinians do not support terrorists like Hamas, many do. I was just struck by reports of "spies" being dragged through the streets, while wondering if perhaps by giving good information for targeting, those same spies may have made it possible to save Palestinian lives by ensuring Israeli strikes are placed as accurately on rocket installations as possible.
In the end, the Palestinians are pawns. They are not served by their so-called defenders, who are basically proxies for Iran and other regional troublemakers who want nothing more than to keep them a distraction so that the world does not turn its attention to their activities. It may be that the only way for them to save their lives is to realize that they exist only to garner sympathy for an otherwise unsympathetic Arab world.
Re:Murder by Mashiki · 2012-11-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

What concentration camp? You mean the one with million dollar homes, and a 5-star hotel? Packed with full markets, and Iphone 5's, where the average person gets $60-80k USD in aid every year? Yeah...what a concentration camp. Imagine that, they even have their own and full sovereignty. And could import things as they saw fit, until they turned around and started shooting at Israel. Then both Israel AND Egypt closed the borders and imposed a blockade.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Accuracy by dentin · 2012-11-20 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a followup, I think those calling for a "proportional" response neglect the fact that ideology seriously skews what proportional means. How does one have a "proportional" response to a suicide bomber? How does one have a "proportional" response to rockets fired anonymously from densely populated civilian areas?
Quite frankly, the only reasonable definition of "proportional" in these situations is "hurts the other side enough that they will think twice about doing it again". People condemn the Israelis for bulldozing the homes and towns of suicide bombers, for invading by ground, and for carpet bombing areas where rockets are shot from - but the simple fact of the matter is that it takes at least that level of force to get the attention of the extremists on the Palestinian side. Yes, it sucks, and yes, innocent people die, and yes, it's unfair. But "proportional" is in the mind of the attacker, not the mind of the defender, and lobbing rockets tit-for-tat back into Palestine just isn't going to cut it.
That said, I think Israel has a serious problem with its religious nutjob haredim population. They are the primary driver of the idiotic Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, and their extremism and growth as a political power is going to cause nothing but problems going forward. It's not impossible that they will get a political ruling majority in coming years, at which point any prospect of peace or a two state solution will be completely off the table.
My preferred mechanism for dealing with the Israeli haredim extremists in the outer settlements is to finish building the wall on the 67 borders and cut them off from all support. Let them defend the land if they think they can. No government assistance.

--
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com