Why Iron Dome Might Only Work For Israel

An anonymous reader writes "Many this week have declared Israel's American financed Iron Dome rocket defense system a success. Some have even gone so far to declare it a vindication of Ronald Reagan's 1980's Star Wars missile defense system. Pundits have even gone so far to assume the system could be sold to other nations. However, the Iron Dome may not be the game changer many are making it out to be. Taking out unsophisticated rockets is quite different than advanced missiles: '...the technical and strategic challenges of shooting down ballistic missiles differ considerably from those of shooting down unguided rockets. BMD shares with rocket defense some common technological ground; both require fast reaction time and impressive sensor capabilities, and the Iron Dome project has benefited from technical work on missile defense. However, ballistic missiles in flight behave differently from unguided, sub-atmospheric rockets.'"

Comments

What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't unguided rockets also ballistic missiles? How are they different?

dom

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

    Yes, but people generally equate ballistic missiles with ICBMs.

    The ones that the Iron Dome is made to work against are relatively short range. I did some research on this after discussing it with some other people. They can basically intercept unguided missiles which cross into Israeli airspace, with a total flight of 3 km to 30 km.

    The primary missile it's used to intercept are pretty primitive. Think along the same lines as the kind most readers here would have built out of cardboard from an Estes kit. They use fairly primitive solid fuel, a payload of common or improvised explosives, fins to make it fly sort of straight, and not much else.

    Thousands have been launched towards Israel. Dozens have been hurt.

    It could work against any number of threats, but I would guess it is best at something with a fairly horizontal trajectory. If it were to intercept something like an ICBM, I would guess the resulting blast would still have the effect the attacker desired.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

    Where's the edit button when you need it?

    The primary missile it is made to intercept is made of metal. Actually, all the cases that I read about were metal cased missiles, with a very obvious flight path.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[realityimpaired]

Thousands have been launched towards Israel. Dozens have been hurt.

This kind of says it all, really... I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells. Compare and contrast to how many have been injured or killed by Israeli reaction (not to mention the blockade of medical supplies and construction equipment/supplies into the west bank). There was an episode of The West Wing, in Season 1 which summed it up quite nicely... episode 3 - Proportional Response. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJMVtP1CbOM

I really hope that the Iron Dome system works as advertised, and that it allows cooler heads to prevail. I also hope that the cease fire that was negotiated and announced today succeeds. If either of those fails to happen, it does not bode well.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3-30km figure is completely off. Iron Dome already shot down rockets coming into Tel Aviv - some 80km away.

It can do more than that, it's barely at v1.1.

But the article is bogus in general. Iron Dome was designed to counter short range weapons. Surprise surprise, it won't work on ICBMs. It's still extremely useful to protect military based around the world, airports, and border cities (like Seoul).

Israel has not one but two additional anti missile defense systems. One operational - Arrow, which already meets the challenges mentioned in this article, and another one in development (Magic Wand) - for medium range missiles. Each has its own purpose - countering a specific type of weapon, and they don't replace one another.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[GoatCheez]

The US classifies any rocket with a guiding system (complex or not) a ballistic missile, regardless of whether it has anything other than rocket fuel and guidance. I'm not sure if they would classify unguided rockets with explosive payloads as ballistic missiles, but I would presume so. So, really, to not answer your question, I don't know.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[MichaelSmith]

The enemy in this case is less than 100km away so the missiles come in very slow.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Sir_Sri]

The distinction in terminology these days between rocket and missile is that a rocket is unguided and a missile is guided.

Ballistic missiles are guided for the powered part of flight (which is short, but still a phase). Rockets are aimed and shot. One could envision a cell phone guided rocket or something, but that's more effort than it's worth for hamas. You have to know what you're planning to shoot at, and where it is, have somewhere to calibrate your weapons etc. The value of these rockets is the terror effect because they can land anywhere, and they cost nothing to make so you can fire a lot of them, and if they miss or get shot down it's no big loss.

Also, extremely short range rockets have the advantage that even with air raid sirens people don't have time to get anywhere particularly safe.

Hamas also have russian, chinses and or iranian designed truck/shoulder launched rockets, those are what are hitting places like tel aviv. They're relatively sophisticated, relatively expensive, and smuggled in from Iran via sudan -> Egypt, or built in Gaza as kinds shitty versions of the originals. These are the Fajr -5 (chinese-Iranian origin, can hit Tel Aviv), and "Grad Rockets" which are russian and might make 40Km on a good day.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells. Compare and contrast to how many have been injured or killed by Israeli reaction

What would you consider to be a proportional response?

Also, assuming that you are American (you may not be, of course, but changes are good), remember Afganistan? There is still a war raging there, plus at least 5 other countries are being bombed on regular basis. All that in response to an 11+ year old event (if a major one). You wanna talk about "proportional response"?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[autocannon]

I've learned very quickly, that if you read anything about military systems posted on slashdot that you better not hope for valid answers in the comments. The posters here have a very good grasp on Command and Conquer, but not real military tactics. Plus they just love to point out how that same system won't be effective once the enemy "upgrades" their weapons to the even better version that flies faster or spins or gets evasive, or whatever else they come up with. Cause that happens instantaneously in real life for no cost too!! lol

I think, what the submitter is referring to is not necessarily the difference between ballistic missiles and "unguided rockets". Rather that short range missiles are still ballistic, but do behave differently. For instance they typically remain a single vehicle from launch to impact. Once you go to the medium that's usually not the case as there's a booster involved. Long range on the other hand can have multiple boosters as well as possibly separating payloads as well as going fast as all hell. In other words, there's a whole lot of shit to filter through to determine the real target and a very short window to do that in.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[scared masked man]

I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells.

WTF? Why would Hamas bother to launch empty rockets when they could achieve far more by launching fewer rockets with actual payloads, or even jus filled with shrapnel in the hope of doing some harm when he rockets are shot down?

ISTR that they've only managed to kill 21 people with rockets in 10 years (and destroyed nothing of great importance), which makes me wonder why they haven't decided to try something else. I mean, even taking pot-shots over the border with rifles would be a better use of time and money.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

Thanks.

When I went hunting for information on the system, I was told that it could take down an RPG. My immediate reaction was, that's impossible. Oddly enough, it can't do it.

I really hope that the Iron Dome system works as advertised, and that it allows cooler heads to prevail. I also hope that the cease fire that was negotiated and announced today succeeds. If either of those fails to happen, it does not bode well.

There are a few things that are givens, based on current and historical behavior. War in the middle east is one of them. They're good at it. They've been doing it forever (as far as living memory provides). They'll keep doing it, because someone will always be pissed at someone else, and it's part of the culture.

It's much like Europe centuries ago. They (mostly) got over it, except for a few rather nasty wars and a globally threatening conflict where no shots were fired.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the perfect strategy if your goal is to terrorize a group of people. Thousands of missiles launched into Israel and the pictures of damage caused by the few with actual payloads are much more effective weapons then just launching the ones with payloads.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Funny that all the responsibility lies on Israel when Hamas could, you know, just stop attacking with rockets. Then there would be no people killed by Israeli reaction. Seems a simple solution? Especially as Hamas knows that there will be an Israeli reaction and the Israelis themselves have clearly stated that there will be a reaction. Indeed the very word "reaction" implies a reply to a previous action. What's wrong with my solution?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[CaptBubba]

There has been noise, unable to be confirmed of course, that Hamas has been intentionally botching the rocket launches because they are little more than publicity for Hamas in Gaza and Hamas knows they are not an effective threat against Israel. Haaretz (which is admittedly a left-leaning Israeli newspaper) interviewed Gershon Baskin who indicated:

'“during the past two years Jabari [whose assassination marked the start of the current fight] internalized the realization that the rounds of hostilities with Israel were beneficial neither to Hamas nor to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip and only caused suffering, and several times he acted to prevent firing by Hamas into Israel.” Even when Hamas was pulled into participating in rocket fire, its rockets would always land in open spaces. “And that was intentional,” Baskin said.'

We will likely never know if this is true or not, however it certainly seems plausible given the massive increase in the Iron Dome intercepts lately (which only trigger when a rocket is going to hit a populated area), indicating the rockets are capable of being aimed better than they have been in the past.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hamas will not stop until they value their own civilians more than they value the possibility of killing Israelis.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that all the responsibility lies on Israel when Hamas could, you know, just stop attacking with rockets. Then there would be no people killed by Israeli reaction. Seems a simple solution? Especially as Hamas knows that there will be an Israeli reaction and the Israelis themselves have clearly stated that there will be a reaction. Indeed the very word "reaction" implies a reply to a previous action. What's wrong with my solution?

Interesting question. After looking for answers, I think the solution you propose is incomplete and would run contrary to the palestinian interest in at least two points, with the settlements in the West Bank probably being the most painful.

The United Nations and the European Union have also called the settlements "illegal under international law."

Of course, sending rockets is not a solution. But Hamas (as a political faction - at least for Palestinians) needs to show/display/stick to a position to have some popular support...
Does it make rational sense? Not at all. Does everything in politics need to make rational sense? Negative again.
You know, nothing too different from the "legitimate rape" aspect in the US political life.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[interkin3tic]

Also, assuming that you are American (you may not be, of course, but changes are good), remember Afganistan? There is still a war raging there, plus at least 5 other countries are being bombed on regular basis. All that in response to an 11+ year old event (if a major one). You wanna talk about "proportional response"?

You're confusing "an American" with "America, the country." Realityimpaired is most likely a guy who lives in the US. He is most likely not one of the people who got the US involved in Afghanistan.

If you were implying there was hypocrisy there because he lives in a country that did something bad, then you're a hypocrite for living wherever it is you live, because wherever it is you live, people did/do bad stuff there too.

Also, really, do you think that someone daring to question whether Israel was morally justified was all gung-ho about Bush invading Afghanistan? I guess if you're not from America, the basics of our politics might be difficult. The answer is no: Realityimpaired likely was disgusted at his country for that.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the response that is needed. What is needed is an end to the blockade. While I can understand Israel's kneejerk reaction on implementing it, it really is illegal by international law to take punitive action on an entire populace for the crimes of the terrorists. The UN recently released a report that noted that the Gaza strip will be unlivable by 2020. This has to stop.

But this won't be enough. Israel needs to be serious on negotiations with both the leaders of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Continuing to expand settlements in the West Bank even though it is not under Hamas control only emboldens Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The apartheid that is occuring in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank needs to end. Until Israel is serious about this there will be continued resistance.

I know it is popular to say that the Palestinians harbor terrorists, thus they are not worthy of sympathy. But they have serious fucking grievances against Israel. And Israel is completely ignoring them and scapegoating them.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Bonobo_Unknown]

>Also, assuming that you are American (you may not be, of course, but changes are good), remember Afganistan? There is still a war raging there, plus at least 5 >other countries are being bombed on regular basis. All that in response to an 11+ year old event (if a major one). You wanna talk about "proportional response"? This argument is a logical fallacy know as the ad hominem attack. A statement is true or false on its own merits regardless of who is doing the stating.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[poetmatt]

and?
Let me highlight a bit of fact here, that you did not find out in actual research discussing it with military people who would have clarified.
Believe it or not, but the unguided small missiles are a hell of a lot harder to intercept than ICBM's. Smaller and more frequent. ICBM's have more risk, but the unguided ones were basically impossible to intercept prior to Iron Dome. The issue with ICBM's is not that they can be intercepted (that part's easy), but the risk of fallout that increases by the second as the missiles head back towards the earth and/or the risk to other countries if they are detonated in upper atmosphere.

If you recall the missile system russia was panicking about when countries near it's borders wanted to install it, it was this same project working successfully. Russia is probably shitting itself right now, as this is effectively a successful demonstration.

It's not about the flight path at all - I doubt they predict based on flight path, or the intercept process would fail routinely just due to wind variations.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[TapeCutter]

Hamas kept a ceasefire in Gaza for nearly two years when the were elected by the Palestinians, Israel responded by moving the goal posts. It's apartheid ME style, neither side shows the slightest bit of humanity to the other or the normal people trapped in between.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that all the responsibility lies on Hamas when Israel could, you know, just stop trying to annex the Palestinians land without the Palestinians. You know why article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits transferring your own population into occupied territory? Because it amounts to ethnic cleansing...

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Come on. The first state of Israel (promised land) was founded on ethnic cleansing. Why should the chosen people abandon their holy tradition of extermination of other cultures?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[xenobyte]

Funny that all the responsibility lies on Hamas when Israel could, you know, just stop trying to annex the Palestinians land without the Palestinians. You know why article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits transferring your own population into occupied territory? Because it amounts to ethnic cleansing...

There's a large loophole in that article... It operates with purposefully moving population into occupied territory, and that is not what Israel is doing. They simply don't prevent their people from moving there. No military involvement. Just people building houses and moving into them. Israel has moved into settlements, destroyed the houses and thrown out the settlers, but the settlers often returns and rebuilds.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the Gaza strip will be unlivable by 2020

And BAM!, you inadvertedly discovered the background motivation for Israels actions the last 60 years. Slo-mo cleansing of non-jews.

How anti-Semitic of you...

No, Israel is mostly interested in removing militant anti-Semitics hell-bent on destroying Israel (and if possible every jew on the planet) from its neighborhood.

(not the AC that replied)

First, the GP wasn't being antisemitic. Criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism nor is acknowledging the apartheid or the war crimes that are occurring there antisemitic. Just because there are Jews in Israel does not mean that criticism of Israel is criticism or stereotyping Jews. And attempting to shut down a conversation by making a false claim of racism is one of the worst types of slander. You should be ashamed.

Second, collective punishment is a violation of international law. Maintaining a blockade that will make an area uninhabitable is a crime against humanity. Removing terrorists from around its territory is allowed, but collective punishment is not. If Israel continues on this course, it will be reviled like South Africa was during the apartheid era.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[DNS-and-BIND]

What, again with the US political shit? Get over yourselves, it's not all about you, we're talking about other countries now. Sorry, adults only in this conversation.

Hamas knows that attacking Israel with rockets will result in a reaction. They take this action with the full knowledge that it will lead to not only innocent Jewish civilians dying but their own people as well. But, somehow, it's Israel's fault. Always.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[LostMonk]

Come on. The first state of Israel (promised land) was founded on ethnic cleansing. Why should the chosen people abandon their holy tradition of extermination of other cultures?

Hmm... 1300 air strikes in 7 days. ~110 dead... in one of the most densely populated areas in the world(!) I guess those Israelies suck at exterminating.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[stjobe]

If Israel continues on this course, it will be reviled like South Africa was during the apartheid era.

In many places, it already is.

Most of the EU, for instance, seem to think that the Israeli are being quite unreasonable with the land the UN gave them in 1948.
Sure, it's a game of I-slap-you-because-you-slapped-me-because-I-slapped-you ad nauseam, but one of the parties slap rather harder than the other; often unreasonably so.

But they have the backing of the US, and as long as they do, nobody's going to protest too much. If they didn't have uncle Sam condoning their every move, my guess is they'd be struck down as a rogue state in a matter of weeks.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[ethorad]

Spotted a typo:
Israel knows that attacking Hamas with airstrikes will result in a reaction. They take this action with the full knowledge that it will lead to not only innocent Palestinian civilians dying but their own people as well. But, somehow, it's Hamas's fault. Always.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[richlv]

butbut... they all in that region are semites... arabs, jews, bunch of african nations. are arabs anti-themselves ? :)

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[mwvdlee]

So basically it'd be useless against the type of missiles Israel throws back?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Maudib]

Israel pulled out of the west bank entirely in 2008. Hamas brought in a bunch of weapons and attacked Israel, so Israel put in place a blockade.

The West Bank has no blockade, because they don't attack Israel. They also have freedom of movement and travel and a growing economy. The settlements are provocations, that the government often bulldozes. Its not government policy.

If Hamas committed to stopping attacks and recognizing Israel's right to exist, they would get a two state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital, just like Israel had offered at Camp David. However Hamas and their backers have no interest in that. They don't want permanent peace, they want nothing less then the complete destruction of Israel.

Thats what I don't get. Who can look at Hamas's charter and who's backing them and honestly conclude that they are the slightest bit interested in peace. They are indiscriminate butchers, not just of Israelis but of Palestinians too. Who on earth would consider entrenching their power to be a good thing for anyone in the region. Israel is no saint, but they would gladly trade land for peace if it actually meant peace.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[mwvdlee]

The first step of newspeak is the misappropriation of words.
Suddenly racism against jews is worse than racism against other races, and racism against arabs no longer exists.
Anybody using "anti-semitic" to mean "anti-jew" is a racist of the most dangerous type.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[mwvdlee]

To be fair, most of those 1300 air strikes weren't intended to kill, they were intended to cause fear. I think there's a word for that.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Palestinians don't have freedom of movement in the West Bank. The roads are segregated with special Israeli only roads, restricted Palestinian roads, and full use Palestinian roads. Israelis can use all roads. In order to travel, Palestinians must go through checkpoints to access different areas is what is now popularly referred to as the West Bank Archipelago due to the isolation of Palestinian cities and land. This is partially due to the settlements and Israeli-only or Palestinian restricted roads and also due to military bases and land that Israel is reserving for future use.

Second, Israel has been continuing to build settlements. That was one of the promises that Netanyahu made to win his seat. They just announced a new one just before this recent war. Obama has almost been on his knees begging Netanyahu to stop since further construction is so inflammatory to this region. But even if he did, religious hardliners in Israel have been know to perform Price Tag attacks as reprisals for any restrictions on building settlements.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Jawnn]

Thousands have been launched towards Israel. Dozens have been hurt.

This kind of says it all, really... I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells.

So so do we, because until you do, you're arguments are bullshit. No, wait. They're bullshit anyway. Firing deadly missiles into civilian areas, unprovoked, is an inexcusable act of barbarism. The government of a proper civilized government would do what is necessary to stop such actions. Since none seems to exist in Gaza, Israel is left with little choice but to take on that responsibility.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[BitZtream]

What would you consider to be a proportional response?

At this stage? Proportional would be wiping Palestine off the face of the Earth. While I understand their complaint, they don't behave in a civilized nor intelligent manner. They lob rockets and Israel, then get all uppity when Israel attacks their launch sites like its not okay to do so.

Palestinian 'traitors' tell the IDF were the rocket sites are so Israel doesn't carpet bomb them ... and they behead the 'traitors' in the streets. The 'traitors' that saved countless civilians lives by making military targets known for accurate attacks rather than carpet bombing.

Their citizens are proud of their terrorists and think Israel should pay them because their sons get killed when they do shit like take hostages from the Church of the Nativity.

America isn't the only country that is in Afghanistan, and it wasn't the first in there either. Hell, you can't even spell it.

There are no innocents when they hide murderers in their ranks. Take your proportional response and shove it up your ass. Proportional is what it takes to make it stop.

Re: What's a ballistic missile?

[vipw]

The claim was that there is no state called America. There is a state called America. There are also continents called America, and my neighbor has a pet dog called America. Neither of which invalidate the existence of a state that is called America.

Here's another example that might make sense. vipw isn't written on my passport, but I am called vipw.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[BitZtream]

Its funny, you don't get it, your statement is exactly his point. They didn't kill ... on purpose ... they took out strategic targets of military interest, not civilians. The solution to prevent 'terror' that you're trying to throw in there is to not allow military targets to exist IN YOUR FUCKING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS and you don't really have to be afraid of Israel dropping a bomb on you. A LASER GUIDED BOMB accurate enough to hit a fucking shoebox.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[blade8086]

Really? Well that's great. I guess it's not so bad then. As a moderate muslim arab palestenian living in gaza,
how then can I move out of this war zone and into Israel proper? I was thinking about a nice condo in a new west bank settlement. Now that you've clarified this for me I am totally gung-ho about this Eretz Israel, 'secular yet somehow jewish state' thing
and I totally want it to succeed.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[mwvdlee]

If those bombs are so accurate, why do they need more than one air strike every 8 minutes in order to hit those targets?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

A LASER GUIDED BOMB accurate enough to hit a fucking shoebox.

Yeah. You've just proven Jews kill civilians in Gaza on purpose.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[blade8086]

> But they have the backing of the US, and as long as they do, nobody's going to protest too much. If they didn't have uncle
> Sam condoning their every move, my guess is they'd be struck down as a rogue state in a matter of weeks.

You are so right! Because the Spanish and French and Greeks and Italians are totally in love with islamic states run by groups like Hamas that advocate violent resistance to western ideals and the constitutional imposition of sharia law for all citizens, and there is no historical evidence to the contrary. In fact, they have never conducted military operations in the levant or other predominantly muslim areas nor occupied any territory there!

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[blade8086]

Have you ever actually heard anyone claim that anti-semitism is worse than racism directed at any other group, or is this comment just a mis-directed aim at doublespeak because your own perceptions are skewed?

Or perhaps you don't realize that even the term 'jew' is used in the perjorative, and so using 'anti-jew' would itself be offensive?

Also, you can be jewish but not a jew, a jew but not jewish, etc. so it is confusing.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Gordonjcp]

Proportional would be wiping Palestine off the face of the Earth

Don't forget that Arabs and Jews are both Semites, and someone already talked about wiping the Semites from the face of the Earth just about 80 years ago. It didn't work out so well, for anyone involved.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[jafiwam]

Thousands have been launched towards Israel. Dozens have been hurt.

This kind of says it all, really... I wish I could find the reference at the moment, but I read somewhere a couple of years ago that most of the rockets that are being fired into Israel don't even have a payload, and are just empty shells. Compare and contrast to how many have been injured or killed by Israeli reaction (not to mention the blockade of medical supplies and construction equipment/supplies into the west bank). There was an episode of The West Wing, in Season 1 which summed it up quite nicely... episode 3 - Proportional Response. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJMVtP1CbOM

I really hope that the Iron Dome system works as advertised, and that it allows cooler heads to prevail. I also hope that the cease fire that was negotiated and announced today succeeds. If either of those fails to happen, it does not bode well.

Proportional response only works if you have rational actors to achieve the dampening effect. For example, the English/French and the Germans faced off in no-mans land during World War I and had several instances of spontaneous stalemate / truce.

The Palis don't seem to be capable of rational action and only "get it" when someone is kicking the shit out of them. Unfortunately this is a region-wide cultural trait. "Proportional response" would be useless against them.

The Palis wouldn't get attacked if they didn't do so first. It's a simple as that.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[hairyfeet]

Insightful? Really? sigh its a damned shame how ignorant people can be, let me try to educate those who obviously don't know better. If I say "I hate Obama, I think he is a lousy president because of Obamacare" that would NOT mean I hate black people, that would mean that I hated the policies of this president (don't really care about Obamacare so don't start, just an example for discussion purposes) and BY THAT SAME TOKEN if somebody says "The Israel policies are against international law" that does NOT equal "lets kill some Jews" okay? what is so fucking hard to understand?

Of course we ALL know what this really is, its the simple fact that those that support Zionist expansive policies use the race card more often than Al Sharpton (which just FYI one can be a Jew and not support Zionist expansion, there is quite a few Jews that don't support it) because they want to DERAIL ALL DISCUSSION because they know that if anybody looked at what they were actually doing, what with the bulldozing and the blockades, well then people would see they are being just as fucking NASTY to the Arabs as apartheid was to blacks, so the only choice is to scream "THAT'S RACIST!" to try to derail discussion.

so in conclusion lets get this straight, one can hate the POLICIES of any country or even leader and NOT hate the race of the leader or people, just as I'm sure there are many in the EU that don't like a lot of America's policies but that doesn't mean they wish Americans would die, because unlike this frankly bullshit tactic designed to derail discussions they have enough of a brain to understand that the policies of a country should not be used to arbitrarily hate a people, any more than those in the USA hated the Russian people for being behind the Iron Curtain...GET IT NOW??

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[realityimpaired]

If you seriously think it's unprovoked, you really need to read a history book. The conflict in the middle east goes back before written history, and all sides have been responsible for atrocities committed against the other. In recent memory, Israel has started as many wars as not.

It's not going to end until somebody decides that enough's enough and puts down the fucking gun. And since you seem to think that rational thought doesn't exist among the Palestinians, doesn't the onus lie on Israel?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Bing Tsher E]

The 'they are both semites' is a meme as shopworn and tired as babbling about Desktop Linux Next Year or casually mentioning that you dont have a television set in your house.

It isn't clever. IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID.

Please stop.

Re: What's a ballistic missile?

[bsane]

Some people refer to 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as the UK, are they wrong too?

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

Let me highlight a bit of fact here, that you did not find out in actual research discussing it with military people who would have clarified.

No, it's more of, I didn't bother to spend much time looking this time. The details are available, I just didn't spend a lot of time looking this time.

It's not about the flight path at all - I doubt they predict based on flight path, or the intercept process would fail routinely just due to wind variations.

    You're partially right. They can't only look at the initial flight path, and fire the intercept at where it is predicted to be. They won't fire against one that will land harmlessly, based on it's predicted path. Since the target is unguided, they know it won't be making any sort of drastic course corrections. To make the final intercept, it has to use something to actually get close enough to damage it. I'd hope for $50k per intercept missile, there's something resembling guidance to intercept. Again, I'm not going to look for the method they're using, because I just don't feel like spending any time looking.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

    Yup, large mortars is on the list.. Anything of a substantial enough size can be tracked and fired upon. What's the difference between a missile still flying after it's fuel has run out, and a mortar or other artillery piece flying where the fuel only existed in the launcher? Not much, outside of classification. They're both capable of doing damage when they hit.
   

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

What would you consider to be a proportional response?

That's where I'm confused to people's responses.

You neutralize the threat.

If someone is launching rockets from Point A, towards your Point B.
You return fire at Point A.

The launchers are destroyed. Any more rockets at that site are destroyed. The people launching those rockets are destroyed. There may be civilian casualties at Point A, but they can be assumed to be colluding with the attacker(s).

The weapons operators of Point B (Israel) have sufficient technology to do this without missing wildly.

The American (United States, for those confused about the usage in this context) response typically misses wildly.

Follow the Richard Reid attempt with his shoe, the American response was that all domestic passengers have to pass their shoes through X-ray.

The idea that a binary explosive could be held in common liquid containers has resulted in all liquid containers greater than 3.4 oz are forbidden from flights.

And the terrorist attacks of 2001 resulted in two wars against nations that were only thought to have had involvement.

It could be said that we aren't very good at proportional response. It could be said that we are very *bad* at it.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[jrumney]

Israel pulled out of the west bank entirely in 2008.

Except for the bits they didn't pull out of. And the bits they built walls on. And the bits they built roads to get to the bits they didn't pull out of. But yeah, apart from those bits, they pulled out of West Bank. Entirely, or maybe not quite.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Jawnn]

If you seriously think it's unprovoked, you really need to read a history book. The conflict in the middle east goes back before written history, and all sides have been responsible for atrocities committed against the other. In recent memory, Israel has started as many wars as not.

It's not going to end until somebody decides that enough's enough and puts down the fucking gun. And since you seem to think that rational thought doesn't exist among the Palestinians, doesn't the onus lie on Israel?

I am well aware of the history. I am also well aware of current events. Millenia-old tribal beefs are something that those people, the whole fucking lot, need to put behind them. We agree on that, I suspect. Now tell me what justifies firing rockets at innocent civilians. See? Unprovoked and barbaric. A military response to such an act is not unprovoked. Get that part right.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[couchslug]

The non-Jews concerned are also Semites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Semitic-speaking_peoples

"In a religious context, the term 'Semitic' can refer to the religions associated with the speakers of these languages: thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam are often described as "Semitic religions" (irrespective of language family spoken by their adherents). Manicheanism and the Mandaean religion also fall within this category.

The term Abrahamic religions is more commonly used today. A truly comprehensive account of "Semitic" religions would include the Ancient Semitic religions (such as Mesopotamian religion and Canaanite Religion) that flourished in the Middle East long before the Abrahamic religions."

Superstition is not race. Ideology is not race. Only Nazi science considers Superstition to be race, and their nonsense isn't logically supportable.

When you mean (/superstition) SAY which Superstitionist (Jew, Muslim, Christian,) you mean without dissembling.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[couchslug]

Anti-missile defense is a complex and daunting task, but progress matters because of the wide VARIETY of ordnance employed by adversaries.

The objection that it's not 100-percent efficient is but a quibble.
If North Korea launched 1000 mustard gas shells at Seoul, it would be much nicer for the residents if 800 didn't make it. (Chems are NOT really "WMD" and if you dress for the party your odds are good, but they are so classified in order to allow a nuclear response by nations who have renounce chems.)

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[alexo]

Israel has not one but two additional anti missile defense systems. One operational [...], and another one in development (Magic Wand)

Based, no doubt, on Hitachi technology.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[ewibble]

All those things about home made short range seem to imply harder to shoot down.

Since more unpredictable flight path, less time to respond, therefore less flight path information, more change of no detection.

but given the definition of ballistic missile from wikipedia:

A ballistic missile is a missile that follows a sub-orbital ballistic flightpath with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. The missile is only guided during the relatively brief initial powered phase of flight and its course is subsequently governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and ballistics. To date, ballistic missiles have been propelled during powered flight by chemical rocket engines of various types.

neither of them can change course to avoid the intercept.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[ewibble]

If you are standing next to the shoe box you are still going to die. Sometimes you aim at the wrong shoe box. Although I don't quite believe that the missiles are that accurate and do miss on occasion.

The point is if Israel wanted to kill Palestinians civilians there would be a lot more dead.

Since your statement is on an individual basis not referring to the overall strategy of the military. I believe there are some solders in Israel that kill civilians on purpose. There are always bad apples in any population, I would be surprised if Israel was any different.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Sir_Sri]

Sure, I didn't mean to imply ICBM's have no guidance in the last phase. Most of the ballistic missiles the north koreans and Iranians sell, or the gazans make are on the very low end of sophistication. There are significantly more advanced options available if you want to spend more than 1000 dollars.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[poetmatt]

the target is unguided doesn't even matter. It is simply not a factor of anything in this situation. The intercept methods remain the same even if it is guided. You think they just planned to fire some flak at a missile? hint: no.

The path issue is simple: missiles not in the area of the coverage are ignored. It's not like they had to say "we're ignoring unpopulated areas", it's just that it has a wide field of missile defense.

Re: What's a ballistic missile?

[Rostin]

Synechoche.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[dovf]

Life in Gaza is valued cheaply -- not by the Israelis, but by the Palestinians. A small, but telling, example: Man killed by celebratory gunfire in Gaza. Not to mention the fact that Hamas uses its own citizens as human shields and fires from among civilians; or the fact that Hamas attacks target civilians...

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Johann Lau]

"Anti-semitic" was defined as "anti-jew". Not because it made sense, ever, but to give hatred of Jews a scientific sounding touch. It wasn't Jews who came up with that term, you know. And "misappropriation"? That IS the original use, you're the one trying to misappropriate it.

It's not like before that it used to mean being against semitic people in general. And you know why? Semitic is a language of families, and that's an unlikely prejudice to have, to be against "semites". It's not like they look or act very alike, it's just that their languages shares a common root, and unless you're a linguist or ancient history buff, you wouldn't know or care either way.

That's how anti-semites got away with using that word for meaning hatred of Jews, in the first place: it was utterly unused. And the best you can hope for to make it unused again; I'd be all for that. I think it's fine to talk about people who hate Jews or Arabs, and the type of racist that is kind of the standard in my mind: who hates anyone who is too different from them in appearance or culture. But one thing you cannot hope for, not on the watch of anybody worth shit, is to claim "anti-semites" refers to actually existing people who are against semites. These people do not even exist.

So.... somebody who isn't a fucking DOOFUS, someone who knows how to look up how words came to be, is "a racist of the most dangerous type" to you? You fucking what? And you're even pointing fingers at the Jews for a word that people who hated and persecuted them invented, basically. Well, why not go all the way; once you crossed the line of being a complete tool it's all the same, right? Also, I see there are too many idiots with moderation points -- it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Dumb on, people, dumb on.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[Johann Lau]

That wasn't even a nice try.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[ganjadude]

to me? I would say you shot a single missile at me, I will wipe you out, simple as that. If you shoot at my house, I burn yours down, even if yours misses my house and hits the next road. Enough of this bullshit

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[ganjadude]

ok so... you tell the people "back the terrorists, or dont back us, and you are doomed, come to our side, OR leave (we wont force you to follow us but if you dont leave we will assume you support them) and we will be carpet bombing the fuck out of the area....

as an american, i am sick and tired of being PC I dont want war, I want peace, some sometimes peace can only be had by blowing the fuck out of the other side

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

Well, I'd have to assume that an ICBM sometime after it's apogee, will be armed and ready. I would assume there would be a contingency plan for the warhead being intercepted, even if it was to crash into an aircraft or "weather balloon" on the way down.

Please consult the USAF Aircraft Identification Chart for clarification of those terms. :)

The accidental releases of nuclear weapons (there have been a few) were all in the unarmed state. The worst accident that happened, that I can recall, is the conventional explosive exploded. The nuclear reaction never took place. See the January 17, 1966 Palomares incident.

As I understand it, the ideal detonation is not at ground level, but a few miles high. The EMP should be catastrophic to any electronics within a huge radius. The shockwave is massive, and the resulting fallout will spread further.

That's not to say any nuclear weapon use is "ideal". In the 1940's, there was no risk of a counter attack. Now? It would be a world wide disaster. M.A.D. and all that.

So, to try to stay on topic ... :) The Iron Dome wouldn't do anything against an ICBM, mostly because that isn't what it's designed for. No one is admittedly targeting Israel with ICBMs. Their concern is relatively short range conventional weapons.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[daniel_l_mills]

A ballistic missile is one whose trajectory, following the boost phase is determined by it's inertia, gravity and friction on it's surfaces. In the absence of manuvering you are able to predict their flight path quite accurately using ballistic equations.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[lsatenstein]

    Yes, but people generally equate ballistic missiles with ICBMs.

    The ones that the Iron Dome is made to work against are relatively short range. I did some research on this after discussing it with some other people. They can basically intercept unguided missiles which cross into Israeli airspace, with a total flight of 3 km to 30 km.

    The primary missile it's used to intercept are pretty primitive. Think along the same lines as the kind most readers here would have built out of cardboard from an Estes kit. They use fairly primitive solid fuel, a payload of common or improvised explosives, fins to make it fly sort of straight, and not much else.

    Thousands have been launched towards Israel. Dozens have been hurt.

    It could work against any number of threats, but I would guess it is best at something with a fairly horizontal trajectory. If it were to intercept something like an ICBM, I would guess the resulting blast would still have the effect the attacker desired.

===
This was the first generation Iron Dome protection system. Surely you must realize that there will be more advanced systems, ones managed my faster counter missiles and ones that are bang-bang missiles. The bang-bang means that the missiles are tandem. The first one goes after the rocket, and immediately behind it is a second one to follow the trajectory and head for the launch site.
What a wonderful proof of concept that Israel provided their enemies and friends.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[JWSmythe]

    You've just described every arms race that has ever happened.

Step 1: You build a better weapon.
Step 2: I building a better weapon to counter it.
Step 3: Go to step 1.

    If there's one thing us humans are good at, it's devising more efficient ways to kill each other.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[DirtyLiar]

Aren't unguided rockets also ballistic missiles? How are they different?

No, not really.

A ballistic missile is initially powered, but then falls to it's target only under the power of gravity, so it's total path is always an arc.

Rockets (surface-to-air, air-to-air, air-to-surface and surface-to-surface AFAIK) use powered flight from launch to impact.

So mortors, RPGs, even the shells fired from ships, tanks and cannon all fall into the classification of "ballistic missiles".

Rockets, AFAIK, are powered from start to finish, and so are not ballistic.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[frier]

Criticism of Israel isn't antisemitism nor is acknowledging the apartheid or the war crimes that are occurring there antisemitic. Just because there are Jews in Israel does not mean that criticism of Israel is criticism or stereotyping Jews.

- Sure that not every criticism of Israel is antisemitism. But mentioing "just" by the way, as an "obvious well-known" fact, that Israel is an apartheid state commiting war crimes, can't be called "criticism"...

...collective punishment is a violation of international law. Maintaining a blockade that will make an area uninhabitable is a crime against humanity.

- First of all, isn't the indiscriminate shooting of rockets from Gaza to Israeli vilages and cities the worst kind of collective punishment? Second, have you been in Gaza or at least saw TV reports from there? Does it look to you "uninhabitable"? The place which indeed will become uninhabitable if blockade will be removed without changing the regime in Gaza, is Israel - as removal of blokade will allow Hamas and other terrorist organizations residing there to obtain much more destructive missiles...

And, regarding the main topic and some not-so-knowledgeble comments: Iron Dome wasn't designed to intercept any kind of missiles. There is another system under develoment which should handle ballistic missiles. Also, most of 1500 rockets launched against Israel during last round of violence had either too short range to be intercepted or hit areas which were out of range of deployed Iron Dome batteries. Iron Dome intercepted mainly missiles with range of 40km (Rusisiam "Grad") and 75 km (Iranian "Fajer" and its Gazan copies) - and only those which were supposed to hit inhabited areas in the range of given battery. It intrecepted much more than "dozens" missiles - something about 300.

Re:What's a ballistic missile?

[frier]

Thanks for at least not claiming that you aren't antisemitic, stjobe!. I would like to see how YOUR country would behave if its neighbours (backed by most of Muslim world and not-so-small part of Christian world) were promised to totally destroy it and were illustrating their intentions by missile and terror attacks...

american financed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US provided some funding, they did not fully design or fund technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Co-production_with_the_United_States

Re:American financed?

[lazarith]

Probably because if we financed it, then we get the credit if it helps stop/stabilize the middle east. And it's a way we can aid an ally without incurring international strife (after all, it is solely a defensive weapon). And because a stable middle east is necessary to fuel our appetite for oil. A universal healthcare system for Israel costs so much less than one in the US, due to the number of citizens.... And in an area as volatile as the middle east, leaving sick people out to die (and spread disease and dissent) is a threat to Israel's national defense.

one other place

[jefp]

Since it works on artillery shells too, the other place it would work real well is: Seoul.

Re:one other place

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. One of the key reasons why the Iron Dome works for Israel is because the rocket attacks aren't coordinated. If Hamas launched ALL of its rockets/artillery AT THE SAME TIME, the Israeli Iron Dome system would simply be overwhelming. Don't forget, about 10% of the rockets/artillery are getting through and thats with staggered/uncoordinated attacks. If they were all launched at the same time (which, the North Korean military is surely trained to do), the failure rate would easily double or triple simply because reload times would create opening in the defense.

Re:one other place

[Jeff1946]

each rocket costs about $50k, not so good for antiartillery

Re:one other place

[lucm]

Seoul is definitely a very good example of building defense against low-tech attacks. The Iron Dome is impressive but if Israel's ennemies start doing like North Korea and dig tunnels under the DMZ it will be useless. So far the Americans in the Korean JSA have found (and closed) 3 tunnels, one of which was wide enough to allow a full-scale invasion.

People underestimate low-tech. The West Bank Barrier, which is basically a big wall, can be blamed from a humanitarian perspective, but from a security/military perspective it actually helped to drastically minimize the number of car and suicide bombings on the israeli territory; now the war is fought on the outskirts or directly in other countries (such as Lebanon) and the focus is on rockets, but 20 years ago the situation was totally different with bus or market bombs being typical.

History is full of successful low-tech solutions, like the barbed wire wall built by Mussolini's henchman (Graziani) in Libya that prevented the mujahideen to bring supplies to the resistance. History is also full of high-tech solutions that ended up being an expensive fiasco, like the Maginot Line. (Some people would put Reagan's SDI in that list but as a conspiracy theory buff I prefer to think it was all a master plan to push USSR to bankrupt itself by building a bigger arsenal).

As far as rockets are concerned, I'd be curious to see a cost analysis of the Iron Dome versus a shitload of snipers with high-powered rifles trying to shoot rockets as they fly over the territory. Just sayin'.

Re:one other place

[DavidClarkeHR]

Since it works on artillery shells too, the other place it would work real well is: Seoul.

But then we couldn't call it the Iron Yamaka ...

Re:one other place

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, but in the attack on Yeonpyeong two years ago (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/8153100/North-Korean-attack-on-Yeonpyeong-Island-is-worst-against-civilians-in-20-years.html) a mere 50 shells were fired.

The scale of Nork fire across the Northern Line has historically (since the 1953 cease fire) been small enough for an Iron Dome response, I should think. And the two South Korean marines killed on Yeonpyeong are the sort of non-mass-casualties that the Israelis are so far successfully limiting. (The 1500 rockets fired in the current wave of violence have killed three or four in Israel. At $50,000 to $80,0000 a pop, the number of Iron Dome launches and forestalled casualties is well in the range of normal cost-benefit analyses for protecting civilian human lives.)

An all-out artillery assault (1000+ shells in each hour of hostilities) calls for a more robust response than missile defense, even if the guys who started it have fission weapons (do we know if the Norks have weaponized their bombs to fly on missiles? I'd think gravity bombs would be tough to use against the South and its air force)?

Re:one other place

[Hentes]

It's a somewhat misleading mistranslation but the 90% rate is the accuracy rate of the rockets not the efficiency of the whole system. WHEN the incoming missile is recognized and targeted in time, they fire a rocket which has 90% chance of hitting it. If it doesn't hit, they fire a second one. So that rate is more related to the cost-efficiency of the system than its safety. Of the rockets fired at Israel they only managed to shoot down about half.

Re:one other place

[DavidClarkeHR]

Since it works on artillery shells too, the other place it would work real well is: Seoul.

But then we couldn't call it the Iron Yamaka ...

... and calling it the Iron Gat just isn't as cool.

It makes me think of gatling guns ... the most famous of which is a Tommy Gun ... and I'm pretty sure that's NOT the appropriate short-form name for someone of Korean descent. And it was a terrible movie.

Re:one other place

[Baloroth]

A sniper shooting a rocket out of the air? I think you've been watching too many movies. It's considered a good shot for a sniper to hit a relatively stationary human-sized target at 1-2km away. While it's hard to find a good figure, the rockets Hamas et al are using look to be traveling at 200m/s, which means they will cover the effective firing range in 5-6 seconds, which is nowhere near enough time to get a bead and fire. With a few hundred snipers and a known launch point, they could maybe hit 1 out of every 100 by sheer luck, if that (although I grant you even a near hit might knock the rocket off course or destroy it, it's still going to be incredibly ineffective).

Re:one other place

[russotto]

The Iron Dome is impressive but if Israel's ennemies start doing like North Korea and dig tunnels under the DMZ it will be useless.

Ground penetrating radar is well within Israeli capabilities. I don't think they'll be digging any tunnels.

Re:one other place

[lucm]

200 m/s is about 7 times the speed of trap shooting. I guess it's a bit fast and it does not help that the sniper does not get to scream "pull" to control fire rate... but I'm sure a lot of people can do it, like Tom Berenger, or Ed Harris, or that guy from the last Rambo movie.

On a side note, I have no idea why you say I've been watching too many movies.

Re:one other place

[Baloroth]

Trap shooting is done using shotguns for a reason, and at a few hundred feet, the rockets can cover miles. I mean, sure, there are other ways to shoot down the rockets, but "guys with guns" probably isn't a terribly practical one (I'm not even sure I'd want to blow up a rocket at short range, some of them can carry ~100lb warheads, so you'd end up loosing a lot of the shooters, maybe even if they actually hit the missile). One system I've seen mentioned is the US's Phalanx system, which is designed for exactly this, shooting down incoming munitions, but that has a relatively limited range and probably even more importantly results in thousands of rounds of ammunition being spread everywhere (they weren't designed to be used in cities, after all), some of which is likely to hit people/buildings.

Re:one other place

[Sir_Sri]

Orders of magnitude problem.

Seoul has about 3x as many people as israel in 1/4th the area (the Seoul capital area, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_population). Iron dome can afford to ignore a lot more rockets because a lot more of them aren't going to hit anything, and hamas is firing dozens of rockets at a time. North korea would be firing thousands, in a semi coordinated fashion and quite likely take steps to interfere with a similar system.

It's not that a similar attempt would do nothing, but between a massed artillery barrage and a land offensive at close range Seoul would be in serious trouble. It's only about 40Km from Seoul to the DMZ. It's a very difficult position to be in.

Re:one other place

[germansausage]

What on earth do Japanese motorcycles have to do with missile defense?

Re:one other place

[scared masked man]

You're talking about an offensive[1] ground war in a highly urbanised area with quite a few damaged buildings (which makes them easier to defend) against an enemy with no proper uniform. That's expensive, and even with an enemy as incompetent as Hamas you might well find that Israel would lose more people by responding than by doing nothing (not to mention that they might create more support for Hamas).

[1] tactically speaking - the Israelis would be the ones advancing into hostile territory.

Re:one other place

[scared masked man]

GPR becomes much less useful in areas where buildings come right up to the border on both sides, as is the case in some urban areas where towns pre-date the border.

Re:one other place

[DaveAtFraud]

Not really. One of the key reasons why the Iron Dome works for Israel is because the rocket attacks aren't coordinated. If Hamas launched ALL of its rockets/artillery AT THE SAME TIME, the Israeli Iron Dome system would simply be overwhelming. Don't forget, about 10% of the rockets/artillery are getting through and thats with staggered/uncoordinated attacks. If they were all launched at the same time (which, the North Korean military is surely trained to do), the failure rate would easily double or triple simply because reload times would create opening in the defense.

Another reason Iron Dome is working with a limited deployment is that there are only a very few trajectories out of Gaza that line up on anything valuable in Israel. Put your radars and interceptors where they can engage anything on those trajectories and you have a much easier problem to solve.

Also, actually, it's more like about 50% of the rockets are getting through. It's just that Iron Dome calculates the probable impact area before deciding whether or not to engage a particular rocket. If it's headed for some sand in the Negev, they let it make a hole in the ground that nobody cares about. I wonder if they would still engage if the probable impact zone was Ramallah, Hebron or some other place in the West Bank.

Could be "we're both right" with 10% of the engaged rockets still getting through. Sort of bad given these are armed with at best high explosives but would ruin your day if they were nules.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:one other place

[lucm]

(Some people would put Reagan's SDI in that list but as a conspiracy theory buff I prefer to think it was all a master plan to push USSR to bankrupt itself by building a bigger arsenal)

The best estimates we have show that Soviet military spending was flat throughout the 80s

Who is "we"? Is the CIA now posting on Slashdot? I knew there was a conspiracy somewhere in that SDI thing.

Re:one other place

[Fallen Kell]

The reason Iron Dome works for Israel and may not for other nations is due to the way it operates. Iron Dome is successful in the fact that it requires detailed maps of the areas it is protecting and only fires when the missile/rocket/mortar it is engaging is going to hit a populated area. This is easier to do in an environment like Israel as the settlements are pretty much confined without a lot of sprawl outside of the town-proper. It is also unknown how well it would do against guided missiles or countermeasures on missiles. That said, the Aegis BMD system deployed by the US Navy does have those capabilities (or at least appears to from the press releases after tests). The only non-test use that I am aware of was the shooting down of a satellite which posed a risk of hitting a populated zone if it had been allowed to continue its failed trajectory (it also helped that China had just put on a big propaganda push showing that they could blow up a satellite as well, but they did it from a stationary launch vehicle on a target with extremely well known trajectory, unlike the US demonstration which was against a tumbling satellite without control and already interacting with the atmosphere which was constantly changing its trajectory).

Re:one other place

[Hal_Porter]

it also helped that China had just put on a big propaganda push showing that they could blow up a satellite as well, but they did it from a stationary launch vehicle on a target with extremely well known trajectory, unlike the US demonstration which was against a tumbling satellite without control and already interacting with the atmosphere which was constantly changing its trajectory

Have you got a citation for that? I didn't realise the US was demonstrating a capability that was far in excess of what the Chinese demonstrated. Though it doesn't really surprise me.

Re:one other place

[Yvanhoe]

Working on artillery? This is a claim I highly doubt.

Anti missiles work by making there target explode. That works well when said target is a tube half-filled with rocket fuel. It doesn't work as well when it is an empty tube with an armored warhead, as Russian ballistic missiles are a few minutes after launch or on a mass of iron protecting an explosive warhead, as artillery shells are.

Palestinian rockets are weak and old fashioned, their warhead is not protected and in mid-flight they are still burning fuel. That is why these anti-missiles work.

Re:one other place

[Yvanhoe]

Oh, and I forgot : they go (more or less) in a straight line unlike modern naval missiles we can basically dance a tango around their target before striking them.

Re:one other place

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of the rockets fired at Israel they only managed to shoot down about half.

That's still way better than Patriot, isn't it? And it's not like they are going to cease further development...

Re:one other place

[jafiwam]

The Norks don't have nearly as much shit as people think (or say) they do. Take a look at Google Earth once and look at the DMZ, and what the Norks have near it. They would have to be digging very very big and long tunnels to be hiding much artillery. You can't haul a big piece up a narrow dirt road and hide it in some hole with a bunch of skinnies hauling on ropes. And, you need to regularly maintain artillery, you can't just throw it in a damp cave for 30 years and think it's going to work right afterwards.

Re:one other place

[Troyusrex]

Here

Re:one other place

[Hal_Porter]

You get the impression that Chinese ICBMs would be vulnerable to this sort of interception. Excellent.

Re:one other place

[Rich0]

Agreed.

Though, for something like a rocket a solution similar to CIWS might be possible. That would certainly be cheaper, since the ammunition would just be bullets. CIWS is designed to engage MUCH faster threats, though in its present form it can't really confront multiple threats and is designed to work at short range.

You'd need something that could calculate a decent firing solution and fire off a few rounds, measure their trajectory, correct, and repeat. Ideally it could do that with multiple targets at once (fire a few rounds at one, move, and so on). That would require a VERY accurate mount since it would need to use absolute positioning if it were to cycle between targets. Or you could just put up a wall of lead at one target at a time, but that would mean that it would take several seconds per rocket to shoot them down, and you'd need many guns to handle multiple threats, and of course fire control radar that could track all those bullets.

Probably not practical. Big issues I see is varying wind/etc which could cause difficulty with corrections, and insufficiently accurate mounts to actually aim bullets with that precision at that range.

That word: ballistic

[samjam]

That word: ballistic, I don't think it means what you think it means

Re:That word: ballistic

[MrBigInThePants]

Ballistic: something designed to look exactly like it should be accompanied by a pair of balls.

Re:That word: ballistic

[LWATCDR]

I am still trying to deal with sub-atmospheric. Is this a mole missile or a torpedo?

Somebody always does this

[ColdWetDog]

So some random 'journalists' have attempted to force an analogy and it doesn't work (ICBM defense is analogous to primitive short range surface-surface missiles). Woop de do. Iron Dome is much more closely related to the Patriot system which was designed to hit smaller, slower targets than ICBMs.

Not sure what the big deal is. Wake me up when they get the shark mounted lasers working.

"some"?

[PopeRatzo]

Some have even gone so far to declare it a vindication of Ronald Reagen's 1980's Star Wars missile defense system.

Some say that I'm the handsomest man in the world.

Re:"some"?

[Nyder]

Some have even gone so far to declare it a vindication of Ronald Reagen's 1980's Star Wars missile defense system.

Some say that I'm the handsomest man in the world.

Moms don't count.

Re:"some"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't really flamebait. "Some" is often a too easily accepted device with which to erect a straw-man. Ridiculing the use of "some" isn't a bad thing, even when you would rather that no one dared challenge the balance of the point.

Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary seems to imply that Hamas is launching home-made rockets. Not so. Take a look at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-F02XpjfWjRA/UK0fVU618XI/AAAAAAAAjDI/HKrb4SO6eXw/s1600/Hamas+Missiles_JPost.jpg

Secondly, Iron Dome isn't meant to be the end-all of missile defense. Israel has deployed a three-level missile defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome for short-range missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Sling for medium-range missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile) for long-range missiles

The Arrow system intercepts ballistic missiles.

Re:Misleading summary

[JWSmythe]

Come on, be more informative than that..

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

    The majority of the rockets *are* home made. They have the budget of militant groups, not of a national military.

    Sure, they're dangerous if one lands on you, or near enough for the payload to hurt you.

    There have been actual military missiles used. They are the minority. I had found the count of missile types launched in the last 10 years, but I can't seem to find it now.

Re:Misleading summary

[AJWM]

Sure, they're dangerous if one lands on you, or near enough for the payload to hurt you.

Well yeah, but that applies to everything from large model rockets on up to nuclear-tipped ICBMs. It's just that "near enough" is a lot further away in the latter case.

Re:Misleading summary

[Runaway1956]

Based on the effect that those home made rockets are having, the Pals might as well just build them, then detonate them in their own apartments. It seems that the launch to dead Pal ratio is about 3:1.

It's all grandstanding. The Gaza Strip has no military worthy of the name. Dozens of tribes further south in Africa are capable of teaching the Pals how to wage war - maybe they should start getting an education.

Re:Misleading summary

[DNS-and-BIND]

Bzzt wrong. Your information is out of date. The new rockets - you know, the ones aimed at Tel Aviv - are Iranian-made Fajr-5 rockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5

They have a much longer range than the Qassams. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to reach Tel Aviv, period.

I love the attempt at equivocation by saying with zero proof that the missiles don't have any explosives. The entire point is to inspire terror and kill Jews, and if they can't kill Jews they'll just have to settle for terror. Go ahead, be in a city with a for-real air raid siren going off. Then, have that happen a couple of times a day for weeks. See how it affects your psyche.

Re:Misleading summary

[JWSmythe]

I'm not really concerned of either case. :) I worry more about the 2 to 6 ton barely guided weapons in use all over the world. They kill more people daily than flying pipe bombs. Yup, drivers scare the shit out of me. I've been hit by a few of *those*.

Speaking of which... In 2011, 384 people died in motor vehicle accidents in Israel. 33,808 died in the US. In 2007, 1.2 million people died world wide in motor vehicle accidents.

Re:Misleading summary

[fnj]

Go ahead, be in a city with a for-real air raid siren going off. Then, have that happen a couple of times a day for weeks. See how it affects your psyche.

The Germans tried that with Britain in 1940. It didn't have the desired effect. It had rather the opposite effect. Then within two years the British tried it with Germany using vastly more force. It still didn't have the effect of turning the German people decisively against the prosecution of the war. It made their life a living hell, but they didn't revolt or go crazy. Do I have to explain about North Vietnam? Or Iraq 1991? Or Iraq 2003?

Under air attack a population doesn't have an easy time of it. But terror? I don't think that's quite the right word. Try fatalism, dogged resolve, bitter thirst for revenge, maybe hate.

None of this means I think think any of the missile attacks against Israel have been anywhere near that level.

Re:Misleading summary

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, making the lives of innocent civilians a living hell is totally OK. Got it!

Re:Misleading summary

[fnj]

How do you read that into it? Are you high? Just for the record, NO, it's not OK. By ANYBODY.

Iron dome has worked for it's first deployment

[Lehk228]

Will it still work if the same rockets have an off balance twisted fin making them spiral? Will new tactics erase some of the advantages as fewer and larger salvos are launched? Will EW rockets get thrown in with the others to try to jam iron dome radar tracking? How well will it work against larger salvos with a bunch of really cheap cardboard and tinfoil rockets mixed in?

Re:Iron dome has worked for it's first deployment

[LWATCDR]

"Will it still work if the same rockets have an off balance twisted fin making them spiral?" No. It will not make them harder to track or make them much harder to hit. Iron Dome uses a fragmentation warhead like a SAM does so close counts.
"Will new tactics erase some of the advantages as fewer and larger salvos are launched?" Maybe but it takes time to set up a lot of rockets for a barrage and that is likely to be seen by drones. If that happens then you just blow up the rockets while they are being set up. Double bonus.
"Will EW rockets get thrown in with the others to try to jam iron dome radar tracking?" Really expensive and not likely to work. Radars have ways to dealing with all but the most advanced jammers.
"How well will it work against larger salvos with a bunch of really cheap cardboard and tinfoil rockets mixed in?"
See the problems with large barrages.

Re:Iron dome has worked for it's first deployment

[Rich0]

Agreed. If the militants were to set up a much more sophisticated conventional force Iron Dome probably wouldn't be sufficient, but a conventional force would be easily defeated by the IDF. The militants are limited to highly improvised weapons fired from rapidly deployed launchers. Anything bigger or more coordinated is going to be spotted and targeted.

Re:Iron dome has worked for it's first deployment

[Lehk228]

there are different sizes and designs used by hamas, the smallest ones were basically just little model rockets, then they started adding warheads the size of an M-80 firecracker, they have grown quite a bit since then and are quite dangerous, they are as tall as a man, carry a 15 kg warhead, and will kill or maim anyone unlucky enough to be in the room with one going off (Qassam 3)

OTOH israel retaliates with 1000lb laser guided smartbombs that turn multi story apartment buildings into craters

American financed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this project "American financed" anyway? Israel has PLENTY of money to spend on their own defense. It doesn't make any sense for a country that's trillions of dollars in debt to hand out cash to a country that spends money on luxuries like a universal healthcare system that we don't even have here.

Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Israel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice the one big story not covered by the network is the missile attack from Israel on Gaza so far killing 150+ people.

You fund them with $2.5 billion a year, when the USA cannot afford that funding. They in turn need to be at constant war, even with the civilian population of Gaza, just to justify it.

Their 'missile shield' protects them from retaliation fireworks, while they bomb the crap out of the population of Gaza and declare everyone hit to be a 'militant' or a 'terrorist', even the children, women, families, even the UN school they bombed the last time.

Just stop funding them! Really, it's that simple, they'll stop killing people if they have to pay for their own constant warmongering.

It's also a small country

[Grayhand]

Regan's proposal had the potential to be the most expensive undertaking in human history. All for no clear enemy. Look at it this way it wouldn't stop 911 from happening or car bombs so we're talking an insanely expensive program with questionable benefit. Also the missile defense tests were really problematic. They tended to boast of the time they hit the target and ignored the ten times they missed.

Re:It's also a small country

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you are trolling or just ridiculously young.

We weren't worried about 9/11 or car bombings. We were worried about Soviet invasion or preemptive strikes. Our enemy then *was* clear, in contrast to today.

Anyway, greetings from the other side of the fall of the Berlin wall.

Re:It's also a small country

[Hentes]

I don't think the SDI was ever intented to work. It was a massive bluff that forced the Soviet Union into a weapons race they couldn't afford. Ultimately, it was a major contributing factor in bankrupting the SU and ending the Cold War.

Re:It's also a small country

[Waffle Iron]

It was certainly intended to work, up until failures progressed to the point that even the Neocons pushing it had to admit that it can't work. (Especially against any enemy smart enough to employ simple countermeasures.)

After that point, they switched to plan B and changed SDI into an elaborate Potemkin village, similar to the expensive and unworkable bomber defense systems that preceded it.

Re:It's also a small country

[AJWM]

smart enough to employ simple countermeasures.

I always got a chuckle out of that. Because what are "simple countermeasures" on paper turn out to be "complex and expensive R & D programs" when you try to implement them on your thousand-plus ICBM inventory.

My favorite was "just spin the booster" as a counter to laser interception. Now, consider that Soviet ICBM technology of the time relied on liquid-fueled boosters. Consider the dynamics problems of spinning a liquid-containing cylinder which is also accelerating upwards at eight or ten gees (while attempting to drain said cylinders to fuel the engines). The lasers wouldn't have to hit them, they'd destroy themselves.

(Ditto for "just add shielding" -- which means adding weight, aerodynamic drag, and changing the center of mass, which means rewriting your flight control software, lowering your payload, and risking catastrophic disassembly if the shielding comes loose.)

Re:It's also a small country

[mirix]

It's real goal was to transfer money from the American people to military contractors.

It would have been amazingly successful at doing that.

Re:It's also a small country

[sageres]

As a person who grew up in Soviet Union in the early 80s, I can tell you that Soviets were terrified of the SDI. They organized meetings, marches, huge media protests at home and abroad (read: the Soviet-funded peacenik camp in the US), and the huge neon signs in the Soviet cities that read, " !" (No to the program SDI). Regardless if it was a bluff or not, it was highly effective.

Re:It's also a small country

[Waffle Iron]

Congratulations! You've cast meager doubt on two items of your own choosing out of hundreds of possible countermeasures. This conclusively proves that a system that rarely worked even in rigged stunts would have been an impenetrable bastion of defense in the real world.

Re:It's also a small country

[AmiMoJo]

The real problem with an ICBM shield is the same one they have with Iron Dome: it can't cope with a high rate of fire. Each satellite in the proposed shield could take out maybe three ICBMs at most, and only during their boost phase. Russia had thousands of ICBMs, and the satellites couldn't be geostationary or they would be at the wrong height to work, so the US would have needed thousands of them to take out enough missiles to survive.

Re:It's also a small country

[jafiwam]

Regan's proposal had the potential to be the most expensive undertaking in human history. All for no clear enemy. Look at it this way it wouldn't stop 911 from happening or car bombs so we're talking an insanely expensive program with questionable benefit. Also the missile defense tests were really problematic. They tended to boast of the time they hit the target and ignored the ten times they missed.

Read a history book ya damn moron.

SDI was a propaganda ploy to make the Russkies think we were going to do it, it broke their economy when they tried to counter, and it took what was a military cold war and dropped it soundly in the lap of an economic war that we won without much effort. They thought we knew how many missiles they had, but they didn't realize they had less capability than they thought. Same way we got tricked into thinking Saddam had stuff he didn't. He thought he had it! His guys lied to him because failing was death!

None of that shit they talked about doing with SDI was feasible at the time. What mattered was baiting the Soviets into responding like it was and realizing we were going to counter their first nuclear strike and nuclear counter strike to the point that we'd come out hurt but able to fight after they were destroyed.

It is just recently that some of the stuff has been possible in a limited way. It's also not focused on missile threats from North Korea, and to a certain extent China.

Stop reading the liberal bullshit you read and you'll have a proper grasp of world events.

I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[Anonymous Coward]

One day, some strangers came and slapped a condo on it, cutting off my access to the beach.

The people they setup in the place then began throwing rocks at my family.

My family and I appealed to the authorities, but the largest and most powerful among them are staunch friends of the new people.

There was absolutely no chance of any kind of peaceful negotiation, so it's been open hostility between us ever since.

A few years ago they even invaded what remained of our property and threw most of us off it, then built another condo on it.

We'd love to get our yard back, but it's been too long now.

The grandchildren of the new people call the condo home, and feel the beach is rightfully theirs now.

They won't consider the possibility of giving us even a narrow right-of-way to the sea.

It's a most unfortunate situation, and I don't know how it's going to end.

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the part where they:

Missile attacked you repeatedly.
Blew up your power station.
Stole your bank account money.
Declared you terrorists to prevent you speaking.
Paid US politicians to visit the beach resort where they come back full of (kachink) support for this new owners.

Yeh, its a terrible situation, and one that won't change anytime soon as long as Israel controls Congress.

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

One day, some strangers came and slapped a condo on it, cutting off my access to the beach.

The people they setup in the place then began throwing rocks at my family.

I can't tell what your third sentence refers to

Do you mean:
I got together with a couple of my neighbors and try to push the strangers into the sea, but they managed to fight me off?

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[scared masked man]

I think he's talking about Irgun.

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should actually read some history, and some modern science. It turns out that a) both sides are from the area b) both sides lived there at the same time c) both sides have the same forefathers.

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[The Evil Atheist]

Bronze age propaganda myths will be evidence more than facts ever will.

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[The Evil Atheist]

So if we resurrect Neanderthals, would they have the right to force Sapiens out of Europe?

Re:I used to have a yard that extended to the sea.

[schlachter]

We know how it ends. Welcome to the U.S. fucking A.
And every other fucking country on this planet.

Iron

[The Evil Atheist]

Very soon, it will be curtains for Palestine.

Origin Gaza/Westbank

[Anonymous Coward]

"The summary seems to imply that Hamas is launching home-made rockets. Not so."

So those Qassam missiles we've been hearing about are not home made, yet your infographic says "origin Gaza/Westbank".
That's almost exclusively what they're firing and they're not much more than bottle-rockets. Not the big scary missiles we hear from the Israel propaganda unit.

The aggressor here is Israel. Endless terrorist attacks on Gaza, endless land grabs on Gaza and the West Bank, asset stealing of Gaza. A slow and steady genocide of Palestinians.

Re:Origin Gaza/Westbank

[Hal_Porter]

So if I fire missiles with 10kg of explosives at your house it should be no problem, right?

Re:Origin Gaza/Westbank

[TFAFalcon]

No problem if you build it yourself and fire it from 30km away.

Re:I wonder what it cost to add guidance

[JWSmythe]

    Don't say that too loud, or you'll have DHS or NSA knocking at your door. ... and GPS is limited to speed, altitude, and G forces. Look for information on the "COCOM Limits".

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[multicoregeneral]

Israel is fighting organized armed insurgents whose stated mission is to destroy it. It's a threat that's existed in this form since 1967, and it's not going away.

Just think for a minute about how America would handle this. It only took one terrorist attack on our soil for every politician and every government agency in North America to collectively lose it's mind. We started two wars, eroded our own civil rights, distorted Constitution and treaties with other nations beyond recognition. We created new government agencies which (let's face facts,) do nothing, and we've been berating and hate killing Muslims ever since.

And that's just one attack. Before you judge Israel, think for a second about how we would respond to thousands of them. I can't tell you what America would do, but I'll tell you this: America would respond in ways that make the entire history of Israeli threat response look like acts of kindness.

640k is enough for anyone.

[hessian]

Technology improves over time.

Once there's a working prototype, it can be improved in thousands of ways that are less challenging to produce than the prototype itself.

Right now, there are some challenges in making Iron Dome into SDI. However, there's also a working model which can be refined until it has SDI-ish capabilities.

If you looked at a computer in the 1970s, you might think it could never simulate a human cell. And yet, we're almost there.

Jerico3 1000-1300 Kgs

[Anonymous Coward]

"10kg payload bottlerockets eh?"

Vs the Israeli missiles and their 1000-1300 times that payload with better explosives to carry to? Bottlerockets.

Qassam punch a hole in a wall vs Israel flattening an apartment block. They're orders of magnitude different.

Re:The price difference is ridiculous!

[someones]

one is gonna be broke soon...

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

America would respond in ways that make the entire history of Israeli threat response look like acts of kindness.

That's like a guy who killed his wife saying, "at least I'm not a serial killer."

Coincidentally, Lindsey Graham refers to John . .

[wrencherd]

. McCain as "Iron Dome" when he writes about him in his diary at night.

True story.

ballistic == unguided

[AJWM]

Now, maybe the guy meant intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), or even intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) -- the stuff Israel is shooting down seems shorter range -- but ballistic and unguided are essentially equivalent. You could have a non-ballistic unguided missile (an unguided cruise missile, say) but that's worse than useless (it could loop around and come back at you). But a ballistic missile -- once past the boost phase -- is, like something thrown by a trebuchet, guided only by gravity and air drag.

And of course the further away it launches from, the more time you have to figure out what it's doing.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot declare self defense if you are the occupier. That's fuckin sick man takes a real twisted sense of logic to call an occupied people terrorists.

Re:I wonder what it cost to add guidance

[JWSmythe]

    Probably not, but I'm not an expert in their weapons.

    According to this article, the Qassam missile reaches 200 meters per second (447 mph)
http://www.andyross.net/missiles.htm

    It's under the title "Iron Dome Helpless Against Qassams" .

    I was mistaken on COCOM. It's 1000 knots (1150 mph) or 18,000 meters (59,000 feet). I had read that there was a G limitation of somewhere around 3G, which would (probably) be exceeded at launch.

    All I've found on the G limitation is that it is most likely a limitation in the equipment, not a mandated one.

    Funny thing.. I was on a long flight a while back. I woke up mid-flight, and had no clue how far we were from the destination. I've learned not to bother ask the flight crew, they never give an accurate number (distance or time). I turned on my automotive GPS, and put it against the window. It took a few minutes, but finally picked up enough satellites. It read something like 65,000 feet. If that was accurate or not (probably not), it should have forced itself into a reset loop.

    It's not like an automotive GPS is easily modifiable to use for anything but displaying numbers. I did do it with a USB GPS receiver many years ago, but I don't recall the numbers.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[fustakrakich]

Why stop at 1967? Try going back to 1882... when the immigrants first arrived... Then make an attempt to see who's the bigger "threat". We already know how America handled the "terrorist" attacks 250 years ago..

Manifest Destiny

[okmijnuhb]

If the Israelis are emulating the American Manifest Destiny, they may be doing it the hard way.
Wiping out the Muslim population from Turkey to Pakistan would more closely resemble the way it was done in the US.
The question is raised, "can a military occupation defending itself, be defined as self defense?"

SS-26 Iskander evasive ballistic missile

[SplashMyBandit]

If anyone is interested, not all theater 'ballistic' missiles follow a simple ballistic path. The SS-26 Iskander fielded by Russia is able to maneuver to defeat. The US proposed placing anti-ballistic missile defences in Poland (so that Iran can't blackmail Europe once the Iranians finally attain a nuclear weapon, since Iranian missiles now reach Europe). The Russian response had Dmitri Medvedev in November 2008 issuing orders to deploy Iskander to Kaliningrad so they could be used in a first (nuclear) strike on the US missile site. The Russians clearly believe it is evasive enough to beat anti-ballistic missile defences. It is unknown whether the US or Israel systems can cope with this technology (and would probably be classified if it could). The SS-26 would not be stopped by the Iron Dome system and probably not the Patriot. The Israeli Arrow 3 has thrust vectoring so probably could stop it, and the US THAAD system could also possibly handle a maneuvering target.

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)#Arrow_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD

Please note I'm not trying to make any political judgements here. I'm just pointing out that the SS-26 is a very capable missile that the builders have a lot of confidence in.

Re:SS-26 Iskander evasive ballistic missile

[Rich0]

Well, the bigger issue for Iron Dome is just the speed of the larger missiles. A Fajr-5 only travels around mach 3, and I'm not sure how fast it is moving at the point of interception (since it is entirely atmospheric it might slow down by then). Larger ballistic missiles are MUCH faster. The Iskander is twice as fast as a Fajr-5, and even an old V2 is 50% faster. SLBMs are 6x faster than a Fajr-5, and ICBMs are about 7x faster (7 km/s).

Sure, the longer-range missiles are above the horizon longer, but your window to hit them in is very short. I can imagine you'd need a pretty big radar to spot them at long range as well.

All modern middle east wars are the west's fault

[jonwil]

The Palestinian conflict started when the Allies took what was then Palestine and gave a large chunk to the Jews to create Israel. The Israelis then expanded and took over the rest of Palestine (and have displaced 1000s of Palestinians from their homes to create homes for Israelis) and the 2 sides have been fighting ever since.

The mess in Iran started when the democratically elected government of Iran decided to kick out the British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (one of the predecessors of what is now British Petroleum) and take over the Iranian oil reserves). The British and Americans didn't like this and proceeded to overthrow the government and replace it with a government controlled by the British. This then lead to the Iranian Revolution and the current anti-western fundamentalist islamic dictatorship we have today.

The first mess in Iraq started because the west decided to aid Saddam in his fight with Iran (except that after the war with Iran was over, he proceeded to use those same weapons against Kuwait)

The current mess in Iraq started because the west decided to invade so they could overthrow Saddam and in so doing have created another state for islamic extremists to use as a base of operations.

Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[MrSteveSD]

Some people here may not be old enough to remember all the propaganda about the Patriot anti-Missile system's effectiveness during the first Gulf War. The media/public were fed total lies. Patriot turned out not to be very effective at all. Given that Israeli officials are currently the only information source for Iron Dome's amazing 90% success rate, surely we should be highly sceptical. Instead all I have seen in the media are endless uncritical articles about how amazing Iron Dome is.

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[CodeBuster]

Given that Israeli officials are currently the only information source for Iron Dome's amazing 90% success rate, surely we should be highly sceptical.

The Israelis have their own anti-ballistic missile missile, the Arrow , which has no doubt benefited from improvements in technology and years of refinements. It wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis now field a much better system than was possible in 1991, they're very clever and innovative when it comes to high technology.

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[slashmojo]

Well rocket launches and subsequent interceptions are very public and half the worlds media were there watching it all happen right in front of them so the figures can't be too far off. In fact the IDF says today that overall the success rate was 84%

Looks quite successful here anyway.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxwCYZ6Zhew

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[jayveekay]

I agree that scepticism is appropriate for government provided information about the effectiveness of the system.

The system has not provided freedom from fear for Israeli civilians who still hear sirens and run to shelters when missiles are launched.

Are there any public statistics available from the last major missile attack from Gaza (several years ago) and the current one that compare number of missiles launched and how much damage (property and human) caused? Presumably if the system is effective then the damage done in this most recent war would be measurably less than the previous war.

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[DNS-and-BIND]

What world do you live in where the mainstream media such as Reuters and AP mindlessly reports Israeli government propaganda?

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[hcs_$reboot]

Gulf War I was 20 years ago... Some progress has been made in the meantime (just try the "AR missile" app!)

Re:Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again?

[MrSteveSD]

Due to their wild inaccuracy, a lot of these rockets land in the middle of nowhere anyway. Would you really even know if a rocket was intercepted successfully or whether the Iron Dome missile just exploded nearby to one? Are there journalists monitoring every single Iron Dome launch and somehow accurately verifying a success/fail for each missile?

I'm not saying Iron Dome isn't successful, but given that targeting missiles is very difficult and we are relying on official IDF sources, there should be much more scepticism about the system's effectiveness.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

they are not occupied people you moron. go study some history

O'Really?

It's not BMD

[sconeu]

It's C-RAM. It's a tactical defense, not a strategic one.

25% success rate

[flyingfsck]

So if the palestinians launch 100 missiles, 75 gets through. That doesn't spell successful or gamechanger in my book.

Feature, not bug

[Mathinker]

> Of the rockets fired at Israel they only managed to shoot down about half.

This is a "feature", not a bug. The targeting calculation take into consideration the landing point of the rocket.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[lister king of smeg]

you mean like the spying we have several three letter agencies plus several military intelligence services doing to everyone including them. Spying on foreign powers is almost expected.

Wrong they have a payload

[Anonymous Coward]

One destroyed my friends house, it had an explosive warhead packed around with ball bearings. The entire house was torn apart from the ball bearings, luckily for them they made it into the bomb shelter in time.

Re:Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Isra

[jayveekay]

One of Israel's greatest strengths would be its military. Hamas cannot compete militarily, it's a losing strategy. Attempting to compete on this battlefield demonstrates the absence of rational thinking.

Israel's weakness is on the morality of preventing Palestinians from forming a country of their own. A wise strategy would be for the Palestinians to fight Israel here, using public opinion (of both reasonable Israelis and the larger world). Look at Gandhi's strategy of non-violent non-cooperation that got the British Empire out of India. Look at how Mandela ended Apartheid in South Africa.

So the next upgrade to the rockets is ...

[giorgist]

A small bend on one of the wings to that it spirals when it flies ...

The next upgrade on the Iron Dome is that it calculates predictable parabolic spirals

Th next upgrade to rockets is that one of the wings gets a hinge that makes it behave chaotically

The next upgrade on the Iron Dome is that the claimed of it's effectiveness are exaggerated

The next upgrade to the rockets is an arduino to make them a little smarter

The next upgrade on the iron dome is to install many many more and faster that can shoot down by needing less reaction time

The next upgrade to the rockets is many many more which makes the workshops easier to find

Ad infinitum ...

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2008. Then Hamas came into power and resumed attacks, so Israel implemented the blockade, but they still didn't reoccupy.

Contrast this with the West Bank where after pulling out the PLA has generally avoided confrontation. No blockade, almost no travel restrictions, and a growing economy.

Repeat, the charter of Hamas is the destruction of Israel and a world wide war on Jews. They openly admit that they will not make permanent peace with Israel.

Eh, what is illegal?

[SmallFurryCreature]

If the Palestines get their way, the gaza strip becomes a sovereign nation and it is perfectly legal to close the borders between nations. THAT is the HUGE elephant in the room in this conflict. The Palestines NEED Israel more then Israel needs them and the arabs don't want them at all.

You see, the occupied territories BELONG to someone. The arab neighbours of Israel who lost it after Israel didn't get wiped out when the Arab nations ganged up together to wipe it out and instead Israel took sizable chunks of their land. If Israel withdraws, possession of those lands should naturally revert to those nations.

Right now all the occupied territories have TWO borders. One with Israel and one with an Arab nation. BOTH sides are closed. In fact the Muslim side tends to be FAR more closed. Egypt has lost many a live dealing with smuggling into Gaza. None of its neighbours WANT a Palestine state on their border or they could have created one ANY TIME THEY WANTED TO. Palestines are trouble, they are the one group who so far has achieved a lot through armed resistance. There is not a single neighbour to Israel that doesn't have its own trouble groups that could take inspiration from this. Hell, just ask Khaddafi. Did he enjoy the people taking power through armed resistance? Didn't think so. A Palestine victory will send the message that armed rebellion works, with the Arab spring a lot know this already but it is a message those in power would care not to reinforce.

An indepedent Palestine state would need to exist on its own, without relying on Israeli resources and infrastructure. The border would be 100% closed. Canadians can't just wander into the US as they please either can they? And those are somewhat friendly nations that just think the other is silly. The border between a palestine state and Israel would be closer to the border between north and south korea and that one is PERFECTLY legal. Sovereign nations do NOT have to deal with each other if they don't want to. And any attack from one may be answered with force by the other, as much force as the attacked side pleases. That is what war is all about after all. Real war, not police actions however twisted they might get.

Do you REALLY THINK that Russia, China and Iran want to send the message that armed resistance by Muslims against a more powerful opponent can work in the long run? The first already has exactly the same problem with Tjetnie, China has its muslims who want independence and Iran is supressing its own population harshly. Why do you THINK that Hamas rockets are still so primitive? Iran wants to build nukes but it can't even build a decent rocket? It ain't rocket science anymore. Hamas gets the absolute minimum support to keep them going but not enough to actually achieve anything. Why do you think the west is the biggest donator of humanitarian support? It is no secret Israel got its economy going on bad land thanks to enormous donations, Israel is the only nations were the taxpayers live abroad and WANT to pay taxes freely. But Muslims ain't poor either, were is the Golf State Marshall plane to kickstart the Palestine economy with a few billions?

No, having the conflict brewing suits most Muslims just fine, shows they are not just rolling over and giving in, that they are making a fist against the great Satans but actually finishing it, one way or another, that would risk the cozy lifestyles of the powers that be.

And if you want to resolve this, why not start on something simpler first.

Sort out the United Kingdom, it is easy, just sort out Ireland, Schotland, Wales and Brittain. They all speak the same language (HA!) so it should be a cakewalk!

Next, the basks, Belgium and oh sort out the European tax havens. Then you can start thinking about Tibet, Korea and maybe then you will be ready to sort out the middle east.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a pretty long post for the premise that you support the oppression of the Palestinians because it might upset the current world order. And yes, Wales and Scotland are being oppressed to the exact same degree as the Palestinians. Give me a fucking break.

What the Palestinians need are the rights given to every other free citizen in the world. The right to travel, the right to citizenship, the right to justice, and the right to make a living in their homeland. Currently they have none of these rights. Why? Because currently they are stateless so nobody recognizes that they have human rights. I'm sorry that their essential human rights are so disruptive to the world order, but I would like to give a big "fuck you" to you and anyone else who thinks the status quo is acceptable because the rest of the world might have to adapt if Palestinians had human rights.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[mrvan]

If the Palestines get their way, the gaza strip becomes a sovereign nation and it is perfectly legal to close the borders between nations. THAT is the HUGE elephant in the room in this conflict. The Palestines NEED Israel more then Israel needs them and the arabs don't want them at all.

If Gaza were a souvereign nation:

1. Israel would be totally free to close the land border. In fact, Israel has closed borders with Lebanon and Syria and that is fine in terms of international law

2. Israel would *not* be allowed to blockade Gaza from the sea and air, as it currently does. Blockading is an act of war and would justify an armed response from Gaza, making Israeli the aggressor if a war occurs. (in fact, blockading of the red sea leading to Eilat was was part of the casus belli for the 6 days war, so Israel certainly acknowledges that blockade is an act of war).

3. There would be no objection to Gaza importing arms from Egypt and Iran and training a real military.

At the moment, (1) is already a reality, and Israel really does not want (2) and (3). In fact, preventing (re)arming of Hamas was a stated objective of the 2009 Gaza War. Although economically Gaza would profit much more from integration with Israel, at the moment they're getting the worst of both worlds: they are blockaded from outside and closed off from Israel. So, Gaza (the region/potential country/people) absolutely has nothing to gain from the status quo.

(Of course, whether current Hamas leadership prefers the status quo to a more normalized situation where they can't abuse the conflict with Israel to stay in power is a totally different question...)

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[mrvan]

Just to increase the pedantry: Great Britain refers to the main island (England+Wales+Scotland), and is Great as compared to French Brittany (Bretagne). That is why the UK is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So, Great Britain is a smaller territory than the UK, and Ireland has never been part of Great Britain.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[ericloewe]

The moment they decide to get rid of Hamas, you can bet everyone will suddenly like them a bit more.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[Bing Tsher E]

Look at everything said in the GP comment, not just the part you pick to rail about.

There are two closed borders. Why does the blockade of the border on the Arab side get a pass and the one on the otherside not?

The Arab states USE the Palestinians as a trapped proxy force against Israel in a cynical and vile fashion. And 'progressive' types around the world ignore this or even cheer them on. How disgusting and hypocritical.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[realityimpaired]

Hamas are the only ones providing schools and hospitals right now, because there's an Israeli blockade and the only way to get those supplies into the area are through the same smuggling tunnels that bring in weapons....

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[jrumney]

The moment they decide to get rid of Hamas, you can bet everyone will suddenly like them a bit more.

The reason Hamas are in charge is that Israel refused to deal with Arafat and left a power vacuum for Hamas to fill. What makes you think that doing the same to Hamas is going to improve the situation?

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[realityimpaired]

hunh. I thought my point was obvious, but let's try this again:

If Israel is serious about undermining Hamas, and stopping the violence, perhaps Israel should be the ones providing hospitals and schools, rather than participating in a blockade to prevent said hospitals and schools.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[hazah]

That existed, and evaporated as the bombing continued. The hand that fed them was bitten several times now. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[ericloewe]

How, exactly, do you suggest that be done? Allow the sick and injured, as well as students access to healthcare or education on the other side of the border? I think they've even tried that once or twice.

I'm not saying they deserve what is happening (nobody does), but they're not really doing much against it. If they're serious about peace, they would really make a difference by

a) getting rid of Hamas or allowing Israel to do so,

b) getting rid of the "Israel is the aggressor" mentality, since it was the Arabs who started the whole business right after Israel was founded.

The moment you attack someone with the intention of wiping that someone out, it's only fair that that someone keeps whatever they conquer from your territory.

Hell, they can keep hating Israel all they want, they won't accomplish anything beyond more casualties on both sides (probably tending towards the Arab side). It's a pity most regimes in that area put little value on average Joe's life.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[msi]

Just to up the pedantry once more the island or Ireland is however geographically part of the British Isles as is the Isle of Man. Wikipedia has a Venn diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venn_of_UK.png

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[GLMDesigns]

So, does the land the palestinians live on belong to Jordan (it did before 1967). Or did the palestinians defeat jordan in a civil war and become it's own country. (one could say that). The Palestinians have Gaza all to themselves, that's a start. They can start a government, schools, an economy all w/o Israel.

Re:Eh, what is illegal?

[GLMDesigns]

Israel and Palestinians should ignore each other and live their own lives. No bombs. No trade (unless mutually agreed upon).. No nothing.

Re:Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Isra

[Mashiki]

even the UN school they bombed the last time.

Yeah, and Israel provided a video. You might remember those "secondary explosions" showing that Hamas had been using it for an ammo dump. You know, in violation of international law, which various people love to scream about in regards to Israel but never about the Palestinians.

Iron Dome works well for some threats

[iceco2]

If we study our history we will learn that Hamas started using rockets as it's main weapon only after the security fence made suicide bombings less practical.
When you close off one option for the enemy he will inevitably find a new one, preferably a less effective one
but this is not to say you shouldn't close off his options.
We also need to remember that the modern warfare is more about morale then number of casualties, The Hamas wants as many Israelis as possible to live in fear, killing them is just an added bonus. having an effective defense makes the civilians under attack feel less defenseless.

Re:So when do the innocent ....

[CodeBuster]

Palestinians get there dome or do they too need a rock to go in it?

They get it when they finally put their violent past behind them and start valuing a peaceful future. By way of comparison, Israel is an advanced and modern nation with a well trained and equipped military, a modern economy and a culture that values education and equal opportunities for women. The Palestinians could learn a lot from them, but instead they seek continual conflict with a vastly superior enemy while at the same time brutalizing their women and rejecting the western ideas and freedoms that have led millions out of poverty in every part of the world. Until the Hamas government acknowledges the right of Israel to exist, they cannot expect to move beyond these petty escalations and ineffective attacks on Israel and the international isolation that such practices bring.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[overbaud]

Or attacked the USA knowingly http://www.businessinsider.com/45-years-ago-this-week-israel-attacked-a-us-navy-ship-and-killed-dozens-of-sailors--survivors-want-to-know-why-2012-6

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[AmiMoJo]

You are comparing Israel to the worst example of how to deal with this sort of thing. A better comparison might be the UK and the IRA. Ultimately we sat down and negotiated peace which has lasted and which works for both sides.

Israel's problem is that it continues to antagonize. Yes, Hamas is in the wrong as well, but Israel's actions are making a two state solution impossible. The current borders are not really viable for the Palestinians, for example.

Re:So if we resurrect Neanderthals...

[girlinatrainingbra]

Re: So if we resurrect Neanderthals, would they have the right to force Sapiens out of Europe?
.
Yes, I guess they would?...? I always assumed that your idea was going to be the culmination in the ending episodes of the GEICO Cavemen TV comedy series.
.
And of course, the Native Americans can leverage their bingo and casino money to finally push all of the settlers and their descendants back into "ye Olde World" (correctly as þe Olde World, but /.'s lack of ability to understand and encode and allow UTF and use the Thorn character is frustrating). And in that, they have a stronger and unambiguous point, don't they?

Yes really

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are talking total war, the parent is talking incidents, like the recent incident of the north firing a few grenades killing a few people. Not total war but an incident that IF it could have been neutralized, would have reduced the need to retaliation and the risk of escalation.

For the same see Syria/Turkey. A mortar goes wrong and Turkey has to answer with fire. If it could have been destroyed in flight, there would have been no incident.

This is about the prevention of war not about dealing with a full assault.

HAHA!

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yeah, Northern Ireland is a bright light to the world, just ignore the segregation and constant troubles. Have the fences come down? No? Are there still incidents of people attacking each other for being the wrong faith?

Northern Ireland is as much a beacon for resolving conflict as the former Yugoslavian countries. Sure, it is peaceful, because everyone is separated.

Re:The price difference is ridiculous!

[LostMonk]

So continuing with your logic... It's ridiculous to finance a 800$ bulletproof vest to stop a 20c bullet (that's a much higher price difference). You judge price-efficiency by how much damage the attack can cause if you fail to stop it. NOT by how much money it costs the enemy.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What part of "It's better to be safe than sorry" don't you understand?

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

But they were also given citizenship and rights.

You mean that the Native Americans had to wait for Europeans to arrive and give them rights? They must have been suffering terribly for those thousands of years they had to live without any rights. If only they had been able to form a society of their own, which, as you imply, clearly weren't...

Well, they already kill their own

[SmallFurryCreature]

One of the Israeli dead is a Bedouin, nomadic Muslims. But I suppose the wrong kind of Muslims (Historically there has been no conflict with Bedouin in Israel as for the Bedouin it just meant a different government was short changing them, forget Palestines, the racism against Bedouins is undeserved as they have served in Israels army with distinction yet get the flack for the actions of others).

The trick is that Israel is like the west, there might be a lot of Muslims who think western society is foul but life for the average Muslim is infinitely better under Jews/Christians then it is under Muslims. We hear a lot about the Palestinians who really are just the Muslims who fled from Israel when they knew the Arab armies were about to attack, hoping to come back when Israel had been destroyed. The faith of the Muslims who stayed and threw in their lot with the rest of Israel, that one is seldom heared. But it is a sizable group.

Many a nazi sympathizer fled from the fighting they knew was coming to Germany hoping to get back and get everything back once the battle had been won. They were not shown any mercy. I wonder why people expect Israel to treat the Palestines ANY different. Look into the origin of the refuge camps, these people weren't fleeing from violence inflicted onto them, but from violence they hoped would be inflicted onto others.

It changes a lot in my eyes.

Re:Well, they already kill their own

[at_slashdot]

"Look into the origin of the refuge camps, these people weren't fleeing from violence inflicted onto them, but from violence they hoped would be inflicted onto others." -- wow, doesn't your brain hurt from such rationalizations?

Except for one small detail

[SmallFurryCreature]

The USSR never developed the means for a large scale invasion. In fact, the only country with the means to land a large army on another continent is... the USA!

D-Day showed what it takes to land an army on an enemies shore and the Channel is a cakewalk compared to the ocean between the USSR and the USA.

The USSR did develop the means to airdrop a large force but not nearly large enough to even remotely threaten the USA on its own ground.

So... what enemy?

But you do need shield if YOU plan to attack first and want to stop people from firing back at you.

Now lets see, what country has done a lot of invasions in recent history?

Re:Except for one small detail

[blade8086]

In soviet russia, invasion of USA goes something like this:

6) Success!!! Celebrate with Vodka from Soviet Idaho Potatoes.
5) Gradually take possession of canada, california and then capture east coast for surrender
4) Shore up base in reclaimed soviet alaska. Pay off inuits with lots of beluga caviar, champagne and sexy blonde russian chicks if needed.
3) Transfer troops to alaska via beiring straight and via artcic ocean
2) Nuke major control centers in the lower 48 and block actions from hawaii via navy ships in pacific
1) Secretly mass large amounts of troops in siberia and northern coast of USSR

oh dear...

[Tom]

Of course it only works for Israel. Iron Dome is a specific solution for a specific problem. You can't take it and apply it to other problems anymore than you can use a Google route from New York to Detroit as a solution for your drive from Paris to Rome.

If you have a sufficiently similar problem, you can check which parts of the solution might apply to you. But everyone who thinks that all rockets are the same should try to land a man on the moon using fireworks rockets.

It's a semantical trap. We call non-identical things by the same name due to some similarity. What we call rockets works on the same basic principle, which is why we call it the same name. But if you know anything about rockets at all, you know that there are vast differences - more like between a model car and a real car than between two different brand cars.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[jabuzz]

You are ignoring the fact that when the IRA finally decided to sit down and talk they had been severely curtailed in there ability to carry out operations by the British and Irish governments.

The final hammer blow was actually 9/11, because the war on terrorism meant that the USA had to finally stop harbouring the bastards, stop any fundraising on behalf of the IRA and stop refusing to extradite them because they where "political refugees" rather than terrorists.

I believe that French where also pretty happy in relation to some of their terrorists which the USA had been shielding as well.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Alex Belits]

Before you judge Israel, think for a second about how we would respond to thousands of them.

Being world-class cowards and opportunists, you would join them.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[BlueStrat]

You are comparing Israel to the worst example of how to deal with this sort of thing. A better comparison might be the UK and the IRA. Ultimately we sat down and negotiated peace which has lasted and which works for both sides.

Israel's problem is that Hamas and most of the rest of the Arab nations do not want peace despite any talk to the contrary, they want all Jews dead and Israel wiped off the face of the Earth (the US next as the "Big Satan"), and they will lie, cheat, and use every trick including intentionally causing the death of Palestinians and others including other Muslims to fulfill those goals, while laughing at stupid, gullible Western infidels helping to cut their own throats.

FTFY

Strat

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[TFAFalcon]

Ok,ok.
Some of their rights were returned to them after they'd been conquered and mostly wiped out.
Better?

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[blade8086]

No, actually, it's not like that at all its, like, 'hyperbole'

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[blade8086]

Why stop at 1882? Try going back to 634 AD... when the muslim conquest first started... Then make an attempt to see who's the bigger "threat".

Why stop at 634? Try going back to 67 AD... when the jewish uprising was first suppressed... Then make an attempt to see who's the bigger "threat".

etc etc etc babylonians, assyrians, egyptians, etc.

And it's not like 'all the jews completely left israel and suddenly the 1st one returned in 1882'.

I don't agree with many israeli policies - but you don't get to arbitrarily pick demarcation points in time as the basis of truth because it frames your argument in a positive light. The history as it relates to this issue goes back to the very beginnings of recorded history, and you cant discount any of it.

the only way forward is for both sides to move forward, together, in some form or fashion.

Re:Israel shouldn't exist.

[blade8086]

> When the intellectuals finally take over the world, and wipe out the fucktards

So - in this case, you agree with OP? Because I'm pretty confused about what kind of social darwinist argument you're making here.

The ICBMs are easier to hit

[davecb]

Shooting down missiles with a missile is easiest when it's heading toward you in a straight line, for a considerable time and for a great distance, as you see with an ICBM. Shooting down something that is following a fairly short arc, hasn't been in the air long and is already close ... is way harder.

I was surprised at how well patriot did in the previous war, and rather impressed at iron dome hitting anything at all.

--dave

Re:The ICBMs are easier to hit

[davecb]

Good point! I should have said "old model ICBMS" (:-))

Iron Dome won't work past the Ninth Inning

[TheRealHocusLocus]

References to Reagan era boondoggles aside, in America we have already perfected the technology for intercepting and possibly destroying missiles that are launched and follow an established inbound trajectory, and do not deploy active electronic countermeasures en route.

It is known as 'baseball'.

Never mind all this war ballyhoo... what I'd really LOVE to see is baseball played with balls that have retro rockets, on-board guidance systems, chaff ejecting radar countermeasures and split into MIRV type multiple reentry vehicles. The batter and catcher would also be drawn into this arms race (perhaps by the literal acquisition of additional arms) by using bats with unfolding surfaces to target each fragmented baseball, mitts that sprout fractal bifurcations to capture each reentry vehicle.

Since the mass of the launched baseball is known, its fragmentation into little pieces and the countermeasures that would evolve could, through nanotechnology, branch down into fractal and quantum infinity.

But at the quantum level the baseball-bits would exhibit both wave and particle behavior. Catchers must employ slit apertures and collectors, could improve their success with magnetic field focusing and plasma filled coils. The referee of the future would call the plays based on the strength of photon emission tallied against the energy-mass ratio of the original baseball to discern its composition and fate.

Whoops, I forget we have already nailed this one too. It is known as 'Astronomy'.

Sorry about the distraction.
Let's go back to talking about Israel.

Iron Dome didn't really work this time either...

[bwalzer]

People in Israel still had to go to the shelters on a regular basis. Some of the rockets got through. The system would of been successful if everyone could of just sat and watched the war on TV.

The Palestinians don't need to actually hurt or kill anyone with their rockets. To achieve a positive political end all they need to do is create a situation where people in Israel can never be completely safe. This serves as an argument against the current policy where the Palestinians are being forced into a small area and then walled in. The rockets mean that even if the policy is taken to it's logical conclusion it will never bring total security.

Disproportionate response is great

[Quila]

I'm a big fan of disproportionate response. If you slap me, I'll fuck you up so bad you'll apologize if you slap me again in your dreams.

That way, I never get slapped again. And that's kind of the point of a response. Right now Israel roughs up Hamas a bit, they spend a couple years rearming, then and it starts all over again.

If they didn't have uncle Sam condoning their every move

If they weren't in between several foreign powers hell-bent on their destruction, suffering constant attacks against their country, usually deliberately aimed at their civilian populations. That kind of thing engenders some sympathy. Israel has survived, what, three attempts to wipe it off the map? The first one was against the combined might of all the surrounding Arab countries.

Re:Disproportionate response is great

[Quila]

It is perfectly legal to shoot someone who threatens you with a knife.

occupied?

[schlachter]

Need to clarify...

Gaza is not an Occupied Territory. Israel did occupy it after capturing it from Egypt in 1967 when Egypt lost it's war against Israel, however, Israel forcibly removed (using it's own military) all Jews living in Gaza in 2005 and unoccupied the land. Doing so almost led to civil war within Israel, but they succeeded in doing it with the hopes that if the occupation went away, there would be peace.

Following this withdrawal in 2005 the borders were open and there was no naval blockade. All of that stuff came much later after years of Gaza rocket attacks and the kidnapping of Shalit.

The main problem with Hamas...if you listen to them speak...is that they talk about Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and all of Israel as being occupied. They view Gaza as the staging ground for the plans for the total destruction of the Jews/Israel.

Hamas youtube video evidence
http://youtu.be/qMkQGjQ8dWI

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[schlachter]

Israel pulled out in 2005.

When the did this they left the borders completely open and there was no blockade. Hamas started a bloody civil war in Gaza in 2007 and took power from the elected government. That's when the terrorist attacks really started and the borders were subsequently closer. Gaza was never reoccupied.

The 2005 withdrawal wasn't just a military withdrawal either. Israel forcibly removed ALL Jews living in Gaza using the IDF. Some of these Jewish cities had existed in Gaza for hundreds of years.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[alexo]

Israel's problem is that it continues to antagonize. Yes, Hamas is in the wrong as well, but Israel's actions are making a two state solution impossible. The current borders are not really viable for the Palestinians, for example.

From Wikipedia:
It has been the position of Israel that the most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip must eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State. However, the precise borders of this state are in question. At Camp David, for example, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian State composed of 92% of the West Bank, Arab neighborhood of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip and dismantling of most settlements. Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without providing a counter-offer. A subsequent settlement proposed by President Clinton offered Palestinian sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank but was similarly rejected.

Also see article 13 of the Hamas Covenant.

Metal Esticles

[tepples]

Where's the edit button when you need it?

It's called "preview".

The primary missile it's used to intercept are pretty primitive. Think along the same lines as the kind most readers here would have built out of cardboard from an Estes kit.

The primary missile it is made to intercept is made of metal.

So is it still pretty much a metal cased version of the products seen here?

Why can't Gaza become a Singapore?

[swb]

I would think at some point that someone in whatever amounts to leadership of Gaza would wake up and realize that they are in possession of a 150 square miles of land on the Mediterranean, with only open ocean separating them from Europe.

To me this sounds like a great economic opportunity.

Step 1 -- announce you still disagree with the Israeli government on a broad array of issues involving the Palestinian people, but that you are renouncing all violent means and accept Israel's right to exist.

Step 2 -- announce your desire to improve the lives of Palestinians by developing the economy of Gaza. Given step 1 being done sincerely (and with the acceptance of some kind of third party oversight, at least initially), I would expect a lot of money to roll in.

Step 3 -- Profit. By and large the Palestinian people are educated people and could offer a kind of Singapore/Hong Kong kind of economic opportunity -- no tariffs, low cost labor, close access to European markets & global shipping, etc.

Sure, the Israelis might make it difficult at first but if you have an open and sincere renunciation of violence and a willingness to accept Israel's right to exist, the Israelis will have a hard time maintaining a blockade, etc, especially if some third party agrees to supervise imports/exports to prevent weapons from being imported/exported.

Re:Why can't Gaza become a Singapore?

[Johann Lau]

Someone please make a kickstarter page or something, this is an awesome idea.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland

[tepples]

Some people refer to 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' as the UK, are they wrong too?

Apparently so, according to the U.S. Postal Service. When printing an address label for a British destination, Endicia DAZzle shipping software spells it "GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND".

Anti-Jewish

[tepples]

Or perhaps you don't realize that even the term 'jew' is used in the perjorative, and so using 'anti-jew' would itself be offensive?

Google's explanation of the inclusion of "Jew Watch" in its search results claims that "Jewish" is less likely to be perceived as pejorative than "Jew". So what's wrong with "anti-Jewish" again?

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[BlueStrat]

Hamas and most of the rest of the Arab nations do not want peace despite any talk to the contrary, they want all Jews dead and Israel wiped off the face of the Earth

Who could blame them?

Anyone that knows and understands a little history and isn't totally biased against Jews and Israel from the start?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3dLc8V21c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY

And finally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zxtck39wcc

Educate yourself, young padawan.

Strat

The West Wing...

[drainbramage]

I hope you're sitting down when you read this: "The West Wing" is a TV show.
It's not real, unless you mean real slanted.

Re:So when do the innocent ....

[CodeBuster]

They should accept what's being offered to them instead of continually throwing it back into the faces of their benefactors. Continued conflict and violence is useless because it has no realistic chance of achieving their stated objective, the dissolution of the Israeli state. It can bring only further suffering to the Palestinian people. All wars must eventually end and here in the modern world we end them with diplomacy and sanctions for transgressions. Now everyone will see who keeps the ceasefire and who violates it. If the Palestinians wish to demonstrate to the world their maturity and readiness for statehood, this is their chance. If the ceasefire holds, additional steps can be taken along the path to peace, statehood and normalized relations. Personally, I don't believe that Hamas is capable of leading the Palestinians towards that brighter future, but we shall see.

Re:You're ignoring facts.

[Johann Lau]

You're either fucking stupid or fucking evil; pick one.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340090-suicide-is-epidemic-for-american-indian-youth-what-more-can-be-done

A youth-suicide epidemic is sweeping Indian country, with Native American teens and young adults killing themselves at more than triple the rate of other young Americans, according to federal government figures.

In pockets of the United States, suicide among Native American youth is 9 to 19 times as frequent as among other youths, and rising. From Arizona to Alaska, tribes are declaring states of emergency and setting up crisis-intervention teams.

âoeIt feels like wartime,â said Diane Garreau, a child-welfare official on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation, in South Dakota. âoeIâ(TM)ll see one of our youngsters one day, then find out a couple of days later sheâ(TM)s gone. Our children are self-destructing.â

http://www.google.com/search?q=suicide+rates+native+indians

Re:Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Isra

[Any Web Loco]

Source? I've heard this before and *never* seen it substantiated. An aside: the fact you got modded so highly without backing your assertion up is kinda worrying...

Bull

[Anonymous Coward]

The palestinians fire rockets at civilians (a war crime) and celebrate when any civilians are killed. When Israel shoots back at them, the barbarians and their friends scream "We're the victims!". The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to settle the fight peacefully and have a nation of their own (something they have NEVER had) but they always refuse because they always require an end to the existence of a Jewish nation called "Israel". Fuck them. Their ancestors snuck-in from neigboring lands and squatted on it for generations without ever creating a nation. The Brits came along and tried to sort things out... they carved-up the region they called "Palestine", creating Jordan in the process. If Israel is illegitimate, then so are all the other nations created by westerners trying to teach barbarians to be civilized (like modern-day Iraq, modern-day Turkey, Saudi Arabia, modern-day Iran, etc). Yeah, modern-Israel's creation displaced a bunch of people and squeezed them into less land than they thought they should have, but the Jews did not get all of their ancient lands back either and the palestinians magnified their plight much much worse by repeatedly going to war against Israel... this not only kept reducing the land they still had as they kept losing the fights, but it also legitimized the Israeli position that they need defensible borders and a relatively unarmed eventual palestinian neighbor. Note: even after all the fighting, Israel still officially supports the creation of a palestinian state... but the palestinians still refuse to concede the existence of a Jewish state... so Fuck 'em.

The first shots ALWAYS come from Hezbollah, or Hamas and the targets are almost always Israeli civilians. Even the start of the struggle was an attempt to wipe out the Jews.

The "real villains" are being addressed... everytime some evil Hezbollah or Hamas rat bastard who has targeted civilians with rockets he launches from sites hidden behind his own civilians and/or religious buildings (another war crime) is blown to bits in his car by a smart guy flying a drone.