Why Iron Dome Might Only Work For Israel

What's a ballistic missile? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 13:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

dom

Re:What's a ballistic missile? by JWSmythe · 2012-11-21 14:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:What's a ballistic missile? by realityimpaired · 2012-11-21 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 14:41 · Score: 5, Informative

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? by Sir_Sri · 2012-11-21 15:55 · Score: 3, Informative

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 16:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by autocannon · 2012-11-21 16:08 · Score: 3, Funny

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? by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-21 16:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:What's a ballistic missile? by CaptBubba · 2012-11-21 16:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by interkin3tic · 2012-11-21 17:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 17:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by poetmatt · 2012-11-21 18:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 19:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

> 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? by stjobe · 2012-11-21 21:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Re:What's a ballistic missile? by Maudib · 2012-11-21 22:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by mwvdlee · 2012-11-21 22:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:What's a ballistic missile? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 23:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

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? by BitZtream · 2012-11-22 00:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:What's a ballistic missile? by JWSmythe · 2012-11-22 02:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

american financed? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 13:46 · Score: 4, Informative

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

one other place by jefp · 2012-11-21 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:one other place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by lucm · 2012-11-21 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:one other place by Hentes · 2012-11-21 14:35 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by Baloroth · 2012-11-21 14:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton

Somebody always does this by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-21 13:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

"some"? by PopeRatzo · 2012-11-21 13:51 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:"some"? by Nyder · 2012-11-21 14:01 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Be seeing you...

Iron dome has worked for it's first deployment by Lehk228 · 2012-11-21 13:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Israel? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 14:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Grayhand · 2012-11-21 14:15 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

I used to have a yard that extended to the sea. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 14:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:Misleading summary by JWSmythe · 2012-11-21 14:38 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

Re:You're ignoring facts. by multicoregeneral · 2012-11-21 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
This signature intentionally left blank.

Coincidentally, Lindsey Graham refers to John . . by wrencherd · 2012-11-21 15:29 · Score: 3, Funny

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

True story.

Re:You're ignoring facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 15:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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:That word: ballistic by LWATCDR · 2012-11-21 15:44 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Patriot Missile Propaganda All Over Again? by MrSteveSD · 2012-11-21 17:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Feature, not bug by Mathinker · 2012-11-21 17:50 · Score: 3, Informative

> 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:Misleading summary by fnj · 2012-11-21 18:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:You're ignoring facts. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 19:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-11-21 19:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Eh, what is illegal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 20:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? by mrvan · 2012-11-21 21:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by Bing+Tsher+E · 2012-11-22 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:Great, can Gaza get one to protect it from Isra by Mashiki · 2012-11-21 19:26 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:You're ignoring facts. by AmiMoJo · 2012-11-21 20:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

HAHA! by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-11-21 21:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:You're ignoring facts. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-11-21 22:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:You're ignoring facts. by jabuzz · 2012-11-21 23:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Why Iron Dome Might Only Work For Israel

50 of 377 comments (clear)