Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August

Manic Moran · 03-08-2014 12:27PM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

That's a very good point because there was an article posted that suggested the effectiveness of the Iron Dome system was essentially a myth (5% success) and so one can't help wondering why there are not more civilian casualties or even structural damage.

Structural damage doesn't kill anyone, so it doesn't get much news. The Israelis have put a lot of effort into building shelters etc. Combine with the active defense, and Israeli citizens are quite well protected. Whatever the effectiveness of any one method or weapon, it seems one cannot deny that the overall effectiveness of their system of systems is very good, which is the bottom line.

03-08-2014 12:28PM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well here's the article for you to read

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/07/29/the-contrails-have-it-iron-dome-is-a-dud/

The 90% figure is reported in the article but the analysis suggests this is not borne up by the facts. Can you provide an article that counteracts these claims? I don't think it's wise to accept things at face value just because it's stated by a government official.

The evidence in that article to suggest a 5% success rate is based on so called MIT expert looking at a few photographs from 2012 looking at the chemtrails from the interceptor and concluding what angle they intercept the rocket at. Laughable.

I wonder who do you think can give the real stats besides the Israeli govt?

wes · 03-08-2014 12:34PM

cisk wrote: »

I wonder who do you think can give the real stats besides the Israeli govt?

The US military probably could.

It should be pointed out that Hamas rocket fire, was never particularly lethal, even before the Iron Dome, they rarely hit anything.

Tuisceanch · 03-08-2014 12:34PM

cisk wrote: »

The evidence in that article to suggest a 5% success rate is based on so called MIT expert looking at a few photographs from 2012 looking at the chemtrails from the interceptor and concluding what angle they intercept the rocket at. Laughable.

I wonder who do you think can give the real stats besides the Israeli govt?

Well you said "Very wrong, it's actually highly effective ~90%." so in effect you do not know the truth of that remark and so have chosen to accept an assertion without examining the facts for yourself? Or have you read up on the subject and if so could you provide a link to such resources?Thanks.

Tuisceanch · 03-08-2014 12:36PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Structural damage doesn't kill anyone, so it doesn't get much news. The Israelis have put a lot of effort into building shelters etc. Combine with the active defense, and Israeli citizens are quite well protected. Whatever the effectiveness of any one method or weapon, it seems one cannot deny that the overall effectiveness of their system of systems is very good, which is the bottom line.

Yes that is a very sensible analysis.

Dan_Solo · 03-08-2014 12:42PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Structural damage doesn't kill anyone, so it doesn't get much news. The Israelis have put a lot of effort into building shelters etc. Combine with the active defense, and Israeli citizens are quite well protected. Whatever the effectiveness of any one method or weapon, it seems one cannot deny that the overall effectiveness of their system of systems is very good, which is the bottom line.

The success appears to be more to do with the siege of Gaza to precede annexation a la West Bank rather than Iron Dome. If they don't have food or medicine they probably aren't rearming all that well either. Otherwise we're dependent on figures from the "we don't target civilians" people.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 12:43PM

cisk wrote: »

Very wrong, it's actually highly effective ~90%. It does however analyse the incoming rocket and if it's deemed not to hit a densely populated area it will not intercept it letting it land in what they call an "open area". But that does not necessarily mean unpopulated, there are pockets of smaller villages in these areas towards the south.

I see. That would explain about 70% getting through.

Whether pro-Israeli or not their system of defence is clearly working.

Dan_Solo · 03-08-2014 12:45PM

It's interesting though that the IDF and Israeli propaganda people give an almost complete efficiency for Iron Dome but indpendent studies and Israel's own police force among others say it's a bit **** really.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 12:48PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's interesting though that the IDF and Israeli propaganda people give an almost complete efficiency for Iron Dome but indpendent studies and Israel's own police force among others say it's a bit **** really.

No they don't. They say it intercepts 27% of all rockets but ignores many not heading anywhere.

I don't buy that every building in israel is reinforced concrete. How many fatalities have there been?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1203882/israels-mobile-missile-defence-system-what-is-the-iron-dome/

03-08-2014 12:50PM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well you said "Very wrong, it's actually highly effective ~90%." so in effect you do not know the truth of that remark and so have chosen to accept an assertion without examining the facts for yourself? Or have you read up on the subject and if so could you provide a link to such resources?Thanks.

Looking at the funding, technology and development behind it and multiple demonstrations of interceptions I don't have a problem believing the figures. If you would rather believe it a grand ploy by Israel and that they are either not being targeted by Hamas rockets or they are just landing and magically causing no damage or deaths that's fine.

But as far as I can see it's been a game changer for the Israeli population.

Dan_Solo · 03-08-2014 12:52PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No they don't. They say it intercepts 27% of all rockets but ignores many not heading anywhere.

I don't buy that every building in israel is reinforced concrete. How many fatalities have there been?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1203882/israels-mobile-missile-defence-system-what-is-the-iron-dome/

The civilian casualty rate per rocket appears identical to when before Iron Dome arrived.
So what's the point of it?

wes · 03-08-2014 12:53PM

cisk wrote: »

If you would rather believe it a grand ploy by Israel and that they are either not being trageded by Hamas rockets or they are just landing and magically causing no damage or deaths that's fine.

Again even before the Iron Dome, Hamas rockets caused very little damage. I have no doubt that the Iron Dome is certainly helping reduce things, but the fact remains that Hamas rockets have been largely ineffectual regardless of the Iron Dome.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 12:54PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The civilian casualty rate per rocket appears identical to when before Iron Dome arrived.
So what's the point of it?

This is an odd statement. As far as I can see there has been one death.

You don't have to be pro- Israeli to think this is working. And why would they rush emergency funding through congress for something not working.

Dan_Solo · 03-08-2014 12:57PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

This is an odd statement. As far as I can see there has been one death.

You don't have to be pro- Israeli to think this is working. And why would they rush emergency funding through congress for something not working.

One death from an incredibly reduced number of rockets fired. They never did much damage in he first place.

wes · 03-08-2014 12:57PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

You don't have to be pro- Israeli to think this is working. And why would they rush emergency funding through congress for something not working.

To be seen to be pro-Israel, they also resupplied offensive weapons, despite the fact that the IDF are largely killing civilians, and the despite the facts that such an action is a propaganda gift to various groups targeting Americans.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:02PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

One death from an incredibly reduced number of rockets fired. They never did much damage in he first place.

The claimed number of rockets is about 3000.

And they are clearly targeting the ones which would have caused damage ( as each interceptor costs $100k). I haven't even seen much pictures of damage in israel. Unlike previous conflicts.

Again you don't have to be supportive of israel in Gaza to see this as a success. I have no idea why people wouldn't think it would work, or why they think israel is spending so much American money on it.

If anything the success of the iron dome should argue against it's clearly disproportionate response.

JamboMac · 03-08-2014 01:02PM

It's funny how some people can't see Israel/Zionist as nazi's they have created things to slow down the reproduction of non-Jews within the state of Israel.

Arian race anybody.

It's not just about what they do in gaza but they non-Jewish Israelis as sub human.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/abunimahs-justice-palestine.html

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:03PM

wes wrote: »

To be seen to be pro-Israel, they also resupplied offensive weapons, despite the fact that the IDF are largely killing civilians, and the despite the facts that such an action is a propaganda gift to various groups targeting Americans.

Why would israel not just ask for offensive weapons of the iron dome is a dud?

eeepaulo · 03-08-2014 01:04PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why would israel not just ask for offensive weapons of the iron dome is a dud?

What makes you think anything america say is the truth?

Tuisceanch · 03-08-2014 01:09PM

cisk wrote: »

Looking at the funding, technology and development behind it and multiple demonstrations of interceptions I don't have a problem believing the figures. If you would rather believe it a grand ploy by Israel and that they are either not being targeted by Hamas rockets or they are just landing and magically causing no damage or deaths that's fine.

But as far as I can see it's been a game changer for the Israeli population.

I never many any such assertions. I did, however, ask you why you were 100% certain of your claim of 90% efficiency and if you could provide some resources that you had based that assertion on. So far you have just casually dismissed the assertions make in the article I posted but didn't provide any of your own analysis to support that dismissal or what qualifies you to be an expert on the matter. Now, it seems, that what you meant to say initially, was that you believe the figure because it seems logical to you and that now you would rather discuss what you believe are my motivations for posting such an article. The answer is to provide a basis for a more in depth analysis of this issue. I, at no point questioned your motivations for your stance but rather what underpinned them and if you had access to some resources that might provide more information on the subject.If you don't have any, then that's fine and we don't need to discuss any further.Maybe somebody else will be able to.

wes · 03-08-2014 01:13PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why would israel not just ask for offensive weapons of the iron dome is a dud?

I never said that the Iron Dome was a dud, just that Hamas rocket fire even before it was largely ineffectual. So we can't really know how effective it is on that basis.

Dan_Solo · 03-08-2014 01:15PM

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/
This convinces me far more than well established liars TBH saying "90%, just believe us".

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:19PM

wes wrote: »

I never said that the Iron Dome was a dud, just that Hamas rocket fire even before it was largely ineffectual. So we can't really know how effective it is on that basis.

Sure we can. There were larger number of deaths before. If Fox News were to propagandise the attacks on israel it would be showing devastation within israel. It isn't.

Tuisceanch · 03-08-2014 01:20PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/528991/an-explanation-of-the-evidence-of-weaknesses-in-the-iron-dome-defense-system/
This convinces me far more than well established liars TBH saying "90%, just believe us".

Well thanks for posting some more information which I hope will provide me with further insights into this interesting technology. I hope for the sake of balance and the perception that MIT might be a biased organisation that some resources might be provided by those asserting the near perfect efficiency of the system.

Nodin · 03-08-2014 01:21PM

Hitchens wrote: »

..............

he makes a very fair point indeed

Why did you post a false quote earlier?

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:21PM

eeepaulo wrote: »

What makes you think anything america say is the truth?

The senate voted on extra money specifically for the iron dome. This wasn't a back channel.

Nodin · 03-08-2014 01:26PM

"An Israeli air strike has killed at least 10 people and wounded about 30 others in a UN-run school in the southern Gaza Strip, witnesses and medics said, as dozens died in renewed Israeli shelling of the enclave.
The Israeli military said it was looking into reports of the attack, the second to hit a UN school in less than a week.
A missile launched by an aircraft struck the entrance to the school in Rafah, the witnesses and medics said."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/israel-air-strike-un-school-gaza-rafah

And they're off again.

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:28PM

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well thanks for posting some more information which I hope will provide me with further insights into this interesting technology. I hope for the sake of balance and the perception that MIT might be a biased organisation that some resources might be provided by those asserting the near perfect efficiency of the system.

It was interesting. However you have to assume he is correct in suggesting that you need to hit the incoming warhead head on. It's also fairly dubious that the warhead would continue the same trajectory if only it's rear pipe in blown off. Which he claimed earlier.

Manic Moran · 03-08-2014 01:32PM

The difficulties inherent in engaging crossing targets have been well known for some time. The 1991 Patriot Missile example he cites in that article is probably the practical baseline for all intercept systems designers, and the difficulties particularly in engaging crossing targets have been also well known for many years.

Although the logic of what the man is saying is correct, I think his analysis fails on the basis of two related assumptions. Firstly, that the issues with fusing and warhead spread have not been solved by the iron dome designers, and that the warhead thus must perform as he expects. And, secondly, that any analysis is mathematically based on a single attempt at interception. From watching videos of launches, it appears that if the system feels the need to, it will fire multiple missiles at a single target, without waiting to see if the first one hits or not.

And, yes, the warning system and bunkers are, indeed, a significant reason for the lack of casualties. I honestly don't know where my nearest shelter is. I have no idea if the US has gas masks for everyone. Israel takes a lot of effort and money into passive defenses, but inherently, passive defenses are the last line if defense. Hamas rocket inaccuracy is irrelevant. It's outside if Israeli control, and even an inaccurate rocket will go the right direction eventually.

In any case, why is this being discussed? The Israelis seem happy with the system they have, they're taking few casualties, what's the issue?

Frank Lee Midere · 03-08-2014 01:34PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difficulties inherent in engaging crossing targets have been well known for some time. The 1991 Patriot Missile example he cites in that article is probably the practical baseline for all intercept systems designers, and the difficulties particularly in engaging crossing targets have been also well known for many years.

Although the logic of what the man is saying is correct, I think his analysis fails on the basis of two related assumptions. Firstly, that the issues with fusing and warhead spread have not been solved by the iron dome designers, and that the warhead thus must perform as he expects. And, secondly, that any analysis is mathematically based on a single attempt at interception. From watching videos of launches, it appears that if the system feels the need to, it will fire multiple missiles at a single target, without waiting to see if the first one hits or not.

And, yes, the warning system and bunkers are, indeed, a significant reason for the lack of casualties. I honestly don't know where my nearest shelter is. I have no idea if the US has gas masks for everyone. Israel takes a lot of effort and money into passive defenses, but inherently, passive defenses are the last line if defense. Hamas rocket inaccuracy is irrelevant. It's outside if Israeli control, and even an inaccurate rocket will go the right direction eventually.

In any case, why is this being discussed? The Israelis seem happy with the system they have, they're taking few casualties, what's the issue?

Seems odd to me too. I oppose israel but am pretty sure iron dome works.

Israel - Palestine Conflict. **Mod note in OP - updated 1st August**

Comments

Israel - Palestine Conflict. Mod note in OP - updated 1st August