Vice President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, March 9, 2010. By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…
The problem (aside from international relations nonsense) is that Iran’s air force and missiles won’t be able to inflict significant damage on Israel, which aside from the Iron dome has the strongest air force in the region.
We already saw that the dome cannot intercept Iranian missiles just days ago. Also, the math doesn’t work in favor of the dome given that they need 2 interceptors per missile. There’s also the issue of production capacity. Once it runs through the existing stockpiles of interceptors, making new ones at the rate they’re being consumed is not possible. For example, from 2008 to present, Lockheed Martin was able to produce 800 missiles, around 50 a year. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/lockheed-martin-announces-delivery-of-800th-thaad-interceptor-missile-system
To counter the 180 missiles Iran reportedly launched, requiring up to 2 interceptors each, would have exhausted nearly HALF of all THAAD missiles ever produced. And that’s assuming there are enough launchers to even fire that many interceptors at once. The US is completely unprepared for the scale of war it is provoking around the globe.
Iran can absolutely cripple Israel by destroying its energy infrastructure.
The key thing is that even if the iron dome was capable of reliably intercepting ballistic missiles, the math is always going to be in favor of the attacker.
They already proven twice it is not the case, they hit what they wanted to hit. Why do you people always have to take the US wars modus operandi as a standard, where an attack needs to wreck everything and kill as many civilians as possible? When is the attack “damaging”, when it’s doubletapping the rescuers?
They hit (some of) what they wanted to hit, but didn’t inflect significant damage. Which is why a preemptive strike would be meaningless; those only matter when they can seriously reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Iran simply doesn’t have anything that can seriously reduce Israel’s ability to wage war in one attack.
I mean Yemen didn’t inflict serious military damage on Israel so they in fact prove my point. They caused evacuations, but I’ve yet to hear of the IDF suffering real damage. It’s always been the Israeli economy, which is also good work but not really what we’re talking about.
Fine, then the fact that Iran hit many of the targets has become public despite the Israelis best attempt to censor that information from coming out should tell you everything you need to know.
So should the fact that Iran got through with their first attack despite preemptively giving the targets to US/Israel, and that US did most of the interceptions at the cost of 1 billions dollars, and Israel used up most of its stock of ammunition.
By the by, given the cost of the ballistic missiles and the cost of the interceptors, hitting nothing is still a success. Not that that is relevant to this conversation give the fact that we know they did hit quite a few of their targets.
Iran punched through Toilet Paper Dome and David Sling twice now. The second time, Iran dropped a (probably hypersonic) missile right down in Mossad HQ’s front yard, which is being actively covered up and lied about to maintain the illusion of invincibility. Israel is also lying about damage at Nevatim. Any serious attack from Iran can easily hit all strategic targets in Israel. Iran has shown an uncanny amount of patience and it should be clear to Isnt’real that’s coming to an end. They know they’re vulnerable and Bibi’s hands are shaking out of fear.
The problem (aside from international relations nonsense) is that Iran’s air force and missiles won’t be able to inflict significant damage on Israel, which aside from the Iron dome has the strongest air force in the region.
We already saw that the dome cannot intercept Iranian missiles just days ago. Also, the math doesn’t work in favor of the dome given that they need 2 interceptors per missile. There’s also the issue of production capacity. Once it runs through the existing stockpiles of interceptors, making new ones at the rate they’re being consumed is not possible. For example, from 2008 to present, Lockheed Martin was able to produce 800 missiles, around 50 a year. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/lockheed-martin-announces-delivery-of-800th-thaad-interceptor-missile-system
To counter the 180 missiles Iran reportedly launched, requiring up to 2 interceptors each, would have exhausted nearly HALF of all THAAD missiles ever produced. And that’s assuming there are enough launchers to even fire that many interceptors at once. The US is completely unprepared for the scale of war it is provoking around the globe.
Iran can absolutely cripple Israel by destroying its energy infrastructure.
I see. I assumed they could be intercepted by the iron dome as usual, but if not that changes things.
The key thing is that even if the iron dome was capable of reliably intercepting ballistic missiles, the math is always going to be in favor of the attacker.
They already proven twice it is not the case, they hit what they wanted to hit. Why do you people always have to take the US wars modus operandi as a standard, where an attack needs to wreck everything and kill as many civilians as possible? When is the attack “damaging”, when it’s doubletapping the rescuers?
They hit (some of) what they wanted to hit, but didn’t inflect significant damage. Which is why a preemptive strike would be meaningless; those only matter when they can seriously reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Iran simply doesn’t have anything that can seriously reduce Israel’s ability to wage war in one attack.
deleted by creator
Yemen has proven this is not worth a hill of beans.
I mean Yemen didn’t inflict serious military damage on Israel so they in fact prove my point. They caused evacuations, but I’ve yet to hear of the IDF suffering real damage. It’s always been the Israeli economy, which is also good work but not really what we’re talking about.
The port of Eliat is bankrupt.
The economy of Israel is in a tailspin from the combined efforts of Yemen, and Hezbollah.
But yeah, sure, an economy being destroyed isn’t military damage.
Let me guess, the blockade of the south during the civil war didn’t accomplish anything, right?
It’s not when the question is whether Iran can or should do a preemptive strike.
Fine, then the fact that Iran hit many of the targets has become public despite the Israelis best attempt to censor that information from coming out should tell you everything you need to know.
So should the fact that Iran got through with their first attack despite preemptively giving the targets to US/Israel, and that US did most of the interceptions at the cost of 1 billions dollars, and Israel used up most of its stock of ammunition.
By the by, given the cost of the ballistic missiles and the cost of the interceptors, hitting nothing is still a success. Not that that is relevant to this conversation give the fact that we know they did hit quite a few of their targets.
It sucks when current events happen just minutes later proving your propaganda wrong.
Iran punched through Toilet Paper Dome and David Sling twice now. The second time, Iran dropped a (probably hypersonic) missile right down in Mossad HQ’s front yard, which is being actively covered up and lied about to maintain the illusion of invincibility. Israel is also lying about damage at Nevatim. Any serious attack from Iran can easily hit all strategic targets in Israel. Iran has shown an uncanny amount of patience and it should be clear to Isnt’real that’s coming to an end. They know they’re vulnerable and Bibi’s hands are shaking out of fear.