8

4 comments

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

I find it odd that they didn't mention the actual monetary cost of operating the Iron Dome in this. I've seen as low as $25,000 per Iron Dome missile, but it could range in the $40,000 - $50,000 range. The Hamas dirty rockets are like $900 each. That's a huge financial hit to Israel The United States for each rocket Israel has to shoot down.

[–] TheRedArmy [OP] 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Well, if you save $500K worth of damage to infrastructure, injured civilians, damaged buildings, lost supplies/vehicles and stuff, then you still come out ahead, (relate to letting the enemy missiles hit) even with the relative cost of the offensive/defensive mechanisms.

EDIT: Which, that may or may not be the case. I have no idea, except that I know they purposely let some missiles hit without defending them if it will hit open, undeveloped areas with minimal civilians. So there's some cost-analysis going on; whether it's a net positive or not is probably almost impossible to know.

[–] jobes 1 points (+1|-0)

True, that is a good point. On the flip side, they could intentionally launch cheaper and cheaper rockets that may have less of a payload just to try and bait the Iron Dome (maybe they already do that?)

[–] TheRedArmy [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

In 2016, the RAND Corporation conducted an in-depth study on the conduct of Israeli operations in Gaza in 2012 and 2014, which highlighted the role of the Iron Dome missile defense system in those conflicts. We found three lessons learned that should be considered in broader discussion of tactical missile defense. First, Iron Dome did provide meaningful missile defense capabilities. Second, however, this success came at strategic costs. Third, we do not expect this success to endure in the face of learning adversaries whose capabilities are expanding. Thus, there are problems with depending on the system in both the short- and long-term, and we recommend a healthy dose of skepticism in any debate on missile defense.