A look at Israel's "Iron Dome" missile defense

[Mech]

YOU believe it is legitimate to nuke Mecca and Medina and to starve all of Saudi Arabia.

YOU are on record as stating that Muslim citizens in Western countries do not deserve the same rights as their fellow citizens.

YOU stated right here that Muslims behave as a collective entity.

In hindsight, all very true.

 

[gambit]

I was in a forgiving mood in the spirit of Moharram, but then I decided that a Mecca-nuking Islamophobe like you deserves no pity, so here goes...

Spare me...

Your hilarious interpretation of this 'speed of light' thing is working beautifully for me, so I will make no attempt to correct you. In fact, I am keeping this gem of gambit-English for future reference.

To sum it up: I pointed out how the system overcame a serious technical difficulty regarding time, distance, and response time, you retorted that as if the world does not know that computers operated at the speed of light.

Uh no, I accepted that it works against 'primitive rockets' but questioned its utility against more advanced threats, in light of the fact that Israel is building Magic Wand to handle more advanced threats like cruise missiles. There are existing MD systems elsewhere which handle cruise missiles since 1999.

Result: YOU FAIL

No...YOU failed. Cruise missile have different flight paths and behaviors, such as below the radar horizon, hence any system designed to counter them cannot be logically comparable against ballistic behaviors and therefore cannot be used as a criticism base. Your refusal to acknowledge the technical differences made you look the fool.

I am not the one running all round the barn trying to dodge straightforward questions. I am not the one seeking refuge in comical misinterpretations of simple English sentences. I am not the one shifting goal posts.

Result: YOU FAIL

You dodged plenty. Most of all your ignorance in technical issues involved and refusal to face up to it.

Oh, I am loving this!
Your own series of quotes shows that your very first sentence in this thread was a personal attack at me.

Calling your argument 'pathetic' is not a personal attack. But it looks like you are adopting the Chinese members' stance where any criticism at your argument, no matter how legitimate, is to be construed as a personal attack. So be it.

Moreover, you are the one who first mentioned Israel in our exchange. I simply made a comment about the technical disparity between the threat and the defence. You made it about Israel because of your need to view a purely technical comment through the prism of anti-Semitic victim-hood.

I mentioned Israel because the Iron Dome system is an Israeli product, as in 'Israeli engineering'.

The attack on Muslims came with the accusation about a Muslim "collective" in this post: http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-iron-dome-missile-defense-4.html#post3618911

To give you a taste of your own medicine, as in post 31 when you implied that I defended the Iron Dome system based purely on being lockstep mentality with Israel.

Even other Americans here, presumably non-Muslim by their posting history, have called you out on your tendency to bring Muslims into unrelated discussions.

Every American here know to expect non-American non-muslim to be hostile to US and us. The US government obeys Israel...blah...blah...blah...So as if we take that seriously. The Americans in this forum expects no allies.

Another shifting of goal posts and another lap round the barn for you. No one has disputed that the Iron Dome system meets Israel's needs. The whole debate has been that ID is some sort of gobal technological breakthrough. The reality is that existing MD systems handle more advanced threats than ID can.

Result: YOU FAIL

No. YOU failed. Who stated that the Iron Dome system was a technological breakthrough or even a 'marvel'? Did I? The reality is that the system succeeded against a known technical difficulty, not %100, but good enough to earn the praises of technically minded people everywhere and that got under your craw, hence you had to exaggerate those praises as if they extolled the system to be that 'global breakthrough'. No one did.

You are so deeply immersed in your hatred of Muslims that you don't even see the difference between nuking a target of military significance, like the Pentagon (DC) or HaKirya (Tel Aviv) on the one hand, and a city of purely religious significance like Mecca. A apt comparison would be if, in response to an American attack (and given the influence of the Christian Right in American politics), the enemy decided to nuke Bethlehem or Vatican City in retaliation.

When every senior American official takes pains to explain that America is not at war with Islam, people like you come along and railroad the whole argument!

Result: YOU FAIL

No. YOU failed. The colonel was talking about war targets in an academic environment. The targeting criteria is based upon perceived needs, urgency, and the nature of the war. Many muslims here have defended the muslim warfighters usage of civilian environment based upon perceived needs, urgency, and the nature of THAT war.

Comparisons, only in the context of your deep-seated bigotry against Muslims. You don't see an American citizen who happens to be Muslim; you see a Muslim who happens to be an American citizen.

Major Nidal Hasan certainly sees himself that way. And plenty here praised him for his loyalty.

Huge difference between the American government, which does have a well-defined hierarchical control strucutre, aka hive, and 1.2 billion Muslims, who do not.

Take that argument to the choir. The reality is that there are greater dissent in the non-muslim world about the US and Israel than there are in the muslim world about the same. Much greater. A well defined hierarchical control structure is not necessary.

I never accused you of using a racial epithet -- you are far too clever for that. If you read my post again, I wrote that you use 'racist speech' and I gave one such example. Some readers here may not understand why calling someone 'boy' would be racist, but you and I both know that it is.

If I am clever enough to qualify as a wordsmith, which am certainly not, then you should be able to come up with more than just 'boy', which strains credulity already as a racial insult in an anonymous Internet forum where one's mental age and maturity can and will quickly be discerned. I called many participants '12 yr old'. Does that fall under as well? In your case, it must.

Essentially, because American white supremacists once casually use 'boy' to call blacks, now ALL Americans regardless of ethnic origins are forbidden by you to use that word against anyone.

Bingo! After running round the barn for three pages, you finally accept my point that a system which can intercept a target capable of evasive action is more advanced than Iron Dome. Such systems have been operational since 1999.

Result: YOU FAIL

Accept? What new thing did you revealed for me to accept?

No. YOU failed. Your argument is like saying a rocket have a slender body for aerodynamic purposes. Wow...!!! Or that computers operate at the speed of light. Even more amazing...!!!

Drop the 'THINK TANK' label. Try 'THINKING TANKED'.

Because the maneuvers in question are not course-correction maneuvers, but evasive maneuvers. The reference to 'wind gusts' was to show that, if a missile can't even keep itself on course, then evasive maneuvers -- the real challenge to any MD system -- are in a different league altogether. In other words, Iron Dome is only good against primitive rockets which lack advanced capabilities. For those threats, Israel will need Magic Wand.

Result: YOU FAIL

No. YOU failed. When an attacker maneuver and it is a robotic defense who reads the maneuver, a 'course-correction' move is no different than an 'evasive' move. If a human is reading an approach's movement, he will be able to discern if the movement is because the attacker is wounded or being evasive or just a drunk with his staggering. Current technology has not reached that level of intelligence. So when a rocket or warhead descends on a ground target and if there are any movement, wanted or unwanted, the robotic defense does not know. And we are not talking about the cruise missile which have vastly different approach behaviors.

I used to design field tests for this sh1t.

The issue is not whether ID is indigenous, but whether it is a global technological breakthrough. The existing systems are relevant to show that they exceed ID's capabilities, so ID is not a technological breakthrough.

How hilarious that you challenged me ( http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-iron-dome-missile-defense-4.html#post3619305 ) to provide comparison with other systems and, when the comparison was not favorable, you are now saying other systems are not relevant.

Result: YOU FAIL

No. YOU failed. Still. The Israelis are not able to examine the technical details of those other air defense mechanisms. So for what they put together, no matter how limited in scope, it worked and succeeded beyond expectations. No one said the Iron Dome is a 'global technological breakthrough'. Those are YOUR words to exaggerate others' opinions in order to bring credibility to your criticisms, which was lame to start.

I posted the technical difficulties regarding ballistic trajectory defense here before. Many times. And with appropriate keyword searches for the readers to boot, such as 'proportional navigation' or 'spin stabilization'. What have you contributed to the subject other than that computers operate at the speed of light?

 

[SamantK]

@Developereo clearly you have lost it.. Concede and dont make a fool of yourself. "The technological breakthrough" are your words not anyone's on this thread!

 

[azim49]

Spare me...


To sum it up: I pointed out how the system overcame a serious technical difficulty regarding time, distance, and response time, you retorted that as if the world does not know that computers operated at the speed of light.


No...YOU failed. Cruise missile have different flight paths and behaviors, such as below the radar horizon, hence any system designed to counter them cannot be logically comparable against ballistic behaviors and therefore cannot be used as a criticism base. Your refusal to acknowledge the technical differences made you look the fool.


You dodged plenty. Most of all your ignorance in technical issues involved and refusal to face up to it.


Calling your argument 'pathetic' is not a personal attack. But it looks like you are adopting the Chinese members' stance where any criticism at your argument, no matter how legitimate, is to be construed as a personal attack. So be it.


I mentioned Israel because the Iron Dome system is an Israeli product, as in 'Israeli engineering'.


To give you a taste of your own medicine, as in post 31 when you implied that I defended the Iron Dome system based purely on being lockstep mentality with Israel.


Every American here know to expect non-American non-muslim to be hostile to US and us. The US government obeys Israel...blah...blah...blah...So as if we take that seriously. The Americans in this forum expects no allies.


No. YOU failed. Who stated that the Iron Dome system was a technological breakthrough or even a 'marvel'? Did I? The reality is that the system succeeded against a known technical difficulty, not %100, but good enough to earn the praises of technically minded people everywhere and that got under your craw, hence you had to exaggerate those praises as if they extolled the system to be that 'global breakthrough'. No one did.


No. YOU failed. The colonel was talking about war targets in an academic environment. The targeting criteria is based upon perceived needs, urgency, and the nature of the war. Many muslims here have defended the muslim warfighters usage of civilian environment based upon perceived needs, urgency, and the nature of THAT war.


Major Nidal Hasan certainly sees himself that way. And plenty here praised him for his loyalty.


Take that argument to the choir. The reality is that there are greater dissent in the non-muslim world about the US and Israel than there are in the muslim world about the same. Much greater. A well defined hierarchical control structure is not necessary.


If I am clever enough to qualify as a wordsmith, which am certainly not, then you should be able to come up with more than just 'boy', which strains credulity already as a racial insult in an anonymous Internet forum where one's mental age and maturity can and will quickly be discerned. I called many participants '12 yr old'. Does that fall under as well? In your case, it must.


Accept? What new thing did you revealed for me to accept?

No. YOU failed. Your argument is like saying a rocket have a slender body for aerodynamic purposes. Wow...!!! Or that computers operate at the speed of light. Even more amazing...!!!

Drop the 'THINK TANK' label. Try 'THINKING TANKED'.


No. YOU failed. When an attacker maneuver and it is a robotic defense who reads the maneuver, a 'course-correction' move is no different than an 'evasive' move. If a human is reading an approach's movement, he will be able to discern if the movement is because the attacker is wounded or being evasive or just a drunk with his staggering. Current technology has not reached that level of intelligence. So when a rocket or warhead descends on a ground target and if there are any movement, wanted or unwanted, the robotic defense does not know. And we are talking about the cruise missile which have vastly different approach behaviors.

I used to design field tests for this sh1t.


No. YOU failed. Still. The Israelis are not able to examine the technical details of those other air defense mechanisms. So for what they put together, no matter how limited in scope, it worked and succeeded beyond expectations. No one said the Iron Dome is a 'global technological breakthrough'. Those are YOUR words to exaggerate others' opinions in order to bring credibility to your criticisms, which was lame to start.

I posted the technical difficulties regarding ballistic trajectory defense here before. Many times. And with appropriate keyword searches for the readers to boot, such as 'proportional navigation' or 'spin stabilization'. What have you contributed to the subject other than that computers operate at the speed of light?

Poor General ................................................................................................................................................... creat iron dome and hand over to Arabs Subconsciously

.

whats the benft of creating arms, domes

 

[azim49]

whats ur purpose ?! so lameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Com'oooooooooooooooooooooooooon

 

[Developereo]

To sum it up: I pointed out how the system overcame a serious technical difficulty regarding time, distance, and response time

Except that those difficulties have been overcome as far back as 1999.

Cruise missile have different flight paths and behaviors, such as below the radar horizon, hence any system designed to counter them cannot be logically comparable against ballistic behaviors and therefore cannot be used as a criticism base. Your refusal to acknowledge the technical differences made you look the fool.

Two words: C-RAM, SeaRAM

You lose again.

I mentioned Israel because the Iron Dome system is an Israeli product, as in 'Israeli engineering'.

No, you mentioned it to play the anti-Semitic victim card, which you did soon enough.

To give you a taste of your own medicine, as in post 31 when you implied that I defended the Iron Dome system based purely on being lockstep mentality with Israel.

Not at all. This was an extension of your initial mention of Israel to bring in the anti-Semitism defence.

And to take a jab at Muslims, as you often do in unrelated discussions.

Pathetic!

The Americans in this forum expects no allies.

It's not about allies, but the fact that your obsession with Muslims has been noted even by (non-Muslim) Americans here.

No. YOU failed. Who stated that the Iron Dome system was a technological breakthrough or even a 'marvel'? Did I? The reality is that the system succeeded against a known technical difficulty, not %100, but good enough to earn the praises of technically minded people everywhere and that got under your craw, hence you had to exaggerate those praises as if they extolled the system to be that 'global breakthrough'. No one did.

You truly are clueless.

Iron Dome: Missile defense system a game changer, Israelis say - CNN

Israel credits "breakthrough technology"

No. YOU failed. The colonel was talking about war targets in an academic environment. The targeting criteria is based upon perceived needs, urgency, and the nature of the war.

Dooley was talking about a war on Islam. That's the only way you can justify nuking a non-military religious site in a war. The fact that you still don't get it speaks volumes about your bigotry-induced myopia.

Major Nidal Hasan certainly sees himself that way. And plenty here praised him for his loyalty.

Brilliant!

Again, you dig yourself deeper in the hole. You take the actions of terrorists to stereotype all American Muslims.

Good thing about bigots like you is that you guys never disappoint.

Take that argument to the choir. The reality is that there are greater dissent in the non-muslim world about the US and Israel than there are in the muslim world about the same. Much greater. A well defined hierarchical control structure is not necessary.

We are not talking about the world at large, but the American government. A well-defined hierarchical control strucutre is necessary to coordinate its members' actions. Without that structure, you have individuals and subgroups making their own decisions, like random terrorists.

Essentially, because American white supremacists once casually use 'boy' to call blacks, now ALL Americans regardless of ethnic origins are forbidden by you to use that word against anyone.

Words are used in context, and you use the word 'boy' consistently in a negative context against the Chinese. Like I wrote, you can deny it all you want, but you and I both know that, if you used such language against black (or ethnic) men in real life, you would get your as$ kicked. They wouldn't be interested in your 'explanations'.

Accept? What new thing did you revealed for me to accept?

That attackers capable of maneuvering are harder to intercept than those which can't. You kept dodging the question for three pages until you could finally run no more. Given that technology already exists to intercept maneuvering attackers, the Iron Dome capability to hit dumb rockets is not "breakthrough technology".

No. YOU failed. When an attacker maneuver and it is a robotic defense who reads the maneuver, a 'course-correction' move is no different than an 'evasive' move. If a human is reading an approach's movement, he will be able to discern if the movement is because the attacker is wounded or being evasive or just a drunk with his staggering. Current technology has not reached that level of intelligence. So when a rocket or warhead descends on a ground target and if there are any movement, wanted or unwanted, the robotic defense does not know. And we are not talking about the cruise missile which have vastly different approach behaviors.

The point is that Iron Dome cannot handle an attacker which would make a last-minute course change. Especially in the descent phase.

I used to design field tests for this sh1t.

Then we can safely conclude that the missile characteristics were printed in pictorial form and not in English, given your difficulties with the latter.

The Israelis are not able to examine the technical details of those other air defense mechanisms.

Irrelevant and unproven, given Rafael and Raytheon's history of collaboration over the years.

No one said the Iron Dome is a 'global technological breakthrough'. Those are YOUR words to exaggerate others' opinions in order to bring credibility to your criticisms, which was lame to start.

Already posted the link above.

What have you contributed to the subject other than that computers operate at the speed of light?

I added gambit-English to the famed gambit dance of evasion. That, alone, provides hours of entertainment!

P.S. I added the evolution of gambit-English below for the continued amusement of readers.

Given the short range involved, each intercept must be finalized by the system in about 20 secs or less. More like less. Given the imprecision and inaccuracy of each rocket, Hamas have no choice but to launch in multiples -- spray and pray. So among the inbounds, 20 secs to determine if ONE descending rocket among several is a credible threat to a ground target, discriminate it or discard it, and make a decision to intercept, is a pretty damn impressive system.

Yawn. You write as if people don't understand the speed of light or the processing speed of modern computers.

 

[gambit]

Existing systems like C-RAM and SeaRAM can handle cruise missiles as well as artillery and rocket fire.

That attackers capable of maneuvering are harder to intercept than those which can't. You kept dodging the question for three pages until you could finally run no more. Given that technology already exists to intercept maneuvering attackers, the Iron Dome capability to hit dumb rockets is not "breakthrough technology".

Irrelevant and unproven, given Rafael and Raytheon's history of collaboration over the years.

You truly are clueless.

Iron Dome: Missile defense system a game changer, Israelis say - CNN

Israel credits "breakthrough technology"

And it is YOU who are the truly clueless. Not only that, you are inept at reading and understanding your source as well.

Let us take a better look...

Iron Dome: Missile defense system a game changer, Israelis say - CNN

Israel credits "breakthrough technology" and the system's radar. Iron Dome confronts multiple threats simultaneously, in all weather conditions, the Israeli military said.

The CNN news source does not say that Israel claimed the Iron Dome system is a 'breakthrough technology'. What CNN meant is that Israel credits OTHER 'breakthrough technology' that enabled the success of the Iron Dome system. So what if Israeli engineers collaborated with others? If so, then it is even more assured that what CNN said is true: That Israel credits others with their 'breakthrough technology' and not that Israel claimed the Iron Dome system is 'breakthrough technology'.

For several pages I tried to educate you on why you are wrong but given the CNN source gaffe, we can conclude that you have no mental aptitude for technical issues. No one here used the words 'breakthrough technology'. YOU did. And when you could not attribute them to me or anyone else, you tried someone else and ended up making a fool out of yourself. Again.

Read that CNN sentence carefully and see how you are wrong.

So for the readers' benefit on how your ignorance and arrogance persists and entertains: A 'dumb' rocket does not mean it cannot deviate from its intended course. The fact that these rockets have a reputation of being inaccurate and imprecise means EACH rocket is badly manufactured and badly designed and that in flight, EACH rocket have an increased odds of performing maneuvers that are unpredictable to observers. And if the Iron Dome system has a success rate of %70, it means the system is capable of hitting maneuvering targets.

This is not that difficult to understand, but apparently YOU have such difficulties.

The point is that Iron Dome cannot handle an attacker which would make a last-minute course change. Especially in the descent phase.

How can YOU tell if a maneuver is last minute or not? No one can. If a descending rocket changed heading at 2000 meters altitude, how do you know if that maneuver is 'last-minute' or is one of two or second of three? How do you know that it will not make another maneuver at 1000 meters altitude? If YOU cannot, then how can you tell if that maneuver is wanted or unwanted? Your logic is terrible. Just because a 'last-minute' maneuver is possible, it mean that every maneuver is 'last-minute'?

Then we can safely conclude that the missile characteristics were printed in pictorial form and not in English, given your difficulties with the latter.

Sure as the sky is blue it is still far better than the willful ignorance you exhibited so far despite impeccable sources provided to show how you are wrong.

No, you mentioned it to play the anti-Semitic victim card, which you did soon enough.

Not at all. This was an extension of your initial mention of Israel to bring in the anti-Semitism defence.

And to take a jab at Muslims, as you often do in unrelated discussions.

Pathetic!

Right...Simply attach 'Israeli' as an adjective to any word, as in 'Israeli engineering', and automagically the argument becomes a defense for Israel with Israel being the victim.

It's not about allies, but the fact that your obsession with Muslims has been noted even by (non-Muslim) Americans here.

The bulk of my participation here lies in the technical areas and against the Chinese. But I guess it take an obsessive personality, like that of a muslim obsessed with the Jews, to see obsession everywhere to justify his own.

Brilliant!

Again, you dig yourself deeper in the hole. You take the actions of terrorists to stereotype all American Muslims.

Good thing about bigots like you is that you guys never disappoint.

So a muslim who have no problem stereotyping all Americans is taking offense at stereotyping. It was not Bhuddists who attacked US.

We are not talking about the world at large, but the American government. A well-defined hierarchical control strucutre is necessary to coordinate its members' actions. Without that structure, you have individuals and subgroups making their own decisions, like random terrorists.

You are still singing to the muslim choir. Yes...Geographically separated insurgent groups do not need a centralized command and control structure in order for each unit to focus on a single goal, but the issue here is whose stereotyping has the greater credibility. There are much greater dissent and criticisms about US and Israel in the Western countries than there are in the muslim countries. And that you cannot deny.

Words are used in context, and you use the word 'boy' consistently in a negative context against the Chinese. Like I wrote, you can deny it all you want, but you and I both know that, if you used such language against black (or ethnic) men in real life, you would get your as$ kicked. They wouldn't be interested in your 'explanations'.

And contexts are elastic. Much more so than words. And that give you wide latitude to make absurd accusations.

Hmmm...You accused me of being a racist and I am supposedly too smart to use racial epithets. And yet the only thing you strained to come up with is the word 'boy' and not phrases that hinted at racial stereotyping. Against the Chinese but nothing against the Indians, many of whom here are no friends to US. Nothing against Pakistanis, pretty much all here are no friends to US. Nothing against Europeans, many of whom here are no friends to US. What an odd 'racist'.

Dooley was talking about a war on Islam. That's the only way you can justify nuking a non-military religious site in a war. The fact that you still don't get it speaks volumes about your bigotry-induced myopia.

Dooley conditioned his thesis based upon slide 7, which begins...

This model asserts Islam has already declared war on the West, and the United States specifically,...

Muslims have already declared US military ventures as 'war on Islam'. Not war against the despotic Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Not war against the brutal and backward Taliban in Afghanistan. But a 'war on Islam'. And may be the West should take those random acts of terrorism to be acts of war.

I added gambit-English to the famed gambit dance of evasion. That, alone, provides hours of entertainment!

P.S. I added the evolution of gambit-English below for the continued amusement of readers.

Right...The Iron Dome et al is capable of intercepting falling bodies because of computers that operate at the speed of light. Such is your contribution to the subject. Does that mean when an intercept failed, as how news reported the American SM-3 and THAAD sometimes did failed, the speed of light in those computers got slowed down somehow? Ballistic warheads have a CEP instead of hitting the ground point exactly where we intended. So with a CEP, does that mean that little computer inside the warhead operated at the speed of sound?

 

[Developereo]

What CNN meant is that Israel credits OTHER 'breakthrough technology' that enabled the success of the Iron Dome system. So what if Israeli engineers collaborated with others? If so, then it is even more assured that what CNN said is true: That Israel credits others with their 'breakthrough technology' and not that Israel claimed the Iron Dome system is 'breakthrough technology'.

Earlier, you were claiming that Iron Dome is an indigenous product and Israel did not benefit from other missile systems. Now you are claiming the exact opposite!

In any case, it doesn't matter whose breakthrough technology it is; the point is that it is claimed to be, which was the point you were disputing in the first place.

For several pages I tried to educate you on why you are wrong but given the CNN source gaffe, we can conclude that you have no mental aptitude for technical issues. No one here used the words 'breakthrough technology'. YOU did. And when you could not attribute them to me or anyone else, you tried someone else and ended up making a fool out of yourself. Again.

Where, exactly. did I attribute the "breakthrough technology" remark to you?

I love your flights of fantasy throughout this exchange:

First, you conjured up the absurd assertion and I claimed ballistic MD systems to be infallible. I never said that.
Then, you desperately hung your hopes on claiming that I wrote computers operate at the speed of light. I provided the quote for readers with English proficiency.
Then came the flip-flop about whether the technology is indigenous or provided by "OTHERS".
Now, we have this absurd claim that I attributed the "breakthrough technology" remark to you.

You know, gambit, you truly are a modern day Don Quixote. You conjure up ghostly knights out of thin air, only to slay them and become a legend in your own mind.

Read that CNN sentence carefully and see how you are wrong.

The master of gambit-English lecturing others on English comprehension. Will comedies never cease?

So for the readers' benefit on how your ignorance and arrogance persists and entertains: A 'dumb' rocket does not mean it cannot deviate from its intended course. The fact that these rockets have a reputation of being inaccurate and imprecise means EACH rocket is badly manufactured and badly designed and that in flight, EACH rocket have an increased odds of performing maneuvers that are unpredictable to observers. And if the Iron Dome system has a success rate of %70, it means the system is capable of hitting maneuvering targets.

This is not that difficult to understand, but apparently YOU have such difficulties.

I already explained that, for the purposes of this discussion, a 'dumb rocket' is one which cannot spring any last minute surprises on Iron Dome.

How can YOU tell if a maneuver is last minute or not? No one can. If a descending rocket changed heading at 2000 meters altitude, how do you know if that maneuver is 'last-minute' or is one of two or second of three? How do you know that it will not make another maneuver at 1000 meters altitude? If YOU cannot, then how can you tell if that maneuver is wanted or unwanted? Your logic is terrible. Just because a 'last-minute' maneuver is possible, it mean that every maneuver is 'last-minute'?

A 'last minute' maneuver is one that invalidates Iron Dome's assessment of an attacking rocket as 'safe' (headed outside the protected zone), or one that makes a course change after the Tamir interceptor is fired. An attacker that makes such moves will tax Iron Dome's stock of interceptors because the Tamir interceptor can NOT change course after it is fired.

Right...Simply attach 'Israeli' as an adjective to any word, as in 'Israeli engineering', and automagically the argument becomes a defense for Israel with Israel being the victim.

That's the way you brought Israel into the discussion. You took a perfectly neutral comment about technology and made it out to be an attack on Israel -- to play the anti-Semitic victim card.

The bulk of my participation here lies in the technical areas and against the Chinese. But I guess it take an obsessive personality, like that of a muslim obsessed with the Jews, to see obsession everywhere to justify his own.

There you go again with the anti-Semitic victim card. You truly are priceless because you are so predictable.

So a muslim who have no problem stereotyping all Americans is taking offense at stereotyping.

Where did I stereotype all Americans as being anti-Muslim?

I believe this is another one for the gambit-Don Quixote files.

And contexts are elastic. Much more so than words. And that give you wide latitude to make absurd accusations.

Nothing 'elastic' about your constant and repeated use of the word 'boy' in that particular context. However, I will concede that some of the Chinese posters are also very racist and your anger is understandable, if not entirely kosher.

Dooley conditioned his thesis based upon slide 7, which begins...

Muslims have already declared US military ventures as 'war on Islam'. Not war against the despotic Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Not war against the brutal and backward Taliban in Afghanistan. But a 'war on Islam'. And may be the West should take those random acts of terrorism to be acts of war.

Yes, and every responsible official in the US administration is at pains to explain that the US is not at war with Islam. And then people like you come along and spill the beans that some American officials DO see it as a war on Islam, to the point of sanctioning a course at a US military college advocating nuking of Mecca and Medina.

Right...The Iron Dome et al is capable of intercepting falling bodies because of computers that operate at the speed of light. Such is your contribution to the subject. Does that mean when an intercept failed, as how news reported the American SM-3 and THAAD sometimes did failed, the speed of light in those computers got slowed down somehow? Ballistic warheads have a CEP instead of hitting the ground point exactly where we intended. So with a CEP, does that mean that little computer inside the warhead operated at the speed of sound?

Try to stay clear of windmills...

 

[500]

I already explained that, for the purposes of this discussion, a 'dumb rocket' is one which cannot spring any last minute surprises on Iron Dome.

LOL which rocket/missile can?

because the Tamir interceptor can NOT change course after it is fired.

LOL wut?

Iron Dome maneuverability - YouTube

 

[Developereo]

LOL wut?

I got that claim from the following article.

Raytheon helping Israel develop 'David's Sling' - Worcester Telegram & Gazette - telegram.com

Under the Iron Dome system, once the operator fires the interceptor missile, its course cannot be modified.

From what you posted, it seems they are incorrect and I accept that.

That still leaves the problem of attackers that make random course changes, including extreme angled deflections, in the descent phase. An attacker which was relegated as 'safe' or 'low probability' by Iron Dome may suddenly start heading to the protected zone. This would reduce Iron Dome's interception window.

Hamas doesn't seem to have much control over where their rockets fall, given your claim that the majority of their rockets fell outside protected zones anyway. The final course deflection mentioned above need not be sophisticated; even a random deflection in the descent phase would be enough to tax Iron Dome.

 

[gambit]

Earlier, you were claiming that Iron Dome is an indigenous product and Israel did not benefit from other missile systems. Now you are claiming the exact opposite!

In any case, it doesn't matter whose breakthrough technology it is; the point is that it is claimed to be, which was the point you were disputing in the first place.



Where, exactly. did I attribute the "breakthrough technology" remark to you?

I love your flights of fantasy throughout this exchange:

First, you conjured up the absurd assertion and I claimed ballistic MD systems to be infallible. I never said that.
Then, you desperately hung your hopes on claiming that I wrote computers operate at the speed of light. I provided the quote for readers with English proficiency.
Then came the flip-flop about whether the technology is indigenous or provided by "OTHERS".

Me, flip-flop?

I asked 'So what' if Israeli engineers learned and/or worked with others to cobbled together the Iron Dome system. That is not a 'flip-flop'. That is a 'Who cares'? And apparently YOU do care.

But if you do have a problem with the Iron Dome system being indigenous, as I stated that it is, because Israeli engineers cobbled together 'breakthrough technlogy' from others, then perhaps you should go over to the JF-17 discussions and tell your fellow Pakistanis that the JF-17 is not an indigenous aircraft to Pakistan, of Pakistani design, of Pakistani efforts, and of Pakistani intellectual labor. After all, it is joint development with the Chinese, who clearly possessed superior aviation knowledge and skills to Pakistan, that Pakistani engineers had to learn from the West as well because aerodynamic principles were established in the West and that the first heavier than air and powered aircraft came from the West, the hated Americans to boot.

The reality is that the Iron Dome system is very much an indigenous Israeli development designed specifically to suit immediate Israeli needs. There must have been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in your house when news of its success became public.

Now, we have this absurd claim that I attributed the "breakthrough technology" remark to you.

You know, gambit, you truly are a modern day Don Quixote. You conjure up ghostly knights out of thin air, only to slay them and become a legend in your own mind.

Buddy, you do not have to say it outright. The first person who used the phrase 'breakthrough technology' is YOU, and when challenged, you persisted on using it as if someone else, hopefully me, who said it. Then when you could not directly attributed it to me, you got desperate and brought on a CNN news source which contains those words, then you made a fool out of yourself by not reading and comprehending it fully. The Israelis never claimed the Iron Dome is anything 'breakthrough'. The CNN news article said nothing of the sort. Instead the CNN article said the Israelis gave credits to 'breakthrough technology', which has a completely different meaning.

So it is YOU who is conjuring up phantoms to battle here. It must have felt good to make that snide comment. Ease some of your pain at seeing Hamas defeated.

The master of gambit-English lecturing others on English comprehension. Will comedies never cease?

I can hear people laughing still at the CNN article debacle.

I already explained that, for the purposes of this discussion, a 'dumb rocket' is one which cannot spring any last minute surprises on Iron Dome.

And you are TECHNICALLY wrong. What is primary cause of a ballistic body intended for a specific ground point but instead ended up being inaccurate and imprecise?

A 'last minute' maneuver is one that invalidates Iron Dome's assessment of an attacking rocket as 'safe' (headed outside the protected zone), or one that makes a course change after the Tamir interceptor is fired. An attacker that makes such moves will tax Iron Dome's stock of interceptors because the Tamir interceptor can NOT change course after it is fired.

I asked how can YOU tell -- just from observing -- that a maneuver is a 'last minute'. I did not asked WHAT is it. I know WHAT is it and how to create it better than you do. I want to see a credible technical source that says it is possible for any observer to tell -- with reasonable margin of error -- if a maneuver is intentional or unintentional.

I suggest you be very careful in bringing up tumbling objects as evidence. It will make you a greater laughing stock than you are now without me doing anything.

That's the way you brought Israel into the discussion. You took a perfectly neutral comment about technology and made it out to be an attack on Israel -- to play the anti-Semitic victim card.

If there was anything 'neutral' about it, you would not have used the insult 'moronic'.

Israel's Iron Dome Defense Battled to Get Off the Ground - WSJ.com

Before Wednesday's cease-fire, Iron Dome knocked down 421 rockets launched from Gaza and bound for Israeli cities, an 84% success rate, according to the Israeli military. The system limited Israeli casualties to six during the seven days of bombardment. As a result, there was markedly less political pressure on Israel's decision makers to invade Gaza.

That is at least an excellent, if not outright outstanding, combat record.

Here is the ratings scale:

- Acceptable
- Good
- Excellent
- Outstanding

Despite initial Pentagon misgivings,...

For years, Pentagon experts dismissed Iron Dome as doomed to fail and urged Israel to instead try a cheaper U.S. approach. Iron Dome faced similar skepticism at home.

Almost no one in Israel's military brass believed rocket defense could work.

Ahhh...Even the ballistic missile defense leader, the US, was skeptical, let alone fellow Israelis, about the endeavor.

Palestinian rockets from Gaza fly erratically and can hit Israeli communities within seconds. Most are just a few feet long and a few inches wide.

Why do these rockets -- not missiles -- each have an erratic trajectory? Because the basic design is poorly designed, poorly manufactured, and probably compounded by ham fisted assembly prior to launch. But this also mean they are maneuverable -- UNPREDICTABLY.

In March 2005, they agreed on a patched-together concept for the system that would become Iron Dome, drawing on technologies from three Israeli defense companies.

Right...The Iron Dome system is the result of cobbling together existing technologies to make it work for something else. It is called 'innovation'.

It was no ordinary feat. The project's specs demanded a system that could continuously scan all of Gaza, detect a rocket the instant it was fired, no matter how big or small, pinpoint its likely strike location, and finally, if it was going to hit a city, blast it out of the sky with a missile. The system needed to do all that within about 15 seconds.

Absolutely this is no ordinary feat.

Usually with ballistic missile defense, assuming the defender does not have overhead view from such as satellites or even airborne assets, the defense have no way of knowing when an attack is launched. In this case, the Israelis have radar coverage over Gaza and know when a launched rocket breached radar detection. From Gaza to Israeli territory is about 15-20 seconds. If launch detection time is subtracted because of ignorance, then it is reasonable to assume a response time of 10 or less seconds. Because of a rocket's erratic flight, the system have to guess its likely ground impact point and this guess can only come from its flight duration analysis. How long is that duration? Must be more than one second and only when the rocket begins its descent, which belongs in that 10 second half of that 20 seconds flight.

So if a rocket have an erratic ascent, the system still have to track it anyway because whatever goes up must come down. Then during its descent in that 10 seconds half of the total 20 seconds flight time, if the rocket has an erratic ascent, it will probably have an erratic descent as well. This make any kind of 'last minute' maneuver argument irrelevant because the system have to allot more than one second (out of 10) to analyze this erratic descent and make an intercept decision. Any deviation can be construed as 'last minute'.

Gen. Gold also said the interceptor missiles would need to cost about one-tenth of what your average air-to-air missile costs, or else Israel's rocket-flinging foes would be able to bankrupt Israel.

Development is compounded by financial constraints.

Mary Beth Long, the assistant secretary of defense who oversaw the Iron Dome review process, sent a team of U.S. military engineers to Israel to meet with the developers. After the trip, in a meeting in her office, the team voiced skepticism about the technology, citing poor performance in initial testing, Ms. Long said in an interview.

Rafael's Mr. Drucker recalls an even harsher U.S. response. He said the U.S. team told them: "This is something that cannot be done."

The Americans restated their skepticism.

As president, Mr. Obama tapped Colin Kahl to run the Pentagon office overseeing U.S. military policy in the Middle East. Mr. Kahl found the Iron Dome request on his desk, decided to take another look and had what he later described as a light-bulb moment. "Ding, ding, ding. It just made sense," Mr. Kahl said.

In its final report, presented to the White House in October, the team declared Iron Dome a success, and in many respects, superior to Phalanx. Tests showed it was hitting 80% of the targets, up from the low teens in the earlier U.S. assessment. "They came in and basically said, 'This looks much more promising…than our system,' " said Dennis Ross, who at the time was one of Mr. Obama's top Middle East advisers.

Bottom line is this...

The Iron Dome is very much an indigenous development, driven by Israeli needs and criteria, and ended up succeeding beyond expectations, even those of the ballistic missile defense leader -- the US.

Nothing 'moronic' about it except for the cost comparison between interceptor and target, which is misleading because whatever is on the ground is much more valuable.

There you go again with the anti-Semitic victim card. You truly are priceless because you are so predictable.

Where did I stereotype all Americans as being anti-Muslim?

I believe this is another one for the gambit-Don Quixote files.

Try all you want...But you are not going to escape. It does not have to be all Americans, just any defense of Jews and/or Israel will do for your stereotyping of us here.

Nothing 'elastic' about your constant and repeated use of the word 'boy' in that particular context. However, I will concede that some of the Chinese posters are also very racist and your anger is understandable, if not entirely kosher.

Chinese were discriminated against in America in the past, but never enslaved. So while calling a black 'boy' may evoke some legitimate anger because of and from institutionalized racism, it is not so against other ethnicities. Funny how you avoided the fact that I was first respectful to the Chinese. You need to avoid it to validate your false charge of racism on me. Show me where I used the pejorative 'p a k i' against any Pakistani members here. Show me where I used 'raghead' against any Iranian member here.

This is a Pakistani playground and it is a privilege -- not any sort of right -- for me to be here. So it should be easy enough for any member of the admin staff to perform some power searches for any known racial epithets used by me. Get to it...

Yes, and every responsible official in the US administration is at pains to explain that the US is not at war with Islam. And then people like you come along and spill the beans that some American officials DO see it as a war on Islam, to the point of sanctioning a course at a US military college advocating nuking of Mecca and Medina.

The issue is not whether who sees the current tension as a 'war' or not. The issue is that Dooley CONDITIONED his thesis on the assumption that Islam, as a motivating ideology instead of confining itself as a religion, has rallied the muslim world around the goal of defeating the West and subjugating the same.

This model presumes Geneva Convention IV of 1949 standards of armed conflict and the pursuant UN endorsements of it are now, due to the common practices of Islamic terrorists, no longer relevant or respected globally.

Whatever tactics Dooley presented did not came out of nowhere but of the speculation that the minimal standards of armed conflict are abandoned by one side, leaving the other side morally shackled.

Try to stay clear of windmills...

Buddy...In this discussion, I built the windmills and laughing at you making a fool out of yourself in front of them.

 

[Developereo]

I LOVE it when you keep coming back for more punishment. Let's take a tour through your ghostly encounters so far...

The (Continuing) Adventures of Senor gambit Don Quixote

Senor gambit Don Quixote: You implied ballistic MD systems to be infallible (post #59).
Reality Check: I never said anything of the sort.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: You claimed computers operate at the speed of light (post #70).
Reality Check: I said radar detection (speed of light) and trajectory computation (processor speed) are no mystery to anyone. Given your difficulties with English, I even color-coded the parsing for you (post #96).

Senor gambit Don Quixote: Everything said in a thread, even between two other people, must always refer to me, e.g. "breakthrough technology" (post #92).
Reality Check: I read the "breakthrough" claims in various articles, including CNN, before I ever came to this thread. I was commenting on the hype surrounding ID, including those claims of "breakthrough technology". (post #96).
Hint1: Try not to showcase your desperate need for attention so obviously: not everything that happens in this thread, or the world, revolves around you.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: ID is "indigenous development" (post #88) because the "Israelis are not able to examine the technical details of those other air defense mechanisms" (post #92).
Senor gambit Don Quixote: No wait, it is a collaboration with "OTHERS" to obtain their "breakthrough technology"; the CNN report says so (post #97).
Senor gambit Don Quixote: No, no wait, it is "very much an indigenous development" (post #101).
Reality Check: I don't give two figs whether it's indigenous or not, and never made any claims either way. I only commented on the alleged "breakthrough" aspect of the technology regardless of its origin. It is only you who keeps bouncing all over the place while reeling from the fact that you lost the technical debate long ago.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: You started the personal attacks (post #88).
Reality Check: The post history is there to see who started it from the first sentence, to play the anti-Semitism card (post #20).

Senor gambit Don Quixote: You tried to mock Israel because of anti-Semitism (post #53).
Reality Check: I only commented on the technological disparity between attacker and defender without reference to the participants; it was you who made it about Israel to play the anti-Semitism card. The word 'moronic' in my comment applied to the absurdity of the mismatch, like Federer beating his chest upon beating an old woman in Tennis.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: a muslim who have no problem stereotyping all Americans (post #97).
Senor gambit Don Quixote: It does not have to be all Americans (post #101).
Reality Check: The patented gambit two-step: make desperate accusations and then back off when called out.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: I am not obsessed with my Islamophobia (post #97).
Reality Check: Even other (non-Muslim) Americans have called you out on it.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: Nuking Mecca is legitimate since Islam is cited by the terrorists to justify their actions (posts #97 and #101).
Senor gambit Don Quixote: Just because "minimal standards of armed conflict are abandoned by" random terrorists, the US should, too, and nuke Mecca (post #101).
Reality Check: Brilliant. With comments like these, you might as well buy yourself a cap with the word "Islamophobe" on it.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: I am not racist because I don't use racist epithets or racist language against anyone but the Chinese (post #97).
Reality Check: Just because you are not demonstrably racist against all ethnicities doesn't mean you haven't been racist against a particular ethnicity, the Chinese. Try your lame defence in real life and see how far it goes.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: What is 'last-minute' maneuver for a 'dumb rocket'? (post #101).
Reality Check: I explained several times, but it's not surprising that you can't handle the straightforward answer. I am defining 'last-minute' maneuver as one which occurs after ID classifies an attacker as either interceptable or puts it in the 'low probability but monitor just in case' pile. Any powered change of course after that point -- even random and unguided -- at a radically large angle will require ID to reassess the attacker anew. If it was an interceptee and it now veers into open land, then the interceptor for it was wasted. If it was not assigned an interceptor and it now starts heading towards a protected zone, then ID's interception window is now considerably reduced for this particular rocket. If the attacker makes another such random move, the game starts anew. Of course, the attacker doesn't know when ID will have classified it, so the timing of its random maneuver(s) will also be somewhat random. Bottom line, any attacker with such random last-minute powered maneuvers, unlike the catapulted firecrackers ID faces now, will tax ID and reduce its purported advantage of optimizing for credible threats.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: the team declared Iron Dome a success, and in many respects, superior to Phalanx (post #101).
Reality Check: You mean, after spending hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars, and asking for more hundreds of millions, the team declared it a successful investment? No! It is true that ID is cheaper than other systems but, as I indicated long ago, my debate is about technical capability, not cost.

Senor gambit Don Quixote: There must have been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in your house (post #101).
Reality Check: I believe you are confusing with your own adventures while battling the windmills, uh, erm, giants!
Hint2: When you have no technical legs to stand on, just accept it instead of conjuring up ghostly knights and dancing the dance of evasion.

 

[gambit]

When you have no technical legs to stand on, just accept it instead of conjuring up ghostly knights and dancing the dance of evasion.

It is YOU who have no technical legs to stand upon. Never have. Everything I read, I see nonsense vainly masquerading as 'technical'. Not a single credible source. Not one foundational principle explained.

This discussion should now be reserved for Pakistanis to heap insults on the Israelis. Have a nut...

 

[unicorn]

Two projectiles, believes to be Fajr-5 rockets due to their range, landed near Tel Aviv -- one just south of the municipal line and one in the water just outside of the southern suburb of Bat Yam. No injuries have been reported. A spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces denied that a rocket had landed in Tel Aviv, although this statement conflicts with eyewitness reports and may reflect the fact that projectiles have landed in areas just south of the actual Tel Aviv municipal boundary.
According to STRATFOR

Close to 1000 projectiles have been fired by Hamas in which majority are short range rockets having range of just 5 to 10 km (having lower trajectories).And Bat Yam is as far as 65+ kilometres from Gaza. So in between there is ashdod and ashqelon with Iron Dome Batteries which suggests to some extent that Irom Dome is vulnerable or lag in intercepting shells which have high surface ceiling (Assumption).

Also Hamas does not have bulk of these (assumption based on reports that Iran provide the know how not the missile itself which is actually admitted by Iran himself as well as other sources have confirmed it) Fajr-5. So the question of how many Fajr-5 Iron Dome have actually really intercepted requires further inquiry.