The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working - by Theodore A. Postol

[bananas]

http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7318

The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working
Theodore A. Postol
07/19/2014

Editor's note: Images referenced in this article can be viewed in the slide show above; captions appear when a cursor is placed over the images. The images can also be seen in a separate slide show found here, or by clicking on the red button to the right of the story's third paragraph.)

<snip>

During the November 2012 conflict, a detailed review of a large number of photographs of Iron Dome interceptor contrails revealed that the rocket-defense system's success rate was very low—as low as 5 percent or, perhaps, even less. A variety of media outlets have attributed the low casualty number to the supposed effectiveness of the Iron Dome system, quoting Israeli officials as saying it has destroyed 90 percent of the Hamas rockets it targeted. But close study of photographic and video imagery of Iron Dome engagements with Hamas rockets—both in the current conflict and in the 2012 hostilities—shows that the low casualties in Israel from artillery rocket attacks can be ascribed to Israeli civil defense efforts, rather than the performance of the Iron Dome missile defense system.

The collection of similar data for Iron Dome's performance in July 2014 is still in progress. The data we have collected so far, however, indicates the performance of Iron Dome has not markedly improved.

Historical data on civil defense measures—including those taken to protect citizens from V-1 and V-2 rocket bombings of London during World War II—suggest that Israel’s low casualty rate from Hamas rockets is largely attributable to the country's well-developed early-warning and quick-sheltering system for citizens under imminent rocket attack. That is to say, Iron Dome appears to have had no measurable effect on improving the chances of Israelis escaping injury or death from Hamas artillery rocket attacks in Israel.

<snip>

If Iron Dome doesn't work well, why are Israeli casualties from rocket attacks so low? Israel has a vast system of shelters, arranged so citizens can easily find protection within tens of seconds or less of warning. The Israeli rocket attack warning system is sophisticated; Figure 15 shows warning times published by the Israelis for artillery rockets of varying ranges. Figure 16 shows the screen of a mobile phone warning system that issues an audible alert of an impending artillery rocket impact. This particular phone application is called “red alert.”

The app's message indicates the general area where an artillery rocket impact is expected; depending on the location of individuals receiving the warning message, they know whether or not to take shelter.

<snip>

Another example of the hazards of not taking shelter occurred in November 2012. Three people were out on a terrace; one of them was hoping to observe the Iron Dome system intercepting incoming artillery rockets. An artillery rocket hit the terrace, killing all three people. Had these people followed the simple procedure of taking shelter, they would be alive today.

<snip>

[bananas]

1. Iron Dome: the public relations weapon

http://thebulletin.org/iron-dome-public-relations-weapon7308

Iron Dome: the public relations weapon
John Mecklin
07/10/2014

<snip>

Ted Postol, an MIT-based missile defense expert and frequent Bulletin contributor, provided a dose of context to the Iron Dome coverage in a National Public Radio interview Wednesday. "We can tell, for sure, from video images and even photographs that the Iron Dome system is not working very well at all," Postol said. "It—my guess is maybe [it hits a targeted missile] 5 percent of the time—could be even lower. ... And when you look—what you can do in the daytime—you can see the smoky contrail of each Iron Dome interceptor, and you can see the Iron Domes trying to intercept the artillery rockets side on and from behind. In those geometries, the Iron Dome has no chance, for all practical purposes, of destroying the artillery rocket."

<snip>

So if Iron Dome says little about the state of true missile defense, and if its effectiveness against short-range rockets is at best unclear and likely overstated, why does the system seem to take center stage whenever Hamas and Israel clash? The answer to that question seems to lie in the public relations arena.

As Postol noted in his public radio interview, Hamas rocket attacks are part of an "intended game." Hamas fires its relatively small, generally inaccurate, and largely ineffective rockets into Israel from Gaza, knowing from past experience that Israel's response will likely involve air strikes that will, despite the accuracy of Israel's high-tech weaponry, kill innocent civilians and, Hamas hopes, make Israel seem a callous oppressor in the eyes of the world.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government presents Iron Dome's performance as part of a sophisticated public relations effort that aims to persuade the broader public that Hamas is a heartless and calculating terrorist organization and Israel's defense forces are decent, determined, and effective. It's an effort that includes, for example, idfnadesk, the YouTube page for the Israel Defense Forces, which offers a video titled "Iron Dome Intercepts Rockets Over Ashdod," among many videos highlighting purported Hamas cruelty and Israeli "pinpoint" and "precision" weapons. To the extent it fills news cycles with reports on Hamas rocket attacks and Iron Dome's supposed technologically advanced method of intercepting them, this PR effort also deflects attention from the human consequences of Israeli bombing strikes in Gaza.

Iron Dome is high-tech. So is the public relations campaign around it, a reality that more of the world news ecosystem could beneficially take note of.

[bemildred]

2. Thanks, very informative. nt

[truebluegreen]

3. Looks like their Iron Dome system

works almost as well as ours.

[Igel]

4. Postol's covered his butt.

He has to use terms that you define differently.

He starts with "rockets targeted" but shifts to total number of rockets. Civilians saved by both missile defense and civilian defense are counted as saved by civilian defense.

Take the current stats. Last week Iron Dome knocked down 85% of those rockets targeted. Postol would respond that there were also civil defense measures in place responsible for the lack of deaths. He'd respond that there were many more rockets that landed and exploded than were demolished, so how could it be 85%? The destroy rate is much, much lower than 85%. He's motivated to make sure that the success rate for Iron Dome is as low as possible because he made a big deal over how this kind of system was impossible.

The counterresponse is simple: Why bother wasting resources on a rocket that's going to blow up a patch of desert? There aren't many batteries; they have limited operation. Target those going to populated areas. And even when there are numerous missiles being fired, Iron Dome usually identifies the high risk ones and targets those.

A more reasoned response to Iron Dome is whether the missiles explode when impacted by the kinetic anti-missile missiles or are just damaged and drop out of the sky. Some want to count those as failures. Nonetheless, if a missile is going to hit a populated area and is instead downed over desert, that's a good thing.

Israel's motivated to make the success rate as high as possible. While I think it would be good if the missiles were exploded and not left in the desert for somebody to find, it's a reasonable stop-gap. The good cannot be the enemy of the perfect. Rome wasn't built in a day. (There's a special today at Igel's Wisdom Emporium, two cliches for the price of one.)

The Iron Dome debate in the American press is usually only tangentially about Israel. It is about US missile defense in Europe against Russia and it's political usefulness.

Often the other times it's discussed it has to do with proportional suffering. It seems unfair that in a fight, one side dominates so clearly. This is a good thing when the dominant side is "yours," bad when it's dominating the side you're in solidarity with. And it's worse when the dominant side is seen as the bully. (Then again, if it didn't dominate it wouldn't be seen as the bully at all.)

Iron Dome isn't the same as the US missile defense. It has different specifications and uses fewer off-the-shelf parts. Iron Dome is a neat engineering application with some new tech. US missile defense has more new tech, and every time you innovate, esp. in a bureaucracy-heavy hierarchy like the US DOD, you need to have test protocols evaluated and approved. The tests are also harder to arrange--you can't just use a proving grounds like you could for Iron Dome. You need a danged theatre.

[PFunk]

5. Iron Dome = Isreal's Patriot missile

Funny how the real world actions sort of clears the BS