this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
137 points (92.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3497 readers
4 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm guessing that the intention is "If Israel can handle missiles from Lebanon and Gaza, why can't they handle 10 times the normal amount from Iran.
It's a numbers game , and w/o the US and Jordan helping to intercept them , the civilian damage would be much much much more extensive; and only one of these 2 can be true - Iran has terrible terrible terrible aim, or they targeted civilians.
You're right about saturation attacks eventually overcoming every air defense. But the ~200 missiles from Iran would have been manageable for Iron Dome, if they were the kind of missile Iron Dome was built for – slow, short range rockets and mortars.
These were much faster, at least some of them maneuvered during flight and a lot of them had a terminal booster, so they were much faster.
Israel has systems for that, namely Arrow 2/3 (the latter even intercepts exoatmospheric and it looks fucking dope) and David's Sling. But they are definitely not made for the sort of massed attack we saw. They're more like a Patriot system.
Iron dome not intended for ballistic defense, which is what the Iranians chucked at them