Ted Postol, an MIT physicist with a track record of research in the missile defense field, claims that he has evidence that reveals that "only about 5 percent of [Israel's] Iron Dome engagements result in the targeted rocket being destroyed or even sufficiently damaged to disable its explosive warhead. In the other 95 percent of cases, the interceptor either misses entirely or just lightly damages the enemy munition, allowing the rocket’s intact warhead to continue arcing toward the ground."
The number of Hamas rockets that have hit Israel have been quite limited considering the number that Hamas has shot. The iron dome either has been quite effective or the rockets explode after launch on their own. The article sounds like some anti Semite who just wants to criticize Israel and their defense efforts.
If he considers the warhead being destroyed in flight as the only criteria of success his numbers are undoubtedly correct. I'd consider it a success if it prevented the warhead from hitting it's target.
Well seeing how his "Evidence" is from mostly around 2012 and consist of amateur videos and photos of Iron Dome interceptions....
Guess we can also believe the sightings of Bigfoot and Unicorns are also up for specutlation...we know there is also "amateur videos and photos" of them...
Originally posted by Old Lar: The iron dome either has been quite effective or the rockets explode after launch on their own. The article sounds like some anti Semite who just wants to criticize Israel and their defense efforts.
Ah, and on what do you base your expert assessment? Personally, I don't know anything about the veracity of the researchers' claims vs. the IDF claims but it seems that the two scientists cited in the article did research into the issue and presented their findings. How does that make them anti-semitic in any way, shape or form? If anything, it would make them skeptical of IDF claims... Or is any critical statement of anything Israeli or Jewish anti-semitic to you?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Postol analysis of Iron Dome, or to ridicule it by comparison to Bigfoot and Unicorn hoaxes.
Shortly after the first Gulf War, when the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq and pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait (1990-1991), there were reports like this about the U.S. Patriot air defense missiles. Reports that questioned the high level of effectiveness that was claimed (by the U.S.) for the Patriot system (the version of that time) in defending against the Iraq SCUD surface-to-surface missiles. I think this same Ted Postol was in the middle of those debates.
If anyone wants to delve into a somewhat longer explanation of Postol's analysis :
As has been said before, if the definition of success is neutralizing the explosive warhead, then maybe the story has some credibility? Not much but some. The evidence of the effectiveness of the dome is the lack of success hamas can claim. The article is biased against Israel in the form of the misleading claims of failure.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Postol analysis of Iron Dome, or to ridicule it by comparison to Bigfoot and Unicorn hoaxes.
Yep well dismiss it...His evidence he used to conclude his Opinion is the same as the evidence for my Bigfoot and Unicorn condundrum..
Remember he would have to have a amateur video of each rocket fired into Israel...and then an amateur video of each rocket fired from the Iron dome system and then be able to tell each video from different events were which...and he even states most of his "evidence" is from 2012..
Now be truthfull : Are you buying his report with common sense?
You need to becarefull on getting your fantasy "News" from blogs..
[This message has been edited by fireboss (edited 07-27-2014).]
I'm skeptical of the article due to the percentages used. 5% effective rate is pretty poor and not really getting your bang for the buck. I find it hard to believe the IDF would keep a system that was that ineffective. The IDF is not made up of stupid people. Whether you agree with them or not, they are not stupid
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
I'm skeptical of the article due to the percentages used. 5% effective rate is pretty poor and not really getting your bang for the buck. I find it hard to believe the IDF would keep a system that was that ineffective. The IDF is not made up of stupid people. Whether you agree with them or not, they are not stupid
There's also the psychological factor, conveying the sense of protection no matter if it's real or not. People like to feel safe and that feeling doesn't have to reflect reality.
There's also the psychological factor, conveying the sense of protection no matter if it's real or not. People like to feel safe and that feeling doesn't have to reflect reality.
Kind of like conceal carry people. The chance of having to ever use a pistol for protection is so statically small, but we have an industry making billions off of the psychological factor.
There's also the psychological factor, conveying the sense of protection no matter if it's real or not. People like to feel safe and that feeling doesn't have to reflect reality.
I was thinking along the same lines, the Postol fella was wanting people to feel unsafe without having to reflect the reality of evidence...
[This message has been edited by fireboss (edited 07-27-2014).]
What I find very interesting is that the same people that have traditionally said the "right" is wrong, etc. etc. Is now against Israel, to the point that no matter how crazy they seem, they will post something to "discredit" Israel.
I'm not even religious and I can see the insanity here.
It's right in line with all the "anti-religion" people wetting themselves right now trying to make Israel look bad.
I posted this for one reason : an interesting technical discussion. For me, this wasn't about politics, or about which side is standing on the higher moral ground in a conflict, or anything like that. I (probably) would have posted this new report if it had been a retrospective on the U.S Patriot missile system's effectiveness during the first Gulf War of 1990-1991.
As far as the person who wrote the column for Reuters, or the MIT researcher Ted Postol, or anyone else referenced in the column: Obviously I cannot speak personally for their motives or agenda, but I think it had everything to do with the long standing and continuing debates about the effectiveness of various anti-rocket and anti-missile defense systems : Iron Dome, and also the much evolved U.S. Patriot system and the other, newer U.S. interceptors of long range ballistic missiles : the U.S. Navy system and the land-based system going back to Bush 43 that has launch sites in California and Alaska.
That's what I think: Everything to do with these technical and defense technology programs, and not hardly anything to do with any other motives or agenda.
As far as my estimation of this as an interesting discussion, I think that is borne out by the responses here from all who have come aboard "my" thread.
I do not blindly accept the Postol thesis about Iron Dome, but it does make me curious about the "ground truth" attending Iron Dome, and the solidity of the claims about its precision and lethality that have emanated from the Israeli government and IDF.
I think it is not likely that Israel or its partner behind Iron Dome development (U.S.) will go public with sufficient technical and combat data to "shoot down" (pun intended) the Postol hypothesis in a way that would be convincing to all those who think that Postol may be onto something.
Iron Dome is set up to engage only those enemy rockets that are projected by its radar tracking to be threats to populated areas or other important targets. But I have enough of an engineering background to know that it cannot be as precise as clockwork; that there has to be a built-in margin of error for the calculation of whether or not to engage. So I think that it is possible that the number of enemy rockets that are engaged but not rendered harmless is somewhat greater than has been reported by the IDF. An enemy rocket that crosses into one of the engagement zones could still find empty ground within that engagement zone. These rockets that are being fired from Gaza do not have immense explosive warheads. So I think that there is likely some validity to the Postol analysis, and that Postol is not completely shot down (there's that pun again) by the fact that Israel seems not to be sustaining any serious ballistic or explosive damage from the rockets of Gaza.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-28-2014).]
I posted this for one reason : an interesting technical discussion. For me, this wasn't about politics, or about which side is standing on the higher moral ground in a conflict, or anything like that. I (probably) would have posted this new report if it had been a retrospective on the U.S Patriot missile system's effectiveness during the first Gulf War of 1990-1991.
As far as the person who wrote the column for Reuters, or the MIT researcher Ted Postol, or anyone else referenced in the column: Obviously I cannot speak personally for their motives or agenda, but I think it had everything to do with the long standing and continuing debates about the effectiveness of various anti-rocket and anti-missile defense systems : Iron Dome, and also the much evolved U.S. Patriot system and the other, newer U.S. interceptors of long range ballistic missiles : the U.S. Navy system and the land-based system going back to Bush 43 that has launch sites in California and Alaska.
That's what I think: Everything to do with these technical and defense technology programs, and not hardly anything to do with any other motives or agenda.
As far as my estimation of this as an interesting discussion, I think that is borne out by the responses here from all who have come aboard "my" thread.
I do not blindly accept the Postol thesis about Iron Dome, but it does make me curious about the "ground truth" attending Iron Dome, and the solidity of the claims about its precision and lethality that have emanated from the Israeli government and IDF.
I think it is not likely that Israel or its partner behind Iron Dome development (U.S.) will go public with sufficient technical and combat data to "shoot down" (pun intended) the Postol hypothesis in a way that would be convincing to all those who think that Postol may be onto something.
Iron Dome is set up to engage only those enemy rockets that are projected by its radar tracking to be threats to populated areas or other important targets. But I have enough of an engineering background to know that it cannot be as precise as clockwork; that there has to be a built-in margin of error for the calculation of whether or not to engage. So I think that it is possible that the number of enemy rockets that are engaged but not rendered harmless is somewhat greater than has been reported by the IDF. An enemy rocket that crosses into one of the engagement zones could still find empty ground within that engagement zone. These rockets that are being fired from Gaza do not have immense explosive warheads. So I think that there is likely some validity to the Postol analysis, and that Postol is not completely shot down (there's that pun again) by the fact that Israel seems not to be sustaining any serious ballistic or explosive damage from the rockets of Gaza.
Now that's a well thought out analysis of the situation ... If you would reread his reasons (postal) and then look at your post..
You would see that the theory you put forth is more Persuasive than his...and he is a published physicist.
Any (scientific) analysis takes time and therefore usually uses "old" data. If you take this as a technical analysis of missile interception vs. claims by the military (and the truth is always the first casualty of war) instead of a political statement of anti-semitic sentiment, there's no problem to be seen anywhere.
I question his "evidence"...While old data is used to give a working model of a given enity,the data that is being relied upon by him is far from being Scientific and Non-Bias..
The Hit/Kill ratio is for the modern updated rendition while ever more experience and knowledge is gained and refined into the overall makeup of the system..All systems have to be funded,reserched,designed,built,tested,and then continuly updated and improved ...That's a Fact.
No system has ever been built correctly without any problems...From clubs to knives or cannons to tazers..
I have seen many weapon systems that were claimed to be the Bees Knees...only to be left out cold and disappointed when entered into a real world test. And then there are the systems that were sneered at and mocked,and some were even put through test designed to make them fail...only later did cool heads prevail and they were examined again---The Ar-15/M-16 comes to mind any time this is discussed.
The majority of these conducted under closed and controlled conditions,now the Iron Dome is and has been in the public eye for years. And has shown success ..
Postol rejected that assessment. “The Israeli government is not telling the truth about Iron Dome,” the physicist asserted. Postol said if Iron Dome has such a high success rate, the Israeli government should release all the data it has.
..... OK everyone, stop firing for a second. We've got to send this data to a University to be studied!
Makes sense to me. We should question everything.... Unless it's the people attacking Israel, ignore them.
Brad
[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 07-28-2014).]
Originally posted by fireboss: Now that's a well thought out analysis of the situation ... If you would reread his reasons (postal) and then look at your post.. You would see that the theory you put forth is more Persuasive than his...and he is a published physicist.
I appreciate the plaudit, but I thought that I was just summarizing Ted Postol's findings--not changing or adding (or subtracting from) anything that he said.
quote
Originally posted by fireboss: I question his "evidence"...While old data is used to give a working model of a given enity, the data that is being relied upon by him is far from being Scientific and Non-Biased...
Postol said that his findings were based mostly on data from the previous Israel-Gaza rocket war of 2012, but he said that the latest data that he has seen reflects the same pattern.
Postol said that his findings were based mostly on data from the previous Israel-Gaza rocket war of 2012, but he said that the latest data that he has seen reflects the same pattern.
His "Data" is amateur shot videos ,mostly from 2012, with no way of knowing the authenticity of the footage and his Bias plays a great deal in his conclusion.
Now no one is going to release there Military data to the public especialy when there is so much riding on both sides of the conflict...
His "Data" is amateur shot videos ,mostly from 2012, with no way of knowing the authenticity of the footage and his Bias plays a great deal in his conclusion.
Now no one is going to release there Military data to the public especialy when there is so much riding on both sides of the conflict...
In conclusion: there's no way of telling what's true for any of us here...
Originally posted by rinselberg: Iron Dome or Iron Sieve?
So ... what ch'a tryin' to say ? That they are just lobbing rockets at each other ? Sounds fair. Now, if you are trying to say that Israel's efforts are not paying off, ... well then ... what is the score on dead bodies and decimated infrastructure ? Who should give up their strategy ?
In conclusion: there's no way of telling what's true for any of us here...
Not at all....In conclusion: The Data he has used has in no way a Scientific quality..add to that his Bias and there is no justification to take his analisis crediable.
As far as releasing info during a time of war...You would have to be the stupidest SOB to release the info of where your are getting the best/worst results in the coverage of your system...That gives real time updates to the other combatant where to consolidate there rockets..
I realize that the Irasel/Palestine -Jew/Muslim is a extremely emotional case.. But we shouldn't let that be a reason to supplant Bias for facts.
Im not a believer in either faiths,and give less who is going to whichever Hell that they construct..
Edit to add---I cant spell for crap..
[This message has been edited by fireboss (edited 07-29-2014).]
Originally posted by cliffw: So ... what ch'a tryin' to say ? That they are just lobbing rockets at each other ? Sounds fair. Now, if you are trying to say that Israel's efforts are not paying off, ... well then ... what is the score on dead bodies and decimated infrastructure ? Who should give up their strategy ?
What Postol is saying is that the body count (Israel vs. Palestine) would not be much different, even in the absence of Iron Dome.
I didn't post it because I agree 100 percent with Postol. I suspect he is partly correct. I posted it because it seemed like a topic that would interest other members here, especially at this time.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-29-2014).]
You are always on point. 
