Blithering idiocy. The same leftist cant I’ve been hearing about missile defense for the last 30 years, since SDI.
There is a lot of empty space outside a built up city for a small warhead to fall into relatively harmlessly.
I personally saw the Iron Dome rockets eliminating incoming HAMAS projectiles time and time again...
What is the BS propaganda?
The author is an idiot.
There is always a viable intercept plot for any incoming warhead.
The issue is in time management.
From detection to plotting to firing to interception is sometimes too long.
Other times, its ridiculously easy and could be done on paper with a protractor and a ruler.
Ciws works, as does the standard sm3 system for inbound threats to ships.
Does he seriously suggest that the navy can’t hit incoming missiles?
It is, at heart, a math problem.
As it is, the Pali’s can’t understand why their missiles don’t hit th”God” seems to send the missiles into another direction. Iron dome might help a little, but Israel’s God is still bigger than the gods of her enemies! :-)
Since his contention is that these “crude rockets” with their 10 to 20 pound warheads aren’t “lethal weapons” (his actual claim), perhaps he’s willing to demonstrate that claim by having one detonate under his office chair. We need proof.
The notion is more hoax than possibility. His reasoning was detailed and technical. What's supposed to work doesn't as claimed .
Sounds a lot like Anthropogenic Global Warming
Is this guy serious?
10 to 20 pounds of a cheap industrial explosive like TNT will take down a large house with out a problem and kill everyone inside.
He says something like that and thinks people will take his opinions seriously?
He knows it works and he's a Hamas sympathizer.........
One problem that Mr. Postal his is the Israeli BODY COUNT and associated destruction, unless he claims that nearly all 5,000 missiles simply fell on farmland.
Beyond that, trying to discount a 10 to 20 lb. warhead is like trying to discount a 10 to 20 lb. bomb. Yes, it’s not like the Oklahoma Bombing, but NO, you don’t want to be very close. If he wants, how about he have one detonated 200 feet from his (no doubt) very expensive home, and find out just what it can do.
Whada maroon!
We’ve been hitting missles with missles since the 1960’s, my father led the team that did it stationed in the Marshall islands.
Israel should agree with the “professor” and keep the technology, and the enormous advances in the technology in the past month, to themselves. Just keep thinking that about ID, professor Luddite.
After all the blather of this piece (typical of leftist “evidence”) we get to the substance of the argument: “Success depends on approaching the rocket almost directly head-on. Engaging from the side or back has virtually no chance of success.”
That definition of success only really applies to the SDI initiative (as a nuclear warhead dropping off course would still cause a lot of damage, so it HAD to be completely destroyed in space for it to be rationalized). But this definition doesn’t apply for mere conventional weapons. Indeed as the professor himself points out, a 10-20lb bomb is not that powerful.
So simply knocking it off course, as has been pointed out already, is sufficient to avoid heavy casualties. This combined with retreats to bunkers ensures a low casualty rate. Knockng a rocket off course doesn’t take as much precision as blowing it up completely.
It’s an acceptable system for the area considered (which is small).
This is total claptrap. We can accurately calculate the trajectory of a cannon projectile and send one of our projectiles down range and hit the gun. And I do mean hit the gun, not just the area.
Current computers are incredibly fast and the calculation is fairly straightforward. The processor is mostly idle.
This is categorically false. As a missile officer aboard a U.S. Navy cruiser I was a witness to the contrary. And that was forty years ago.
For one thing, one does not have to "hit" the target skin-to-skin, although I witnessed that as well. One need only get close enough to encompass the target in the blast radius of the warhead. For an expanding-rod warhead that's actually quite a way. For another, one seldom encounters a head-on or a tail-chase engagement. Any deflection within those is not particularly difficult to calculate - it's junior-high math. And lastly, how anyone could insist on the impossibility of something that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the unclassified press is a bit of a mystery to me. Theoretically impossible? Then there's a problem with the theory.
“That’s the bad news. The worse news is that these rockets are being turned into smart rockets. The Iranians took the Zilzal 2 and turned it into a guided rocket. The third generation of it contains a homing sensor and a GPS. The Syrians can have this capability too, to create a fully guided M-600 rocket with GPS. Hezbollah probably has these,” he said.
The M-600 carries a 500-kilogram warhead, and a guided version of it would be a devastating weapon, Rubin warned.
He showed a photograph of Tel Aviv and the Defense Ministry/IDF General Headquarters site, the Kirya, saying one M-600 strike could collapse half of the area.
“That would change the skyline of Tel Aviv. This is not a tactical threat, it’s not harassment. This is a strategic threat. Even worse news is coming; ballistic missiles are becoming smart,” he said.
In the next five to 10 years, Israel’s enemies will inevitably arm themselves with GPS-guided ballistic missiles such as Scuds, he said.
What technology, if any, can defend against a guided missile?