What's new

The Great Israeli Iron Dome Hoax

Slav Defence

THINK TANK VICE CHAIRMAN: ANALYST
Oct 30, 2010
7,574
117
16,330
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Friday, August 15, 2014
Theodore Postol headlined his Technology Review article "Why Missile Defense Won't Work."

The notion is more hoax than possibility. His reasoning was detailed and technical. What's supposed to work doesn't as claimed

Hitting and destroying a missile with another one isn't possible. It may never be other than occasional lucky exceptions.

Claims otherwise are fabricated to maintain funding and deceive populations into believing they're safe.

According to Postol, "(t)his should be of profound concern to every US citizen" and every Israeli one.

"The officers and program managers involved in developing the antimissile system have taken oaths to defend the nation."

"Yet they have concealed from the American people and Congress the fact that a weapon system paid for by hard-earned tax dollars to defend our country cannot work."

The same holds for Israel's Iron Dome. Postol asks is it more sieve than effective missile shield?

Israel's early warning system alone works as intended. It gives people time to shelter for safety.

According to Postol, "the probability of (Iron Dome) destroying the artillery rocket warhead is essentially zero."

The same holds for Iron Dome intercepts "chasing rockets from behind. Occasional Iron Dome intercept attempts arise in a near-vertical trajectory.

"That is the only engagement geometry where (it) has a non-zero chance of destroying the rocket - the artillery rocket warhead," says Postol.

At least 95% of ID attempts fail. During the 1991 Gulf War, fabricated Patriot missile defense success was reported as 96% or greater.

Postol and others at MIT analyzed the data. They called likely Patriot success ZERO.

When Israelis see overhead explosions erroneously called successful intercepts, they're observing ID warhead explosions.

Money spent on ID and other missile defense hoaxes are wasted taxpayer dollars and shekels. People are deceived to believe otherwise. Safety is available in shelters alone.

"I would not spend money on an interceptor that has a near-zero chance of intercepting an artillery rocket," says Postol.

A July 10 erroneous Reuters report is typical of major media lies. It claimed Israel's Iron Dome interceptor has shot down some 90 percent of Palestinian rockets it engaged during this week's surge of Gaza fighting, up from the 85 percent rate in the previous mini-war of 2012."

Postol calls these type reports media deception. "(T)he press needs to engage in more due diligence on these matters," he says.

Verifiable facts, not fabrications, should be reported. People have a right to know. ID intercept attempts fail the great majority of the time.

Crude Hamas rockets with 10 - 20 pound warheads "are not lethal weapons," says Postol.

They don't work as intended. Sheltering in time is the best defense. ID success is a political deception.

At the same time, it's expensive. It's a small missile. It weights about 200 pounds.

It costs $400,000 each, not $20,000 according to some Israeli sources. Raytheon produces it in America.

According to Postol, "(t)here's a significant question there about whether the Congress and the American people have accurate information about what this system is really costing."

Most important is its ineffectiveness. People are deceived. Huge amounts of money are wasted. Big Fat Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure.

Media scoundrels are complicit. They regurgitate fiction, not verifiable facts. Israelis and Americans are willfully deceived.

On July 19, Postol headlined his Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article "The Evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working."

He explained much of what's covered above. "Close study of photographic and video imagery of Iron Dome engagements with Hamas rockets (currently and during 2012 Pillar of Cloud hostilities) shows that the low casualties…can be ascribed to Israeli civil defense efforts," not ID effectiveness.

Data show its performance hasn't improved from two years earlier. It's a failed system. It's willful deception. It's a hoax.

Effectiveness requires destroying rocket warheads. Their back ends are empty pipes.

If destroyed, warheads will fall and explode on the ground. Destroying a rocket warhead "is a considerably more demanding mission than damaging other parts of the targeted rocket," says Postol.

Success depends on approaching the rocket almost directly head-on. Engaging from the side or back has virtually no chance of success.

Photos of ID contrails show most ID intercept attempts either chase Hamas rockets from behind or the side.

"In both such cases, geometry and the speed of the interceptors and rockets make it extremely unlikely the interceptor will destroy the rocket's warhead," says Postol.

ID can miss many ways. "Because of the uncertainties in the exact crossing speed and geometry of two high-speed missiles, even a perfectly operating Iron Dome fuse may fail to place lethal fragments onto an artillery rocket's warhead," Postol explained.

"In addition, unless the distance between the Iron Dome warhead and the warhead of an artillery rocket is small (roughly a meter or so), there will be a greatly diminished chance that a fragment from the Iron Dome warhead will hit, penetrate, and cause the detonation of the artillery-rocket warhead."

Front-on engagements guarantee no success. Their "geometry merely indicates that an ID interceptor has a greater-than-zero chance of destroying the target-artillery rocket warhead."

Small-sized incoming rockets pose other problems. Successful intercepts are even harder to achieve.

When ID interceptors explode overhead, but have contrails showing they crossed the expected rocket trajectory from behind or either side, "it can be said with a high degree of certainty, that no intercept could have occurred," says Postol.

"It is absolutely clear: There is no evidence in the public record to show that Iron Dome is performing at an intercept rate of nearly 90 percent."

At best, it's 5% or less. Perhaps it's close to ZERO. Willful public deception deprives Israelis of information they need to know.

Transparency is nonexistent. Big Fat Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure.

ID is a hoax. It doesn't worked as claimed. Perhaps it never will. Hitting a missile with another one is like hitting a bullet with one fired at it.

Success may be a scientific impossibility other than occasional lucky exceptions.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on failure. Willful deception keeps people from knowing they've been had. According to Postol:

"In the absence of Israeli data backing claims of Iron Dome efficiency, and based on the unambiguous evidence I have reviewed, a conclusion seems clear:"

"The Israeli government is not telling the truth about Iron Dome to its own population, or to the United States, which has provided the Israeli government with the bulk of the funding needed to design and build the much-heralded but apparently ineffective rocket-defense system."

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
 
Last edited:
The writer attempts to prove that Iron Dome is a hoax & reasons that due to difference in geometry of missile & speed of approaching rocket plus direction makes it impossible to intercept rockets.It also claims to have greater cost price per interception ie 400,000$ rather than 20,000$.

Q1)If it is such a huge failure then why US & Israel are wasting their precious dollars in it?

Q2)How can speed and direction are reducing interception efficiency?How it can be adjusted?

Q3)Research claims that ID effectiveness is minimum,it can't even hit missile unless there is a few meter distance b/w two.So,how it can be made effective with high distance?

Q4)It is like hitting a bullet with one fired at it?but isn't there a huge difference between intercepting two missiles with each other?

Q5)How many of you agree & how many of you disagree?

Regards
 
Last edited:
Postol is frustrated conspiracist, who makes assumptions without knowing basing things. For example he did not even knew that Iron Dome has a seeker!
6a691edffc67ec93f0daeaa7788da876.gif
Nevertheless he still criticized it.
6a691edffc67ec93f0daeaa7788da876.gif


After recent encounter when Hamas and PIJ fired over 100 rockets at Tel Aviv causing zero damage his conspiracy is laughable.

Tel Aviv area without Iron Dome:
65b1a367b9b4c6b8429336e0949d1d0a.jpg


Tel Aviv area with Iron Dome:
8c87c9f82787955b00341d01cb3b1e98.jpg


9cf500d957f47da5758a3504b68ba4c9.jpg


38d9fe004b3cfe29d7b523765544f985.jpg
 
Postol is frustrated conspiracist, who makes assumptions without knowing basing things. For example he did not even knew that Iron Dome has a seeker! View attachment 80818 Nevertheless he still criticized it. View attachment 80818

After recent encounter when Hamas and PIJ fired over 100 rockets at Tel Aviv causing zero damage his conspiracy is laughable.

Tel Aviv area without Iron Dome:
View attachment 80819

Tel Aviv area with Iron Dome:
View attachment 80820

View attachment 80821

View attachment 80822
I appreciate your honesty first of all,but the research paper claiming Iron dome as Iron sieve, what are your views about it?
Regards
 
I appreciate your honesty first of all,but the research paper claiming Iron dome as Iron sieve, what are your views about it?
Regards
Once again: I saw Iron Dome interceptions over my head twice a day for over a month.

There are two options:

1) Iron Dome works.
2) Hamas and Israel formed some kind of conspiracy to promote the Iron Dome and ridicule Theodore Postol.

They also uncovered a strange phenomenon whereby the Iron Dome’s missiles followed identical trajectories, and self-destructed at precisely the same time. In some of the videos, it appears that the Iron Dome’s missiles made a very sharp turn shortly before self-destruction. That cannot be, say the scientists, as there is no way that the missile defense system could “remember” that it needs to turn in the direction of the incoming Grad missile a quarter-second before it self-destructs.
This is Postol's "arguments". He does not know that:

1) In many cases two interceptors were launched against one rocket.
2) The Iron Dome missile has its own seeker, so it does not remember anything.

So how can he criticize the Iron Dome without knowing such a basic things about it?
 
The genius who wrote that article uses the term "antimissile" for ID. Firstly ID is built to intercept artillery shells and rockets, NOT MISSILES. As he stated, the operational success rate is below 6%. But this is an anti-artillery system spent millions of dollars on it, not a sperm aiming to get in the ovule which's possibility is one of million times.

A missile, simply is a rocket with warhead using a seeker to guide on it's target.

An artillery rocket is a type of artillery equipped with rocket launchers instead of conventional guns.

An artillery shell is a munition used to fire beyond the capabilities of small fire arms.



The last two is of course harder to intercept. For ex: Only CIWSs can intercept such equipment in naval terms.

There's no need for technical talk for ID in this thread.
Simply, Isn't it one of the primary responsibilities of a government to act to ensure the safety of her citizens even if the threat is 1% or doesn't any government take the step in for a system that it provides solution and even if the succes rate is 5%, as it'd just be another solution to be added to other systems, to augment the air defenses of the country to protect her citizens?


Let me say you that the art of military itself is all about either taking risks or not leaving things upon risks..every sailor/soldier on this earth knows that well and acts in accordance with that.

@Slav Defence and the rest.
 
The genius who wrote that article uses the term "antimissile" for ID. Firstly ID is built to intercept artillery shells and rockets, NOT MISSILES. As he stated, the operational success rate is below 6%. But this is an anti-artillery system spent millions of dollars on it, not a sperm aiming to get in the ovule which's possibility is one of million times.

A missile, simply is a rocket with warhead using a seeker to guide on it's target.

An artillery rocket is a type of artillery equipped with rocket launchers instead of conventional guns.

An artillery shell is a munition used to fire beyond the capabilities of small fire arms.



The last two is of course harder to intercept. For ex: Only CIWSs can intercept such equipment in naval terms.

There's no need for technical talk for ID in this thread.
Simply, Isn't it one of the primary responsibilities of a government to act to ensure the safety of her citizens even if the threat is 1% or doesn't any government take the step in for a system that it provides solution and even if the succes rate is 5%, as it'd just be another solution to be added to other systems, to augment the air defenses of the country to protect her citizens?


Let me say you that the art of military itself is all about either taking risks or not leaving things upon risks..every sailor/soldier on this earth knows that well and acts in accordance with that.

@Slav Defence and the rest.
Yes,indeed it is a risk when dealing with military defence as success rate & output efficiency is not always meet with expectations.
However,criticism plays a vital role as it leads towards improvement. In this article which I have posted above seems more like a childish attempt to prove the other party wrong.It lacks maturity & seems more like a complain filed against huge taxes. However,the research paper claiming Iron dome as Iron sieve is something which should be taken seriously.I personally sense that author may lack maturity & complete info about Iron Dome but the technical errors which he pointed out are not his own research.He simply tried to discuss objections from some sources-but his way of addressing issue was not as great as it should be since he himself does not seems to have expertise. Hence,we must look into that research paper & analyze it's technical methodology as either to conclude whether it should be accepted or challenged?
Regards
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom