'Arrow can fully protect against Iran'

[Spinoza]

snip>"Recent modifications made to the Arrow enable Israel's ballistic missile defense system to successfully intercept and destroy any ballistic missile in the Middle East, including nuclear-capable missiles under development by Iran, Arieh Herzog, the head of the Defense Ministry's Homa Missile Defense Agency, has told The Jerusalem Post.

In a rare interview that will appear in full in Monday's Post, Herzog provides an inside look at the decision-making process behind Israel's missile defense systems, led by the Israeli- and American-developed Arrow missile, one of the only operational ballistic missile defense systems in the world.

On Monday, the IAF successfully tested a newly modified Arrow interceptor."<snip


snip> "Such a system also serves as a deterrent. "If someone thinks that a large percentage of his missiles will be intercepted, he will think twice before attacking," Herzog said.
<snip"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879211495&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Even if this system works 'as advertised' Iranian designed 'suitcase nukes' are still possible. Still, a huge and terrifying genocidal threat may have been reduced.

Remember the words of the Iranian 'moderate' and formeer Iranian President Ayatollah Hashemi Rasfanjani: "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemi_Rafsanjani

Many Israelis must be heaving a big sigh of relief at this news.

[wtmusic]

1. This mindset will not help

We are losing a war in Iraq to vastly inferior weaponry because it is fundamentally unjust.

If Israel is perceived as being unjust by a nuclear Iran they will get nuked, one way or the other--even with all the "Arrows" money can buy.

[Spinoza]

2. You may be right

that the Iranian leadership is insane enough to try to 'nuke' Israeli cities because in their opinion (the opinion of a government led by a whack-job Holocaust Denier) 'Israel' is 'fundamentally unjust'. Still, I am sure that if I lived in Israel or had children living in Israel I would rather have the 'Arrow' than not have it. With the 'Arrow' at least there is the the possibility that when Iran attempts to rectify the 'injustice' of 'Israel' through mass nuclear slaughter (and also perhaps get Israel to admit that there really was no Holocaust since that subject seems so important to the Iranian regime) Israel will have some ability to defend against a nuclear genocide.

[rockymountaindem]

4. Like any state would use nuclear weapons because they feel their enemy is "unjust".

If Iran procured a viable nuclear weapons system (warhead and delivery) they would enter into a state of MAD with Israel. Nobody would dare pull the trigger in that situation over feelings of injustice. If that were the case, the US and USSR would have both fired on each other during the mid to late 1950s. Too much is at stake in that kind of scenario to worry about whether the other side is "just" or not. It comes down to bare national survival.

[wtmusic]

6. Not sure Cold War era US-Soviet MAD is comparable

The problem nowadays is that there's no definitive way to trace the source of a nuclear explosion.

A smuggled nuke explodes in Tel Aviv. Does Israel assume it's Iran and destroy Tehran and millions of lives based on a suspicion? What if it was smuggled from Pakistan?

[rockymountaindem]

7. It's probably easier than some would suggest

For instance, Pakistan and Israel are drawing closer these days. There was recently talk about Pakistan granting diplomatic recognition to Israel. So right now, if something like you suggest happens, Pakistan would probably not be on the list of the ususal suspects. That said, Israeli intelligence (and to whatever extent they *may* cooperate with US intel) surely keeps a close eye on the threat posed from every quarter, so that if a nuclear attack were to occur they would already have a pretty good idea of who would most likely be responsible and who would probably be in the clear. Without a missle strike, I doubt a retaliatory strike would occur immediately, but one would come.

[PATRICK]

3. All too timely

considering. So this is either bluff, showing one's hand(demonstration? where is it?), palliative for the masses. I would like to see a true demonstration before I breathed even a partial sigh of relief.

They openly slap themselves on the back on the effect instilling doubt on the attacker. That only works to deter first strike intentions, not desperate retribution and in the current state of affairs those two
scenarios can merge MADD-ly fast.

[bemildred]

5. This is Valium(tm) for the rubes.

If it works well, it will stop some PERCENTAGE of BALLISTIC missiles. It will not stop rockets; and while partial protection is usually good, it's not really good enough in a nuclear exchange.

[eyl]

8. Nukes

are too heavy*, unless you use a big rocket, which shouldn't bee much harder than a missile to intercept.

*Not to mention too expensive for an unguided projectile.

[bemildred]

9. And a good thing it is too.

Although I think the US has worked on that problem, I know they used to plan in terms of tactical nukes WRT the Fulda Gap problem, artillery shells and rockets, but I consider that was folly. The issue with rockets is time, the lack of it, they are not up there long enough to identify and get something up to stop them, and it is easier to overwhelm the defense with numbers, because they are cheap. Being "ballistic" means they spend some time at altitude getting where they are going, so there is time to attempt a response. The farther they go and the longer they take to get there, the better your chances of finding a way to intercept them. There have been various attempts to come up with lasers or X-rays or "smart rocks" to do the job, but nothing convincing to me so far. The real problem with nukes is that they make a big mess and invite similar unrestrained retaliation.