Comments on: A battleground for weapons of the future http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Evelio http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-68217 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:23:35 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-68217 We need the Robot from “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, and stop all this war nonsense.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67851 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:26:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67851 @americanguy: your numbers make no sense! Read over them again!

]]>
By: americanguy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67848 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:26:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67848 “The actual speed of these Hamas rockets is in the range of 500 meters per second. Scuds that can travel 600 kilometers are traveling at 2,200 meters per second.”

The iron dome would be useless against a modern military missile. I am missing the “big story”. There are also reports from inside Israel that the iron dome actually only shot down 20% of their targets. According to the IDF, there were 933 rocket HITS on Israel during the conflict this November. That would mean Hamas would have to fire 10,000 rockets for Israel to shoot down 90% of them. Israel only has 400 missiles total in inventory (5 batteries, 60 missiles each battery, now a lot less).
And the truth shall set you free.

]]>
By: americanguy http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67847 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:59:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67847 The so called iron dome, was developed using Patriot 2 techonology provided to Israel by the USA, along with 300 million dollars. Any statement that Israel developed the system is pure bovine manure. The US developed the system, then gave it to Israel along with the money to adapt it to their needs.
Just as Israel did not develop it’s nuclear weapons, aircraft, bombs, or missiles. They may have made some changes, but they are basically knock offs of weapons from other countries. The US had a working system to shoot down small rockets, mortars, and artillery shells decades ago. Attempting to portray Israelis as some type of super genius advanced civilization is absolutely ridiculous.

]]>
By: SchlomoGoldberg http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67844 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 23:26:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67844 “Truly astonishing!”. Didn’t jews also invent oxygen? Or was that water? I know for a fact that they were the very first people to invent bull$!t even before the bulls themselves.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67838 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:08:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67838 @paintcan: One more thing to consider… The Arab-Israeli conflict is a microcosm of the worst parts/aspects of the rest of the world. It doesn’t matter what the Israelis do; there will always be significant numbers of Arabs and Persians who regard them as a cancerous tumor in the middle of an otherwise contiguous greater Islamic world — an aberration to be erased by “ethnic cleansing” and the like. With enemies who have a mentality like that, there’s only one possible approach:
“It’s either them or us.” — Pity the peace-loving Arabs, Persians, Muslims, Israelis, Jews… who want no part in this conflict, but to live peaceably with people of all faiths/cultures etc. It just takes a few of these people (perhaps 10–25%/population) to create a culture of survivalism…

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67837 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:01:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67837 @paintcan: The first 40% of your comment is excellent.

Note to Americans who complain about subsidies to the Israeli military: you’re getting your money’s worth in various ways, and on balance, this policy is saving thousands of American and millions of Israeli lives (if not also, on balance, tens or hundreds of thousands of Arab lives too, from dissuading the more militant Arab factions from going into another direct pitched battle against the Israelis with the same objectives they had in 1973).

]]>
By: OmarMinyawi http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67834 Sun, 02 Dec 2012 03:46:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67834 the rocket that went through and hit target was Abbas going to the U.N.

]]>
By: paintcan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67823 Sat, 01 Dec 2012 21:29:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67823 This article and the comments are like listening to chitchat at a “feast of the centaurs”.

Civilians tend to get the brunt of modern military adventures. The cost of their long-term care for war casualties or refugees, and the destruction of property, during and after the episodes when the boys get to play with their toys, should always be added to the costs of economy building with explosive devises.

None of the military actions during the past decade seem to be able to bring definitive resolution to any conflicts either. The self-styled surgeons of nations don’t seem to be such competent professionals actually and when they make a mistake with their scalpels and gut the patient, its only worth an “oops” and maybe some band aid propaganda, some payoffs (easier if the victims live in cheap economies), and a well publicized court case, if the issue is too large to ignore. The long-term peace keeping work seems to devolve to UN blue helmets and hardly anyone mentions them most of the time. And they tend to work without the latest equipment.

Peace could land on the earth as a giant white dove, and the boys would want the latest weapons to make sure the bird is scared off as quickly as possible. They would complain about the long term destabilizing effects of bird droppings on the economic and political balance of the world’s powers. Anything to sell equipment that no one else in their right mind could afford or even use and is guaranteed to make fortunes for the manufacturers and put a huge strain on the customers, especially if they are the up an coming world economies.

State of the Art is wonderful even if those the weapons industries claim they defend have to be the guinea pigs or crash dummies to make sure the stuff works as advertised? That stuff also tends to leak onto the world black markets and high tech starts to become standard tech in all the wrong hands. The latest high tech weapons are very like Viagra for nations with fading prowess (or really bad consciences). That is certainly what it is starting to look like.

I think the rational for the armaments industry world-wide is: if the leakage of heavy arms into private and semi private hands isn’t large enough to destabilize regimes, the “really good stuff” is available for special customers to finish off the last of the poor slobs.

But remember – don’t smoke cigarettes or eat fast food – it’s bad for your health.

]]>
By: matthewslyman http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/11/30/a-battleground-for-weapons-of-the-future/#comment-67815 Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:51:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=15887#comment-67815 > “Cornell’s Lewis estimates Hamas’ rockets cost at most $50,000 apiece. Each Iron Dome missile costs up to $90,000, according to a March report from the Congressional Research Service.”

If only 1/3 of Hamas’s rockets are on target (so that it takes 3 $50k rockets for the Israelis to fire one $90k rocket), the cost-ratio makes this a strategic win (as well as a tactical win) for the Israelis. No wonder they didn’t stage a ground incursion into Gaza this time around! Hamas lost.

Net result of conflict: Hamas looks vulnerable and their hard-line stance looks futile and self-defeating. Doubly so, because of Abbas’ victory at the UN…

]]>