March 30, 2007

Israel: Arrow Anti-Missile Defense System Now "Can Fully Protect Against Iran"
— Ace

Hmmm... not sure if I consider this good news or dangerous optimism.

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.

Iran and Syria, Herzog said, were investing unprecedented amounts of money in long-range ballistic missile capabilities - with the help of North Korea - and had all but given up building modern air forces.


Herzog also said that while there might be missile systems in Iranian hands that the Arrow could not intercept, all of the ballistic missiles "currently operational" in the Islamic Republic could be destroyed by the Israeli defense system.

Posted by: Ace at 12:04 PM | Comments (11)
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I love me some Jooos!

Posted by: Stormy70 at March 30, 2007 12:23 PM (7WJsV)


dangerous optimism.

Daring Brinksmanship?

Is Israel playing nicey nice, while at the same time, talking about how they have a black belt and it's a good thing that they can still get along with Iran?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 12:42 PM (QTv8u)

3 Unlike those kids in highschool, Israel has a fucking blackbelt, and a ruthless willingness to engage in a demonstration when required.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 12:43 PM (QTv8u)

4 Why do british scientists always make me expect the next line out of their mouths to be something about dahleks?

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 01:00 PM (QTv8u)


I think Israel is putting Syria on notice that it now has no air offense. Israel and Iran have no common border. So their going mano a mano is less likely. Also, if Iran gets too frisky, Israel has about 200 nukes. Iran will have its surrogates in Lebanon and Gaza launch missiles of various sizes and capablities against Israel. The terrorist have tens of thousands of Katyusha type junk to launch, luckily relatively few heavy long range hardware.

This will change, then it will be a ptoblem of sorting the decoys from the live missiles. And unless something is done about Iran by the US, it will obtain nukes.

Posted by: Mark at March 30, 2007 02:29 PM (isTfo)

6 Between this, Patriot and THEL, the only thing Israel has to worry about from the sky is sunburn.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 30, 2007 03:10 PM (clI2H)


Mac, thats a bit excessive.

If Israel is ACTIVE in their defense, then you are right, but in pure defense. .. .see.

While the defense has advantages of ground, they are static, that is why the US and the Marines specificaly are the ninja's of all conflicts.

WE, especially the marines (my chosen branch of service, even though I was busy troubleshooting communications equipment) Move.

Nothing scares the shit out of an opponent more, than not being where that enemy doesn't know where the fuck you are.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 03:33 PM (QTv8u)


A common phrase in historical strategy/tactics, is "prove the tactical defense, while maintaining the strategic offensive"

See, "mobile warfare" as the USMC and most of the US Army are trained in, is exactly that, the thing is, that it's constant.

It's the politicians who created "fortresses" not the Marines, and not the forwardly active Army commanders.

You move, you flank, you isolate, you kill, if you are "ambushed" your "ambushers" are ignorant of the guys ready to come up your ass.

as a guy who's most significant injury was because he burned the shit out of his hands regularly (true story, I was fixing someting, and I smelled something.  All of my "section" (3 others) asked me what I was talking about, and I said "do you smell something burning?" one of my best friends "it's your fucking hand," and then I freaked out.  I was used to being burned, but for me to be burned that bad freaked me out for a bit.  I returned to my job a few hours later, remember this is under microscopes, actually "stereoscopes.")

Unless you remember anything from BST, or addititional advanced training, then you have no right to comment.

CHARGE, regroup, envelope.

FACT, even in small groups.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 03:40 PM (QTv8u)


Oddly enough? as much as the Army and Marines shit on the navy about their pussydom?

They learned that through the cross cut cannonades of old time naval maneuvering.  When broadsides were necesarry, the offered up their support ships (pogues, and they accepted) to take the broads, while the strategic leaders of the warships crossed the T again.

And really?  Which would you prefer?  a gunshot wound as a hero? or drowning in anonymity.

The Marines Fuck with the Navy, but truth be told, I do NOT envy the death most of the navy must suffer in time of war.

Give me a bullet and blood any day, screaming to my last breath my defiance of my enemy.

The navy doesn't have that option.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at March 30, 2007 03:53 PM (QTv8u)

10 Ace:

"Hmmm...not sure if I consider this good news or dangerous optimism."

Obligatory what-the-hell-do-I-know, here, but I think even if their system were only, say, 60% effective, it might be a good idea to boast about it as though it were 100% effective. The exaggeration won't make the Iranians any more likely to launch, and the uncertainty it instills could have a valuable effect on the mullahs' cost/benefit analysis. Rafsanjani might consider an Israeli nuclear counterstrike an acceptable price to pay for wiping out Israel, but what about for trying to wipe out Israel and failing utterly?

Posted by: JPS at March 30, 2007 04:41 PM (nZ8iQ)

11 I blame Reagan AND I question the timing!

Posted by: John F Not Kerry at March 31, 2007 04:02 AM (eXdIs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
77kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 1.2086 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1606 seconds, 247 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.