They can.What about stuff like C-Ram (Phalanx based one) or what have you?
Because that is thier whole purpose.
They can.What about stuff like C-Ram (Phalanx based one) or what have you?
Would YOU like to live in a city that depends on a c-ram's effectiveness to be able to live without explosives landing randomly on your head? It's bad enough that we have to depend on Iron Dome.What about stuff like C-Ram (Phalanx based one) or what have you?
Would YOU like to live in a city that depends on a c-ram's effectiveness to be able to live without explosives landing randomly on your head? It's bad enough that we have to depend on Iron Dome.
Yes.Would YOU like to live in a city that depends on a c-ram's effectiveness to be able to live without explosives landing randomly on your head? It's bad enough that we have to depend on Iron Dome.
Actually, I'd sleep sounder at night if I had the level of SHORAD around me that you do.Would YOU like to live in a city that depends on a c-ram's effectiveness to be able to live without explosives landing randomly on your head? It's bad enough that we have to depend on Iron Dome.
That is why you have a LOT of C-RAMSAs I understand it, C-RAM only has about a 50-60% success rate with it creeping up towards about 70% under optimal circumstances. That's why Iron Dome's 90% is so revolutionary. If they get fired on by 1,400 mortars and can only intercept two-thirds of those instead of 90%, that's a lot more dead people. Additionally, at those ranges, people will only have a few seconds of warning so the number of civilians who can reach a shelter in time will drop increasing casualties even more.
The other issue is that going off the 1967 lines, Jerusalem can be under fire from three directions simultaneously so they need far more defenses for it than they do now where all the missiles are coming from the same general direction.
That's an option, but a better one is "Don't give Hamas territory surrounding Jerusalem on all sides at point-blank range for an empty promise of temporary ceasefire."That is why you have a LOT of C-RAMS
Oh for sure.That's an option, but a better one is "Don't give Hamas territory surrounding Jerusalem on all sides at point-blank range for an empty promise of temporary ceasefire."
That's what Iron Beam is for. Once the IDF gets it fully operational anywaysOh for sure.
But that is what you call a backup plan. Have them for if things don't go well
Resources are limited, what military expenditure would you cut, to field the required number of C-RAMs? Armor, artillery or infantry?That is why you have a LOT of C-RAMS
Resources are limited, what military expenditure would you cut, to field the required number of C-RAMs? Armor, artillery or infantry?
Well depends on the doctrine of the.militaryResources are limited, what military expenditure would you cut, to field the required number of C-RAMs? Armor, artillery or infantry?
It's not only Jerusalem. If the Palestinians (and, consequently, Hamas) get the 1967 borders, Tel Aviv and its suburbs would also be too close to the border. Like, the 1967 lines are as wide as Manhattan Island is long in some places. No way Israel would voluntarily accept such borders.That's an option, but a better one is "Don't give Hamas territory surrounding Jerusalem on all sides at point-blank range for an empty promise of temporary ceasefire."
My understanding is that the 1967 borders are strategically and tactically unfeasible for Israel, everyone knows it too, which means that everyone knows they cannot accept them. As such, why do folks not propose a border solution for the two-state solution that HAS strategically acceptable borders for Israel?It's not only Jerusalem. If the Palestinians (and, consequently, Hamas) get the 1967 borders, Tel Aviv and its suburbs would also be too close to the border. Like, the 1967 lines are as wide as Manhattan Island is long in some places. No way Israel would voluntarily accept such borders.
Largely because that's been the previous talking point in negotiations with the addition of 'defensive-minded land swaps'...My understanding is that the 1967 borders are strategically and tactically unfeasible for Israel, everyone knows it too, which means that everyone knows they cannot accept them. As such, why do folks not propose a border solution for the two-state solution that HAS strategically acceptable borders for Israel?
Or is it just a way to make the Israelis look unreasonable?
Because the Arabs, both as a point of pride and tactics, insist on that, at very minimum. The islamist faction among Arabs, as represented by Hamas and few lesser organizations, is especially not interested in a long term peace - after all, that would be heresy to their ideology, nevermind that it would obsolete their very own organizations, whose whole basis of existence is militancy after all, its not like Hamas can claim competence as good stewards of the economy and win a fair election on that ground. However, they very interested in buying tactical advantages for a short term peace, which is precisely why their list of demands is structured the way it is - designed to cause a short peace, after which they can return to war with a big set of advantages they didn't have before. The demanded advantages for future war are massive and obvious, but a no deal situation is also one they are fine with.My understanding is that the 1967 borders are strategically and tactically unfeasible for Israel, everyone knows it too, which means that everyone knows they cannot accept them. As such, why do folks not propose a border solution for the two-state solution that HAS strategically acceptable borders for Israel?
Or is it just a way to make the Israelis look unreasonable?