Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes, a stone thrower will never win against a tank, it doesn't matter how many stones he has. Similarly, if you only have a 100 rockets, but the enemy has enough interceptors or capacity to absorb them, you will lose. In both cases, one side is massively superior to the other and such math is basically irrelevant. Where math enters the picture, is when you have an actual comparable opponent. That's when you need actual strategy and tactics. And that's when focusing on missile defense becomes a bad move.
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
Yes, a stone thrower will never win against a tank, it doesn't matter how many stones he has. Similarly, if you only have a 100 rockets, but the enemy has enough interceptors or capacity to absorb them, you will lose. In both cases, one side is massively superior to the other and such math is basically irrelevant. Where math enters the picture, is when you have an actual comparable opponent. That's when you need actual strategy and tactics. And that's when focusing on missile defense becomes a bad move.

Yes moving on to that conversation, Israel is going to be taking an uphill battle. Which is why Israel has traditionally preferred to engage its adversaries in asymmetric warfare. It has no chance of defending itself directly against several near peer adversaries but it plans on keeping its massive technology lead and has financing support of the US.

When a day comes where anti-Israeli groups have access to more resources and more sophisticated weaponry, in greater numbers, then something like the iron dome would have no effectiveness. It would just be the difference between a target being destroyed twice over to being destroyed 100 times over. It would be forced into exploring diplomatic solutions that are agreeable to its adversaries.
 

Top