“Traditionally” you built war machines knowing some of them are going to explode for one reason or another. You hope to get more utility out of it then if you could have gotten out of another system, ideally by complimenting your other systems. Losing 1 carrier is bad, but if it lets you sink 2-5 of Japan’s carriers, its “worth it”.
The problem is that modern (post cold war and back in the 1870-1930 period as well) military makes systems that aren’t practical for the engagements they’re in. Part of it is changing tech (dreadnaughts seemed like the big thing until cheap aircraft sank a few in WWI). Part of it is fitting your military for the conflicts you’re in/expect to be in (late colonial Britian/France was used to fighting “lesser” foes not industrialized nations).
A lot of American systems are built for 10 billion billion dollars because they’re assuming that they’re going to be up against the Soviets/China/some European system. They “have” to be that expensive otherwise you’re going to lose. The problem is, if your opponent gets lucky, or your system fails, or your opponent finds any flaw or builds a system that “just works”, then you can spend 1000x more and still lose. Vietnam etal. almost taught us Yanks that you need some systems that aren’t going to sink your budget if you lose them, but we’re too dumb/proud to not spend the most on everything. (Also its a racket, etc, etc.)
So you end up spending a billion on a system designed to work in a different scenario, sold to you that its “actually more then you need, but then it’ll work now and forever so you really are saving”, and then gets destroyed because of course it does, you’re fighting a war you (royal you, not you you) nerd.
TLDR: America falls into the pitfall all/most large organizations do. Assuming there is no point in smaller systems because you’re too big to care about the little parts.
I don’t think any missile defense system is 100% effective, and I haven’t seen any reporting on if these were destroyed by the types of missiles they are designed to intercept, or by drones or some other means.
my neighbor told me Iran keeps bombing his missile defense systems so I asked how many missile defense systems he has and he said he just goes to south korea and gets a new missile defense system afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding missile defense systems to Iran and then his daughter started crying
Not too confident, but from what I’ve read, the THAAD system is on the more advanced side of a web of missile defense systems (another defense option being Patriot missiles). Looks like it offers better defense against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles specifically. I think other, less advanced interceptors can still challenge those types of missiles, but probably at a lower success rate. So the effect may be making it easier for Iranian missiles to get through, but it’s not a complete destruction of any U.S. ability to intercept.
It may have second-order effects if the U.S. planned on these systems lasting indefinitely: maybe they stocked up on THAAD missiles they can no longer launch, and have comparatively smaller stockpiles of other interceptors like Patriot missiles. Maybe those less-effective missiles will be spent more quickly if they successfully intercept less often, but I’m really guessing at this point.
A THAAD battery consists of 90 soldiers, six truck-mounted launchers and 48 interceptors – eight per launcher – one TPY-2 radar, as well as a tactical fire control and communication unit.
Really makes me question the total of 6 U.S. deaths reported so far.
The 6 deaths they admitted to were also non-combat logistics workers in a random outpost in Kuwait. The US still has not yet admitted to even a single combat death of their active combat troops stationed at military bases. It’s obviously complete bullshit. The American hubris cannot admit to any of their precious “warriors” losing so they just lie.
The way I see this unfolding: they try and hide as many facts as possible, convince a substantial amount of the population that we’re winning. Then surprise! We actually lost. Then they find some minority group to blame as the only possibility in their mind was that someone backstabbed us.
Can someone smarter than me tell me what happens once they’re all destroyed? Seems inevitable at this point.
Well, i’m no war genius, but this is basically blinding the missile interception system
Without it, they can’t reliably shoot down incoming missiles
I mean, apparently they aren’t that great if they got destroyed by missiles? Imagine a mosquito net that got torn up by mosquitos
More of a testament to how planned out the Iranian counteroffensive was to overcome these systems
“Traditionally” you built war machines knowing some of them are going to explode for one reason or another. You hope to get more utility out of it then if you could have gotten out of another system, ideally by complimenting your other systems. Losing 1 carrier is bad, but if it lets you sink 2-5 of Japan’s carriers, its “worth it”.
The problem is that modern (post cold war and back in the 1870-1930 period as well) military makes systems that aren’t practical for the engagements they’re in. Part of it is changing tech (dreadnaughts seemed like the big thing until cheap aircraft sank a few in WWI). Part of it is fitting your military for the conflicts you’re in/expect to be in (late colonial Britian/France was used to fighting “lesser” foes not industrialized nations).
A lot of American systems are built for 10 billion billion dollars because they’re assuming that they’re going to be up against the Soviets/China/some European system. They “have” to be that expensive otherwise you’re going to lose. The problem is, if your opponent gets lucky, or your system fails, or your opponent finds any flaw or builds a system that “just works”, then you can spend 1000x more and still lose. Vietnam etal. almost taught us Yanks that you need some systems that aren’t going to sink your budget if you lose them, but we’re too dumb/proud to not spend the most on everything. (Also its a racket, etc, etc.)
So you end up spending a billion on a system designed to work in a different scenario, sold to you that its “actually more then you need, but then it’ll work now and forever so you really are saving”, and then gets destroyed because of course it does, you’re fighting a war you (royal you, not you you) nerd.
TLDR: America falls into the pitfall all/most large organizations do. Assuming there is no point in smaller systems because you’re too big to care about the little parts.
It could’ve been better if they spent 100 billion per battery instead of 1.
I don’t think any missile defense system is 100% effective, and I haven’t seen any reporting on if these were destroyed by the types of missiles they are designed to intercept, or by drones or some other means.
One of those fancy radars got owned by a home made Iraqi drone.
And can anyone answer if my assumption is correct that South Korea and Guam are too far to reliably see missiles in the Middle East?
well they are apparentely removing them from south korea to bring them closer
my neighbor told me Iran keeps bombing his missile defense systems so I asked how many missile defense systems he has and he said he just goes to south korea and gets a new missile defense system afterwards so I said it sounds like he’s just feeding missile defense systems to Iran and then his daughter started crying
Lol
Let’s see how long these ones last
Not too confident, but from what I’ve read, the THAAD system is on the more advanced side of a web of missile defense systems (another defense option being Patriot missiles). Looks like it offers better defense against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles specifically. I think other, less advanced interceptors can still challenge those types of missiles, but probably at a lower success rate. So the effect may be making it easier for Iranian missiles to get through, but it’s not a complete destruction of any U.S. ability to intercept.
It may have second-order effects if the U.S. planned on these systems lasting indefinitely: maybe they stocked up on THAAD missiles they can no longer launch, and have comparatively smaller stockpiles of other interceptors like Patriot missiles. Maybe those less-effective missiles will be spent more quickly if they successfully intercept less often, but I’m really guessing at this point.
Also found this:
Really makes me question the total of 6 U.S. deaths reported so far.
The 6 deaths they admitted to were also non-combat logistics workers in a random outpost in Kuwait. The US still has not yet admitted to even a single combat death of their active combat troops stationed at military bases. It’s obviously complete bullshit. The American hubris cannot admit to any of their precious “warriors” losing so they just lie.
The way I see this unfolding: they try and hide as many facts as possible, convince a substantial amount of the population that we’re winning. Then surprise! We actually lost. Then they find some minority group to blame as the only possibility in their mind was that someone backstabbed us.
They’re not doing well with the public on this one
They pay the war profiteer companies more to make more, the capitalists and stock owning politicians profit.