Did Iran just prove Israel can't afford to defend itself?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 апр 2024
- "Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to stay fully informed on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off their Vantage Plan, which is what I use."
-- Break --
On Saturday, Iranian forces launched some 330 cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones in an ill-fated attack on Israel, resulting in more than 99% of the weapons either being intercepted, or failing before they reached their targets.
But was Israel's defense really a victory? With the cost of interceptors used to down these inbound weapons sometimes outstripping the cost of the weapons themselves by 10 to 1 or more, did Saturday's attack prove Israel's defense is a losing financial proposition?
No, it didn't. So, let's talk about why.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Citations:
iranprimer.usip.org/resource/...
missilethreat.csis.org/missil...
www.yahoo.com/news/iran-publi...
www.nasic.af.mil/LinkClick.as...
www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...
www.timesofisrael.com/iran-un...
www.newarab.com/news/israels-...
www.wsj.com/livecoverage/isra...
www.iranwatch.org/our-publica...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
www.sipri.org/databases/milex
www.inss.org.il/
www.imf.org/external/datamapp...
www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp...
data.worldbank.org/indicator/...
apnews.com/article/israel-ira...
www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/wo...
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle...
Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to get a balanced perspective on military developments around the world. Subscribe though my link for 40% off unlimited access for just $5/month.
For the love of God, straighten that cover! Sorry my eyes go right to it in that corner shelf
😮
Google “DARPA’S GROUNDBREAKING “ACE” PROGRAM AND X-62A BECOMES FIRST AI-CONTROLLED JET TO DOGFIGHT AGAINST MANNED F-16 IN REAL-WORLD”
Finally in real life an AI powered fighter went head to head against a manned F-16.
Who cares about percent of GDP??? It is still wasted money. Yes the US has way more land and people so our GDP is high. It is still a loss for every dollar we waste. Our government steals taxes from us to fund that as Iran’s government pays for its own missiles using state owned oil. AKA. The West citizens suffer vs Irans government has less money.
So what this video told me is the USA is the only reason this works as a win financially. So we must do our best as Americans to get our country to pull out. Iran showed the world that Israel cannot defend its nation by itself. Definitely a win there.
Old military axiom. "The first reports are always wrong."
New axiom: The reports that the first reports are wrong could also be wrong.
@@stcredzero 😅
Said Omar Bradley at receiving the info at the beginning of the battle of the Bulge.
No plan survives contact with the enemy - Helmuth von Moltke
@@stcredzero "We apologise again for the fault in the -subtitles- initial reports. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked."
Cost exchange ratio, a $100,000 missile taken out by a $11,000,000 missile protecting a billion dollar plus target. Cost exchange ratio is very cheap indeed.
Excellent point and it escapes a lot of people. The cost of what is being protected ultimately is the most important factor plus the cost of the aftermath of its destruction
The most expensive interceptor israel has is arrow3 ballistic interceptor (3 mln dollars). And iran ballistic mid range ballistic cost much more than 100k dollars.
@@12zaf1 those figures I gave were a rough number to get the context of the point I was making. Even using your numbers, my comment is still valid.
@@jeffs7573 not still valid, but even more valid i would say.
@@12zaf1yeah, I don't get that 1.3 billion number floating around. It makes absolutely no sense.
Does beg the question.... how many missiles can Iran intercept?
….they have no idea because unlike Israel they have not yet been constantly attacked for years forcing them to develop sophisticated defensive systems
I'd wager somewhere close to 0.
Iran has many anti missile defense system which includes russian s300. That's the reason israel has taken so long to attack iran
@@masternobin …they’re a bit useless if they can’t lock onto anything. I’m sure they work just fine when they’re practicing against the Iranian Air Force F-14s
@masternobin hopefully not too much longer. Farsi should be a language of the past.
Alex, thank you for trusting your audience to handle some nuance and context. At least some of us out here get it.
Yes, yes we do! Thanks Mr Hollings, the king of nuance!
I hope Perun covers this in the future. This type of analysis is his happy place.
ha true that, the economics and politics is his thing thats for sure
Yes, there seems to be factors left out to positively spin the conclusion he made before examining it all. The defence has to stand and is costly, while Israel depended on allies flying in Syria for strategic depth, plus there was clearly warning of this attack.
Israel having radicalised populations near it's borders, historically dispossessed of land, happy to receive relatively cheap weapons which will over time improve.
US & Israeli attacks on militias are like cutting the head from a hydra. More pop up from whence they've come with oppression and instability meaning alternative careers are hard to come by.
The punitive actions buy at great cost temporary illusion of security.
Then there is the chilling effect of not living in peace for Israelis, there are other strategic effects and I have noticed Kremlin bots are encouraging Israeli escalation to continue this process, probably to divert attention from Ukraine.
Now it has become clear that the USA may be isolationist and not the reliable dependable partner of the pre-Trump era.
Finally there is the opportunity cost of not building peace, seething populations held down by autocrats and military regimes can change sides. This fortress strategy oppressing Moslem populations is breeding conflict with no end in sight.
US intervention in the Middle East has had poor results.
Up to half of Iran’s missiles failing to work properly is peak Iran
What flavor is the ShillBox Kewl-Aide these days? Must be delicious.
@@ChargeNReactYou would know.
well, thats according to the US
@@ChargeNReact
I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me since you seem to be the one throating that bottle?
@@quvy338
Yes. According the the country that sees the entire Pacific, can see balloons taking off in Asia, is one of the countries that was defending against the attack, and can see (from space) the writing on top of buildings in Iran
Iran: $50M for ~1% accuracy
Israel: $1B for ~99% accuracy
Iran would have to spend $1B for 20% accuracy
Iran basically got a participation trophy and tells people they won 😂😂😂
No, it's really more that they cost the Israelis a huge amount of money. Relative to what they committed themselves.
Overall it's just a political show of force. Which each side working off separate objectives.
@@KSmithwick1989did u watch the video?
In reality it's Israel that only participated in its air defense, so they win the participation trophy.
Iran barely even received the participation trophy.
Israel was baiting iran to respond so Israel could get the green light for a precision strike on irans nuclear facilities. 🎣
Financial Attrition: My alliance in Eve Online did this. There was this guy who ran a cruiser with drones. He'd almost always get taken down. The thing was, he'd always take with him 3X or more times the value of enemy ships. So our alliance kept buying him new ships and equipment. The US and NATO need to start developing super cheap drones that can take down other drones. We already have anti-ship missiles that can allocate targets between them. Just apply that tech to drones.
There is a little drone company in Utah that is working with the military and DOJ..... 🤔
Point Defense Lasers are close
@@Adroit1911 anti-drone drones?
America called in alot of favors for Saturday night. I doubt they can call it again. Many of these nations just don't want another Western War in their region.
Think about it first. The War in Iraq which destabilized the region. The Deal with Iran which emboldened them and created the Houthi issue. Leaving Iraq which created ISIS. Supporting the Arab Spring which destabilized the entire region and boosted ISIS. Which also helped spark the Syrian Civil war which pushed refugees into all neighboring countries. All this for what? Oil we don't need and terrorism that is fuelled by our involvement in a region 10k miles away. LEAVE THAT AREA ALONE. I mean Natty Boy literally bragged about feeding the snake that eventually bit him in October. Seems like America is getting involved in someone else's bad domestic policy Again. Not to mention the INCALCULABLE LOSS of soft power we have suffered over this. This conflict has made it clear to the World that "Wh**e mean Right" in the eyes of the US and presenting that optic to the 80% of the World that does fit that category and that hold 80% of the raw material needed to sustain Western society is a strategic Loss. It will alot harder for America to make the sweet heart deals it historically had access to.. 80 years of being the "honest broker" down the drain.
Try everything and keep trying because we’re at Drone Warfare 0.3 Public Alpha.
You are indeed Alex Hollings, and that was in fact another excellent video. Thank you, sir!
This is award winning journalism at its best!
Although high quality and informative, his videos are full of bias. Journalism should be impartial.
Excellent breakdown. Thanks for contextualyzing this.
There is another RUclips channel screaming about this. They say that the aircraft should have only used the canons on the aircraft to shoot the drones down. Apparently, that many of the drones fly near or below stall spread for a jet didn't cross his mind. Or the need to fire and forget to acquire new targets. Active defense will be more expensive, that's one of the driving forces behind the laser systems being developed to hit close in targets.
also air craft typically only carry enough ammo for their guns to fire for less than 20 seconds total.
@@ThatGuyKazz Burst limiters take care of that.
More like 3 seconds of gun fire for the f35. Other jets are usually in the 5-7s range. Modern jets only carry enough ammo for a few bursts. Guns are rarely used anyways.
@@ThatGuyKazz F-15 and F-16 7 an 5 seconds.
Great analysis Alex.
Thank you.
Well done. Thanks for the work you put in to these videos.
Thank you Alex for providing the context of this situation. Always learning something new from your videos. Well done!
Here's the thing about the cost exchange ratio, it's a terrible way to look at war. Militaries don't pay by the round fired, they pay to acquire it. So while yes, it will deplete their stockpile and force them to acquire more, they aren't spending millions of dollars to intercept the missiles, they're using their multi million dollar safety system to defend against a threat that could potentially cost billions in damage.
And the other thing is that in many cases, depleting stockpiles ends up benefitting the defending nation, the US and NATO allies aiding Ukraine is a perfect example of this. By getting rid of all the stuff just sitting in storage (again, that's already been paid for), enough budget and resources are freed up to allow for acquiring newer, more advanced systems.
honest question, does the cost of "keeping" things in storage surpasses the cost of procuring new stocks?
@@raidellcorps not many people realize that warheads and stockpiles of weaponry degrade over time without expensive maintenance. They “depreciate” the longer it is left unused, until they must be “discarded”. The comparative cost of using existing stockpiles to protect billions of dollars is much cheaper than the alternative.
only problem with that is those missiles were moving at x MACH with ballistic missiles maybe even closer to 20 mach no drone will be able to intercept them
Wrong. If you run out of interceptors you need to quit. Look at Israel's Operation Cast Lead. They ran out of interceptors and entered a ceasefire.
@@williamwchuang completely missing the point. It can have strategic implications, but from a purely cost standpoint, it is more beneficial to use those interceptors than it is to not use them.
I’m pretty sure those missiles and drones would have caused more than $1B in damage.
Whoosh. The point is those expensive missiles will run out before the cheap drones do.
@@DoctorMandible It would be really simple to build dirt cheap drone interceptors. The current tech was built with much faster and smaller munitions in mind. This isn’t a tactic that’s going to bankrupt anyone.
@@DoctorMandibleMy guy. Iran's GDP is half of the American defense budget. I think they'll be fine.
@@tbe0116would these drones be interceptors in the classical sense that they would come in range of the target and destroy with a reusable weapons system or are they suicide interceptors? Either way, they would probably be more expensive than you’re alluding to. Likely not as expensive as a missile but still expensive, and don’t forget that an atmospheric drone can’t engage a ballistic missile.
@@asherwiggin6456 these would be smaller guided rockets. Because these drones are slow, fly low, and can’t maneuver much, the missile doesn’t need advanced guidance systems. Very simple radar/optical would work. Yes it would be short range, but again the drone is really slow.
An excellent and well thought through presentation. You brought up perspectives that I had not thought about.
Great analysis and thank you for it.
Thanks Alex 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Iran has found out the saturation point is above what they sent, especially if there is a US carrier group in the Med. Gonna send a lot more next time to see if they can find the saturation point.
Exactly. They gained a bunch of intel in the process, and they will also be watching how quickly the rearmament happens.
Many thanx Alex, always the best 👍👍
Thank you for the great analysis.
Wonder if irans failure has China having second thoughts on Taiwan
Given that we already know a lot of China's missiles have had their fuel swapped out for water, I'd say they're becoming increasingly hesitant lol
@@hamubice1551 That story was a load of cobblers.
well, they reported it's Iran's success, and the fact is China is much more capable than Iran, they can produce 100x more missiles and drones with the industrial capacity, and Taiwan does not have as good as air defense compare to Israel, so China may look at this as encouragement rather than discouragement. the underline fact is, Taiwan people are not prepared for war, Israel had been in war none stop, and as worse as it sounds, China and Taiwan are all Chinese, they are not trying to kill each other, so Taiwan's civilians may worry losing their freedom and their way of living, they hardly worry about China will wipe them off. while Israel, they are pretty sure they will be killed, everyone of them by enemy if they fail to protect their country.
When the US allows itself to get dragged in a full scale war with Iran, it will surely give China a second thoughts about Taiwan
@@haihenghThey have the chips required for this war??
When it’s war the financial cost doesn’t matter…unless you lose!
Unless you win
It doesn't matter to Israel because US and European tax money pays for those weapons.
There is such a thing as a pyrrhic victory, especially if you are part of a democratic system. Even governments that "win" wars can be replaced.
Ever heard of a pyrrhic victory?
Not true, the expensive weapons tend to take longer to acquire and replace. Cheap weapons are easily produced and can overwhelm the enemy
Always appreciate your succinct analysis. We’ll done sir.
You explained that perfect , we were wondering that at work , so ima sure this video
The hidden Iranian cost is the loss of sales due to poor showing from their weapons.
WHO is lining up for Iranian weaponry 😂😂
@@gikigill788 Russia, mostly. Everyone else who uses Iranian weapons are given those weapons by Iran in exchange for doing Iran's bidding. The three H's come to mind there, but basically every terrorist group in the region is supported by Iran in one way or another.
Russia
@@gikigill788Only terrorists.
@@gikigill788 freedom fighters
If irans defense functions like its offense..... lolololololololololol. 😂😂😂😂
if irans defense functions like its offense than the us, uk, france, germany, jordan, and israel will all have to team up to even have any chance at all
@@MattMajcan Kinda a long title for that science fiction book you're writing. Lololol.
Iran Dome
@@octonoozle they might be catching warheads on their foreheads. Lololol
May I make a topic suggestion, please? With Iran sending 300 missiles and drones Israel's way and 5 to 7 countries involved in shooting them down, how was the coordination performed between the nations to ensure that each incoming was handled in priority order and without overlap? One of the things that stands out to me is that all of these militaries were able to work together in what seems like a seamless manner to address a single high intensity event. I'd love to learn more about that. Thanks for all of your work, Alex!
Nicely put my friend
The cost of interception should factor in the cost of the damage that was prevented or assets protected. If that is included then interceptor missiles are almost always cost effective!!!!! Especially whilst intercepting cruise missiles or ballistic missiles that have more distructive effects & are themselves more expensive to produce
that is true but the thing here is how fast and costly is for a state to replenish the stocks of interceptors missiles vs how fast and costly is to procure more drones and offensive missiles.
Kinda like having a sprint runner vs a endurance runner... sort of.
@@raidellcorpspeople act like they don’t have a stockpile of the same missiles waiting to be loaded the Patriot missile system should be a prime example since they have been reportedly made 10,000 missiles
The cost savings of what might have been hit is amortized over the length of a conflict, and essentially falls to zero cost savings, because the whole point of financial attrition is that one side can more cheaply attack, and continue attacking indefinitely while the more expensive defense eventually runs out. In a one-off attack, you can call that a savings. In a lengthy conflict, eventually one of those attacking missiles gets through and hits the thing anyway.
Great as always Alex!
Thank you.
Excellent reporting
I appreciate these videos where you really dig into the dollars & cents behind defense.
I keep hearing "99 percent intercepted" yet 7 made it to target out of 300. That's less than 98 percent intercepted.
'7 made it to Israel' is what he said, he did not say that 7 hit their targets. Missiles neutralised 1 mile from its target does as much damage to the target as a missile neutralised 100 miles from the target.
It was allegedly around 320, but the public doesn't have exact figures anyway. But I would've said 95%+ so people wouldn't squabble over a few irrelevant percentage points. Anything over 90% is fantastic.
You are correct the real rate would be 97.7% assuming those numbers are exact. People often use hyperbolic phrases instead of accurate ones.
It annoys me when people say an interceptor missile is way more expensive than a drone, and therefore not worth it.
You know what's way more expensive than an interceptor missile? _A fully loaded and crewed cargo ship where real people might die on top of that_
Except there weren't cargo ships involved, and that's not the point of the argument. Which is the defending side will go broke, while the attacker doesn't have to spend as much.
@@KSmithwick1989 I wasn't talking about this attack specifically, just the rhetoric around intercepts in general. Most of that recently has been about Houthi missiles and drones.
The point is that you run out of interceptors before the cheap missiles. How are you missing that?
@@williamwchuang yeah, it's always easier to throw things at someone than to stop them without hurting them
@KSmithwick1989 : Why do you Islmc bots always use Western names? Are you that ashamed of your Islmc name?
On behalf of the internet, we absolutely love nuance and especially context. Thanks for the great work as always.
I can't find my earlier post, but well said.
I think with the proliferation of directed energy air defense systems there will be much less of this sentiment that it costs the defender more to defend themselves than it takes for the attacker to conduct the attack
No one is fielding those systems yet, and we don't know how effective they'll be in real world conditions. If they do work well, then yes. But it's also going to take a lot of successes before it offsets the R&D costs.
@@hanrockabrand95 I think they've been fielded in some warships of the USN and Chinese navy. I'm skeptical about the effectiveness too, but they wouldn't be pursued so hard if they didn't prove themselves yk
Drones are the only thing that might be affected by lasers. They are slow enough to allow for the long engagement times a laser needs, and also doesn't have any thermal shielding, like most missiles do.
As for missiles, no. Only the smallest of those will be even slightly affected.
Directed energy weapons (DEWs) present a unique set of challenges in military applications, primarily due to their limited range. The effectiveness of DEWs decreases with distance, necessitating a significant increase in power output to maintain their impact on distant targets. Moreover, the atmospheric conditions through which the laser travels can cause deflection and deformation of the beam, further complicating the targeting process. This means that operators must maintain the laser on the target for an extended period to deliver enough energy to inflict damage, akin to trying to burn a moving ant with a magnifying glass while clouds intermittently block the sun. Given these difficulties, the future of mid-range defense may lie in the development of magnetic railguns equipped with maneuverable projectiles. These railguns offer a more feasible and cost-effective solution for intercepting targets at medium distances, potentially becoming the go-to technology in the near future.... only time will tell!
@@IndigoSeirra the technology is constantly improving. I don't mean the lasers of today, I mean the lasers of tomorrow
Iran just proved their offense is useless. Never seen such weakness.
They did not even try to be offense
I don't put much stock in Iran's tech, but this recent attack wasn't designed to beat Israel. It was just a warning shot. Otherwise they wouldn't have warned anyone, and they wouldn't have narrated the start and stop of the attack.
@@Hidden-truth-revealed Thats a stupid thing to say!!! 350 Missiles and drones launched is 100% offensive!
@@Hidden-truth-revealed 60 tons, they sent over 60 tons of explosives. How you see that as "not offensive" is something those of us based in civilization will never understand
@@killingyouwithlogic5808one that was telegraphed to prevent escalation
Awesome video, subscribed 😊
Nicely Done!
Did just Iran?
He's title dyslexic.....
Now let's see how good the Iranian defense is. Shall we?
Brilliant analysis!
Great analysis
All said ... an expensive fireworks display.
Might be expensive for Israel as far as cost of munitions expended, but Iran just suffered the cost of poor QC with how many failures occurred in Iranian munitions before they reached their targets.
The US's gdp is 50 times that of Iran, so yeah the west can afford that cost exchange ratio.
the West can, can Israel
Cool, how many billion dollar days do you think the US & Israel can afford?
@@walkingcarpet420infinity.
@@walkingcarpet420They can decide to permanently stop paying billions on interceptors any time they want.
Uhhh, we voters have power too. If we don’t wanna spend x% of our tax dollars on intercepting Iranian missiles then we’re gonna vote somebody else In.
Awesome analysis
That's a hell of a headline.
We are loving in an age where the sword is outpacing the shield
Of course defending costs much higher
It was a calculated warning clearly
No it wasn’t
New segment LETS GOOOO
Thanks!
Read that tittle and tell me what’s wrong with it😂
Tittle?
@@The_ZeroLine lol
That's how you know we are in the matrix and this is just propaganda
You're both morons?
@@The_ZeroLine face plam
We used about $1B worth of missiles. SM3s aint cheap...
The math ain't mathing, it's about $4M for a SM3
My manz are pulling numbers out of their ass. According to official sites, each sm3 costs around 9.6 million. US officials stated 4 to 7 sm3s were used to defend against Iran's missiles. That means it cost at most 67.2 million or at least 38.4 million. That's a far cry from 1 billion, but still a lot of money.
@@Myth1c1003
My name isn't Perune LOL
My comment was just making a point not presenting a P & L statement lol
I LOVE this channel…
Iran suffers from failure to launch syndrome.
Might be more appropriate to call it launching to failure.
All Iran managed to show is that when you attack one member of an alliance, you aren't really attacking one member of an alliance.
Except that Israel has burned bridges with a lot of their allies so… don’t expect too much.
@@Justanotherconsumer Oh, I had no idea. Someone should tell France, the UK and the USA before this happens again.
@@Strykenine It's kind of subjective with France and the UK. As they're more concerned with Ukraine, which is in an actual war.
@@KSmithwick1989 Hey bro I think you should know that Iran has been supplying some of the drones the Russians have been using. This isn't widely known among certain groups of people, and I think you might be in one of those groups.
Tell your friends.
@@Strykenine Correct Shahed 131/136 are known in Russian service as Geran-1/2.
Love this analysis
Actually this was a BRILLIANT job by Iran as it gets to "say" it is done with its reprisals against Israel AND it gives Netanyahu ZERO cause to do anything...ask Biden
Very interesting report, my friend. Greatly appreciated the manner in which you broke down the numbers.
Thank you again for your informative, accurate and objective vlogs.
👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸👍🏻
Foreign Policy: FAFO
Well said
They're name is I Ran, I rest my case
They didn't fail in kinetic diplomacy. Iran won. Israel's defense shows that they are actually paper tiger. They are a super power in the region, still it took Israel, Saudis, USA, Jordania and so on to keep the status quo in the region.
Remember, Iran informed about the attack, they told the attack sources, times and locations. Iran never wanted it to succeed in damage. They did, however, show Israel's weakness in its own defense. What if there hadn't been any announcements?
You think US wouldn't know if Iran didn't tell them? They only told because they knew US knew anyway and they would look bad
@@tedarcher9120 USA is different from Saudis and Jordania, etc. US would have known something was up. The scope would have overwhelmed them... And really, USA has a history of ignoring the evidence that lead into bad things.
Iran didn't inform anybody of anything,it was a MASSIVE failure
Holy mother of cope, batman!
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Huh?
They just proved that nobody can.
Cool. I like the analysis. Make a video on production time of each missile and drone used. On both sides.
Time is hard to get around compared to money.
Once Mighty Russia can't defend Moscow, St.Petersburg or Crimea. Tiny Israel performed a miracle with the help from a few friends.
What a shame those few friends won't help Ukraine.
United States sent them the iron dome and all the ammunition used for it, I have a feeling US is not going to keep wanting to send then more Ammo and Iron domes if they keeps going
Iron Dome is an Israeli system and it doesn’t use “ammunition” it fires missiles. The US has the patriot system.
Can Iran keep going financially?
Not going to happen.
Not if Israel keeps going against what USA tells them. USA said stop, yahuu said no! Pull the financial aid then... No?
Iron Dome is an israeli system. The US had two batteries it had evaluated for base-defense but never deployed so they were sent back. Israel wanted to use US aid money to build Iron Dome rockets, but that's not how US aid works. Israel has to buy from US defense industry, so they contracted with Raytheon to build the rockets at higher cost. This way US funds get spent in the US.
Excellent accessmejt 18:31 to Alex.
Never in my life did I think " hold on I am using my 45, what other cheaper bullets do I have?"
It's a budgetary analysis metric, like forecasting sales.
Fair analysis
I am not particularly fascinated by this subject but I always watch it first because of Alex brilliant delivery
Peace is very expensive where diplomacy is absent.
The closing statement really nailed it, people just don’t have a stomach for reality.
Video liked. Good job.
17:40 Very true, Brother.
There is another thing to consider, the training value and system assessment data of the coalition forces. While the value is difficult to convert to money, they are quite valuable.
Another winner Alex.
Also lives were saved and those lives are priceless
Interesting 😮
_I feel heard!_
Just a note: I did not necessarily believe Iran was winning anything outside of the financial exchange. I realize the bigger picture is grim for Iran.
$50 mil is an expensive fireworks show
If you want to experience what Alex is talking about for yourself, play Creeper World or a similar resource flow RTS. In Creeper World, the player can sustain a significant energy deficit for a very long time with only mild negative effects. It's possible to do that because more energy is constantly being brought in to replenish what is being used up. Most RTS games aren't suitable for this demonstration because they require resources to be stockpiled before the game will allow construction whereas resource flow RTS games create resource starvation opportunities as the game progresses and the battle expands further and further away from the main base.
Economics is always a factor of war.
Rather than comparing money spent as a percent of gdp, id like to see if what is spent is a good use of resources to achieve its strategic goal and like you said we dont know exactly what the goal is. But if its to maintaine face in light of the consulate attack then i consider that achieved
Think what they proved is that the factories that make these drones and missiles are important targets .
people compare cost for cost without taking into account the potential cost of damage of property and lives that were prevented.
Thanks, I look a bit more at the targets value, since we dont know those its hard to calcuate the actuall cost of defence.
One of the first thoughts on my mind...
نواتیم منهدم شده است ❤❤❤
Hey, Hollings, hope you're doing well.
Scrooge McDuck was a great clip.
@sandboxxapp have you done a similar analysis of shipping attacks in the Red Sea? Obviously much cheaper attacks, but also dramatically smaller budget. I assume missile resupply more the issue vs cost?
Quality broadcasting 💯. I’ve heard Marine Corps pilots say there is a lot of overlap between themselves and Navy pilots, and some even say “no difference.” I understand they are both Naval Aviators, but is there any difference between them?
So, in conflicts between nations, all assets are on the table at all times. Good perspective, good philosophy, good morality.
Lockheed Martin can't deliver that 500 kw laser fast enough.
Wait... what... "firepower". I thought this was airpower.