It cost Israel more than $1bn to activate its defence systems that intercepted Iran’s massive drone and missile attack overnight, according to a former financial adviser to Israel’s military.

“The defence tonight was on the order of 4-5bn shekels [$1-1.3bn] per night,” estimated Brigadier General Reem Aminoach in an interview with Ynet news.

“If we’re talking about ballistic missiles that need to be brought down with an Arrow system, cruise missiles that need to be brought down with other missiles, and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], which we actually bring down mainly with fighter jets,” he said.

“Then add up the costs - $3.5m for an Arrow missile, $1m for a David’s Sling, such and such costs for jets. An order of magnitude of 4-5bn shekels.”

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The cost for one night of defence seen as significantly higher than the price Iran paid to mount its attack

    That looks like it’s exactly the point. Israel hitting the Iranian embassy wasn’t extreme enough for Iran to seriously escalate, yet you can’t just leave such a thing unanswered or they’ll do it again and again, you also don’t want to draw (additional) ire to yourself, meaning you don’t want to have any casualties, at least not indiscriminate ones, at the most you want to give people a scare. So you shoot a couple of volleys you know Israel can intercept, maximising not for anything getting through but interception costing them a pretty penny. Now, the next time the IDF considers such a strike some politician somewhere is going to say “we don’t have a billion dollars to spare right now for that BS, cut it out”.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      The next war will be decided on what it will mean for the economy … not by the danger or death it places on human life.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        alwayshasbeen.png

        …resources in general, that is. Physical, immaterial, real, imagined, actual gold and timber or actual street cred, heck even peace, but it’s always resources because that’s what politics are about and war is nothing but the continuation of politics by different means.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          WW2 was over as soon as Japan struck pearl harbor, as an example, neither Germany nor Japan could win the war against such a robust economy. Some lucky strikes might have created some windows but the deck was stacked in favor of the allies.

          Wars have always been determined by resources, in the modern world that’s industrial output but it’s always

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Economically, yes, but there’s plenty of other factors. Capacity to cooperate with the USSR was a resource, the capacity to see a Nazi-ruled Europe being way more of a long-term headache than facing them off was one, the US wanting to impress ole daddy stiff upper lip was, etc. Different actors come to different evaluations of those not so hard factors and that’s why they slug it out, to convince the other side that their evaluation is right. And sometimes they’re just plain delusional. And never underestimate the morale boost of an independence war (like Vietnam) or, even more so, an existential one (like Ukraine).