Thank you for the quick reply.

A few comments:

1. Regarding the point that it’s unlikely to be a lie because it would eventually be exposed—I’ll just note that history is full of such precedents. We still remember that the Patriot from the Gulf War was also praised as an amazing success, and I think today the consensus is that it was useless.

2. Regarding the number of missiles fired—first, we have no idea how many were really fired (relying on the IDF Spokesperson and the like is not really serious), and second—we do see quite a lot of property damage (less to human life, since most of us are protected), so intuitively the defense seems pretty full of holes.

3. I don’t understand the issue of seeing the interceptions… I too saw with my own eyes quite a few Tamir missiles taking off and exploding after a few seconds—but how can one conclude from that that the explosion destroyed or neutralized a ballistic rocket in mid-flight? Did anyone film such an event, the moment of impact? I’m not aware of it.

4. The big-money issue is indeed substantial—but isn’t it a bit strange that after about a decade of operational use there are still no customers for this amazingly effective system? According to Shefer and his camp, there isn’t even a single customer.

5. More on the money issue—Shefer admits that he proposed a much cheaper and more effective alternative, and his proposal was rejected. But according to him, the hundreds of billions invested in the missile industry contribute to the livelihood of arms companies and their associates, so the economic interest is obvious.

6. I still haven’t seen a professional response to the substance of Shefer’s claims—apart from interviews with a few insiders who say he is wrong, but because of confidentiality and not revealing knowledge to the enemy they are forbidden to say how he is wrong (a very convenient argument…).

7. More generally—until recently I had no reason whatsoever to doubt the establishment’s reports about the success of this wonderful system. Thank God, following the terrible “plague of the century,” my mind has opened a bit to more critical thinking 🙂

Why do you listen to him more than to some random person? He doesn’t have any inside information; he’s just watching interceptions exactly like you. By the way, it seems he was offended that they didn’t adopt his model of interceptor missiles. Maybe that’s the reason for his claims.

Reply to Yishai

Apparently you didn’t check—this is a man from within the system, a missile scientist who was involved for decades in the Israeli missile industry and won the Israel Security Prize for developing an anti-aircraft missile.

To dismiss what he says with the claim that he’s just offended is evasive and a retreat into ad hominem.

I’d appreciate a more substantive response.

So that they won’t bring down the “Iron Dome,” its bases should be equipped with copies of the “Trilogy” books, which prevent bringing down the dome. Likewise, Gaza should be bombarded with Arabic translations of “Truth and Not Stable,” which would prevent fundamentalism and encourage the creation of a “thin Muslim theology” 🙂

Thus far the secret of unity!

Best regards, Shams Razzal al-Fanjari al-Najmawi

The debate is about the interception percentages: is it the marketing nonsense they broadcast to us about a 90 percent success rate without a shred of evidence, or is it more in the 20–30 percent range?

In any case, there is no reason to think of a concrete number; it will always be based on nonsense. Only the Iron Dome operators and their associates know it.

Reply to The Last Halakhic Decisor

This is more than a theoretical or academic debate.

If Shefer and his camp are right and this is one giant bluff (he claims the interception rates are negligible), then there is a crazy, ongoing fraud campaign here that has cost taxpayers many billions and in return has provided 0 real security—at most just a fake feeling of security.

The question is whether we will keep obediently nodding our heads and buying every figure the establishment showers on us in innocent faith, or whether we will start asking the hard questions out loud.

It would be worth trying this in the next operation: every time Hamas announces a certain hour when it will fire a barrage at Tel Aviv, give the order to shut down Iron Dome in the Dan region and see whether blessed Mordechai

Reply to Bill Gates

I didn’t understand what experiment you’re proposing.

Suppose we do that and the result is a rain of missiles falling to the ground—what would the conclusion be, that Iron Dome is indeed effective?

Maybe the result would have been identical even if Iron Dome had been active?

A different experimental proposal (Dr. Shefer suggested something like this, roughly):

Go to a defined desert test area the size of the Dan region for the purpose of the experiment, fire at it simultaneously 100 rockets (not guided rockets, but primitive rockets in the style of a Qassam), and operate an Iron Dome battery in an operational configuration.

Literally copy the real environment into a test arena.

We would expect that 90 of the rockets would be intercepted (which means—explode in the air / turn to dust? Even that is not clear).

We would know exactly how many rockets landed and how many did not, and of course we would make sure to have detailed filming from every angle.

What is the problem with such a test?

Reply to Alex’s reply to what I wrote

From what I see, he was no longer part of the system by the time Iron Dome was developed. (He worked at Rafael until 1996, while Iron Dome development only started in 2007.) So part of the system he is not. He himself says he is only looking and drawing his conclusions, meaning he is not claiming this based on inside knowledge of the system or on a scientific argument against its effectiveness. He simply drew a conclusion like any other person.

Besides, how is saying that he claims this because he was offended ad hominem? If anything, you are the one making it ad hominem, because you are only weighing his opinion because of who he is (Dr., etc.) and not because of the substance of the argument. After all, if it were just some eccentric saying this, you wouldn’t listen. The only reason you are considering this claim is because of who said it.

Reply to Yishai

He is absolutely making scientific claims against its effectiveness—you’re welcome to read public posts on his Facebook page.

And I don’t know where you got the idea that his position stems from the fact that he was offended.

I’m not interested in what motivates him—I try to relate only to his claims.

And by the way, there is plenty of other material online from experts who dispute the system’s success; here is one example:

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/07/this-scientist-explains-why-israels-iron-dome-overrated/89132/

Now the question is whether to believe blindly in the establishment that tells us of miracles and wonders but without the slightest objective proof, or to cast doubt…

Ordinary viewing of a few interception videos can clearly indicate that the fake theory is false. Why? Because sometimes you hear some kind of impact—a rocket the system did not manage, or was not intended, to intercept—and it has a distinct sound from the other explosions heard in the sky. That is, although dozens of rockets are fired, you may hear only one or two impacts at most (if any). Inference to the best explanation: Iron Dome intercepted them.

If it were that simple, the questions being asked wouldn’t come up.
The rockets are far from precise. Most of them reach open areas. So if out of ten only one was accurate and flew toward an inhabited place, and Iron Dome failed to intercept it, then you would see one impact out of 10 launches—with 0 effectiveness from Iron Dome.

Reply to Copenhagen Interpretation

I hope you yourself can see the weakness of your refutation…

Mr. Shefer is claiming, after all, that there is also most likely wild inflation in the reports of the number of rockets (in practice that serves both sides).

But how do you reach the conclusion that there are successful interceptions because we heard only one distinct sound of an impact?

Maybe we heard 10 self-detonations (dummy explosions) of Iron Dome missiles, and the single rocket that reached the ground slipped past all of them and landed successfully??

I, at least, am left with many questions…

And Mr. Shefer keeps uploading hard material on his Facebook page—not easy reading at all…
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009935824110&comment_id=Y29tbWVudDo1NzE5OTY5Mjk1NzIzNDZfMjE2NzY3OTIwMzMzNzQzNg%3D%3D

Everyone agrees that an Iron Dome missile costs between 150,000 and 250,000 dollars. And it is known that for every rocket or missile, several Iron Dome missiles are fired. So by a rough calculation one can say that since the beginning of use of the Dome, we have fired about 10,000 Dome missiles. That costs roughly one and a half billion dollars. Dr. Shefer is asking for 30 million dollars in order to test the reliability of his program. In my opinion, it is worth throwing in that amount, even if only in order to reject his claim. And if it turns out to be correct, then our profit is very great. In my opinion, it is worth trying.