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.”

  • @disguy_ovahea
    link
    English
    -14
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    What a horrible thing to write. Civilian lives were on the line.

    Edit: I understand now that it was meant to suggest that it was less expensive to stop the attack than to rebuild. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    • @aibler
      link
      English
      247 months ago

      Yeah, the Israeli government sees civilian lives as very valuable.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        English
        27 months ago

        Oh, I totally agree Netanyahu put them in this situation. That’s not the same thing as contemplating inaction in protecting innocent lives.

    • @Garbanzo
      link
      English
      127 months ago

      Pretty sure you took that the wrong way.

        • @mikezane
          link
          English
          8
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I take it to mean that if Israel did nothing to stop the attacks, what would the monetary cost be for all the damage that Israel would suffer, not even counting for the human cost. It may have cost one billion dollars to defend itself, but Israel may have had to spend more to repair all the destruction had the not defended themselves.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            English
            57 months ago

            I see. Suggesting it cost less to stop the attack than it would have cost in repair?

            • @mikezane
              link
              English
              97 months ago

              That’s how I took it.

              • @disguy_ovahea
                link
                English
                37 months ago

                Makes sense. I edited my comment to reflect your insight. Thanks for the explanation.

          • @Eheran
            link
            English
            17 months ago

            You are correct.

        • 520
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

          This is war. You need to allocate your resources where they will be most effective. If a rocket is on target to hit … A bunch of crops, then it’s better to let it pass and use your costly defenses on rockets hitting things of military importance or civilian centers.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 months ago

          Not just for a sociopath. Anti-air is expensive (table with some options. A patriot cost like $3M/pop. If a missile was going to hit an uninhabited area choosing not to intercept makes sense.

          That’s why DARPA keeps working on DEWs.

          • @disguy_ovahea
            link
            English
            17 months ago

            I wrote this before someone pointed out that I misunderstood the thread comment. I thought they were suggesting idly allowing civilians to get bombed, when they were attempting to suggest cost analysis of repair vs. prevention. I’ll delete the comment.