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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

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

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 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.

        • mikezane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 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.

    • mwguy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s a reasonable question to ask.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 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.

        • mwguy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 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.