Document Actions
Ketyusha Defense
How many times, over and over, did the media quote the experts, "Sorry, we have no ability to defend against Ketyusha and other short-range missiles and rockets."? Also, how many times over the last year or so has it been trumpeted in the news that the US Patriot, the Israeli Arrow (Hetz), those anti-missile defenses have been successfully tested? So, where were they??
Flowers survive the destruction in Maalot, Northern Israel. M. Bayer |
So, Where were they?? If they exist, why weren't they used? Why was the Israeli home front, with more than 1,000,000 civilians, left to defend itself the best it could while the top echelon of the army and politicos publicly stated for all the world to hear: "We can't stop them." No one can know for sure, but had the Israel Defense Forces been able to defend against Ketyushas, perhaps the war could have succeeded with fewer air attacks on Lebanon. It seems indeed certain that civilian lives on both sides of the border would have been saved.
The whole conduct of war would have been different, saving the lives of Israeli soldiers.
In an article titled Better military Technology Doesn't Always Win in The Jerusalem Post1, Shmuel Gordon wrote:
"Western armed forces' advantages over terrorist organizations are based on technological superiority.
"That superiority encompasses advantages in information systems; gathering essential data systems, such as satellites, unmanned vehicles and other platforms equipped with infrared, optical and electronic sensors; command-and-control (C4I) systems; accurate weapons; intelligence; and communications, just to name a few."
Following the 1991 debacle, Israel and US military researchers worked hard on long-range missile defense such as that needed to protect the ports and Haifa(?), such as that needed to protect the installations in Hadera(?), and such as that needed to protect civilians in the heartland(?).
Further, he wrote: "It took about 10 years to develop a suitable system - the Arrow [Hetz] - to defend Israel from long-range missile attacks."
Though Mr. Gordon states that it is a technological failure that Israel had no defense against the short range rockets, (as if to tell us that Israeli attempted technological solutions which failed), he then states clearly that
"Analysts were not surprised; they knew how many rockets Hizbullah possessed and the performances of each type of rockets..." If he is correct, then it was not an intelligence failure, as some have claimed.( See also Tanks on the Front Lines )
But he cannot accurately blame it on lack of technological superiority: With regard to technology, in many news reports there are descriptions of what indeed IS available to defend civilians!
Can it be possible that "One Skyguard system is capable of generating a protective shield of about 10 kilometers in diameter." against short-range rockets and missiles? If so, it is very difficult to understand why such a system was not procured and at least certain high target areas such as the northern cities of Israel not thus defended!
In an article which appears on www.spacewar.com, staff writers report on the Northrop Grumman Skyguard Laser Defense System [Northrop Grumman Develops Skyguard Laser Defense System For Local Defense, Jul 13, 2006.]
Skyguard, the high-power laser system which will defend against air-based threats such as short-range ballistic missiles rockets artillery and mortars. photo credit: northrop grumman artwork |
"Northrop Grumman has developed the Skyguard laser-based air defense system for U.S. government agencies and allies that require near-term defense against short-range ballistic missiles, short- and long-range rockets, artillery shells, mortars, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles."
"....Skyguard is a multi-mission, soldier-operated, compact and transportable laser weapon system designed for field deployment and operations."
More to the point, the description of what Skyguard can provide is precisely what Northern Israel needed from the first day Hizbollah attacked! Without success, perhaps Hizbollah would not have chosen to continue exposing their launchers to destruction. Without no way to achieve their aims, at the very least they would have been forced to change their strategy.
"A single Skyguard system can defend deployed forces, a large military installation, and/or a large civilian population or industrial area. One Skyguard system is capable of generating a protective shield of about 10 kilometers in diameter."
"....lasers can engage and destroy rocket, artillery and mortar threats in flight," noted Mike McVey, vice president of Northrop Grumman's Directed Energy Systems....
According to the information widely published in the media and on the Internet, it wasn't lack of intelligence and it wasn't lack of technological means. It also doesn't matter now what the "justification" was when decisions were made: budget, false optimism, failure of leadership or political shenanigans.
Over $2 billion in damage to homes, businesses, agriculture, and infrastucture needn't have happened. Loved ones died, families from the eldest to the tiniest baby fled to tent cities for more than a month in the summer heat, only to return home to no home: This too needn't have happened.
Whatever the excuse, all Israel has suffered the consequences of a deadly error in judgment and the overall impact of this failure is sending shockwaves thoughout the government and military establishment. Israel will now have to move quickly enough to change the situation before the next battle.
1 The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 21, 2006 15:05,
2 Dr. Shmuel L.Gordon, a colonel (res.) in the IAF, is head of the Technology and NationalSecurity program at the Holon Institute of Technology
3 Skyguard Laser Defense System, www.spacewar.com, Staff Writers, Redondo Beach CA (SPX)
Israel Responds to Hamas Missiles