Israel is running critically low on interceptors, US officials say
33 points
1 hour ago
| 8 comments
| semafor.com
| HN
breppp
4 minutes ago
[-]
On the other side, iran's launch capability had fallen by 95% since the start of the war

Iran is actually attacking their former close friends at the gulf uninvolved civilian population centers more often than it attacks Israel

reply
Zaheer
9 minutes ago
[-]
Keep in mind who pays for the replacements - U.S. Citizens to the tune of $317.9 billion over the last 70 years [1].

https://taxpayersforpeace.org/

reply
thisislife2
37 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting that Iran has started using cluster munition missiles to strike Israel. Apparently Iran, Israel and US are some of the few countries that haven't signed the international convention banning cluster munitions. Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.
reply
Qem
21 minutes ago
[-]
> Israel has also used cluster munitions against the Hezbollahs.

Estimated around 4 million of them against south Lebanon:

https://imeu.org/resources/key-issues/quick-facts-israels-il...

https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/02/16/flooding-south-lebanon...

reply
XorNot
25 minutes ago
[-]
Countries tend to sign munition restrictions when they don't use those munitions or are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.

The map of countries which sign the convention against landmines is extremely obvious in that context.

reply
markdown
15 minutes ago
[-]
> are in a position where they wouldn't be useful.

No such country exists. So long as enemies are likely to put boots, wheels, or tracks on the ground in your country, landmines are extremely useful, extremely cheap, and extremely effective.

reply
cpgxiii
8 minutes ago
[-]
The point is that almost all of the signatories considered themselves to be immune to a "real war" in their futures at the time they signed. E.g. basically all of the European signatories assumed that the end of the cold war and existence of NATO would ensure the end of any possible threat. Given that assumption, as obviously flawed as it was, signing on to a ban was cheap PR (literally cheap, too, because it meant they could divest those weapons and their delivery mechanisms to reduce defense expenditures).
reply
Qem
9 minutes ago
[-]
I hope they have their Cuito Cuanavale[1] moment and follow the steps of South Africa in replacing their own version of the apartheid regime with democracy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale

reply
UltraSane
4 minutes ago
[-]
If you think Israel is "apartheid" what do you consider Iran to be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Iran#Re...

reply
glob_roman
6 minutes ago
[-]
Israel has many Arab Muslims in the parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Kn...

Israel has supreme court Arab Muslim judge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kabub

The "apartheid" only exists in the imagination of antisemites like you.

reply
coldtea
29 minutes ago
[-]
Nothing that saying they're sorry for being offensive and seeking a peace deal can't fix...
reply
jazzpush2
25 minutes ago
[-]
I.e. time American tax dollars to save the day!
reply
themafia
28 minutes ago
[-]
Then it was a very strange choice to go to war with a neighbor that's known to have massive stockpiles of missiles.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were in such a suboptimal defensive materiel position, I would try diplomacy first. In fact, I would make it my mission to be the world recognized leader in diplomacy.

reply
glob_roman
4 minutes ago
[-]
"Iran is close to nuclear device, diplomacy doesn't work, should we attack?" -"no, we don't have enough interceptors. let them become nuclear."

That's what your logic sounds like

reply
Spooky23
17 minutes ago
[-]
Arrogance, and using war to avoid consequences for personal bad behavior of the leader.
reply
spwa4
17 minutes ago
[-]
Do you honestly believe Israel hasn't done that for decades?
reply
dr00tb
10 minutes ago
[-]
You seriously believe Israel has conducted good-faith diplomatic endeavors for decades? A history of terrorattacks and extrajudicial killings in neighboring countries and even European[1] countries tell a different story.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair

reply
UltraSane
5 minutes ago
[-]
I think Israel is fighting for its survival against enemies that would absolutely destroy it if they could.
reply
saint_yossarian
10 minutes ago
[-]
Do you honestly believe they did?

> Iran and Israel have maintained no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and their relationship has been characterized by hostility ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations

reply
Nevermark
13 minutes ago
[-]
I am certainly not defending Iran, but one of their gripes had merit. Israel’s illegal annexation and settling of land that wasn’t theirs.

And their policy of overlooking violence against the previous inhabitants. Genocide slow burn.

So I don’t know what good any diplomacy could have been in that context.

reply
UltraSane
6 minutes ago
[-]
Iran severely persecutes Baha'is with bans on higher education, employment, and imprisonment. The Iranian government often labels unrecognized religious minorities as "heretics" or "apostates," subjecting them to harassment and violence.
reply
hersko
9 minutes ago
[-]
> Genocide slow burn.

So slow it's going backwards.

reply
mohsen1
24 minutes ago
[-]
Neighbor?!
reply
themafia
20 minutes ago
[-]
Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.
reply
mcs5280
15 minutes ago
[-]
Sounds like they only went into this with concepts of a plan
reply