Is there a reason the US is sending 100 of our people to Israel? - eviltoast

I genuinely want to understand this. Are the defense systems we are sending so advanced that we can’t let anyone else operate them?

I know politics aren’t allowed here, so i want to stress that I just want to know why this is happening.

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’re not wrong, but the question then becomes “why did the US send an advanced military defence system that needs a hundred highly trained American operatives to work”.

    I’m guessing the reason is a combination of politics (lots of American politicians with ties to Israel) and practical reasons (validate that these systems still work against the enemies of the state without actually getting involved in a war directly, perform analysis for future improvements for defence on home soil, get people behind Israeli lines to extract intelligence that might not be shared willingly).

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well no comment on the politics but the system is required to intercept the types of ballistic missiles they expect.

      The US has decided it wants those missiles intercepted, so this is what it takes.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The US has decided it wants those missiles intercepted,

        Assuming the weapons system and personnel in question are used exclusively for missile intercept, then this deployment can be seen as an attempt to reduce further escalation of the ongoing conflict.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well it’s an explicitly defensive system.

          That said, if it’s use allows Israel to be more brazen, then it’s all zero sum.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well it’s an explicitly defensive system.

            Yes, that’s what it is named. Government and military projects don’t always have the most transparent naming conventions, though.

            Do we know that it isn’t capable of acting in an offensive capacity as well, should those in control of it choose?

            • GBU_28@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              The system is incredibly expensive and purpose built.

              There’s no smoke and mirrors, the US is providing much, much cheaper offensive weapons. There’s be no need to wire up a defensive system for that.

              As context, many defensive missiles are pretty low payload, and often (but not always) use a shotgun style blast to hit the intended target. That’s not well suited to ground to ground work, especially when trying to target hardened structures like concrete buildings.

              It’s just not the right tool.