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.
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.
The defense systems being sent there are not only highly advanced, but are also extremely expensive to the taxpayer, as well as the training to operate them is compartmentalized under high levels of secrecy even against allies such as Israel.
It would be irresponsible for the military to send it over there without the proper personnel with the right clearances and training to operate it.
If you don’t believe me, try joining the military and attempt to become a Patriot Missile Battery operator and let us know how it goes with the many times your background check fails.
EDIT Not sure why you’re all downvoting. The government did literally lie to all of us about Iraqi WMD’s, so I’m not sure why you’d think aren’t lying about deploying troops to Israel.
I mean, we’re being told that’s why it is. We were also once told we had to fight Iraqis because they had nukes.
I don’t think any of us really knows what’s happening there.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.