>

Are they gonna lift the ban on selling cyberweapons to Ukraine and stop selling them to Russia?
Netanyahu said a lot of stuff.. >

We see a lot of "considering sending", "discussing sending" , "talking about sending" , and the like.  Instead, we should be seeing less talk and more delivering. >

The Iron Dome is a very tough sell for giving to Ukraine.  It's full of a lot of risks with very few rewards.  Even for Israel who use it, it's incredibly expensive.  When Palestine launches SCUD missiles at Israel, it costs about $20K per rocket sent.  To intercept them costs about $50K for rocket sent.  Every time Iran smuggles SCUDs into Palestine, it becomes a massive expense for Israel.
Russia is averaging using about 10,000 rockets a day.  Even if Israel provided enough Iron Domes to cover all of Ukraine's front lines... that would cost $500M/day to use.
The other problem is that this is the world's best anti-rocket system.  If it falls into Russian hands they can study it and make some improvements in their next gen rocket systems.
If they're doing considerations they probably want these things staged AWAY from the frontlines to protect civilians in places like Kyiv and Odessa. >


Russia is averaging using about 10,000 rockets a day.

What? Where on earth did you get that figure? >

he's probably including shellings, which of course the iron dome would not be used for >

Ah ok, that makes much more sense, thanks. >

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m of the understanding that iron dome is meant to intercept slow moving rockets and wouldn’t be super effective against modern missile technology? >

It can take out grads, drones and mortars. It would be useful around Kyiv but not very substantially useful. >

Also very fucking expensive. >

This alone is a huge reason why ukraine has no business using an iron dome system. The price per missile is ludicrous >

Yeah but how much do you save by preventing strikes? Ofc human lives, but also structures. I don't think the cost is as bad as it seems if you take everything into consideration >

Not nearly as much.
Israel's last war cost tens upons tens of millions of dollars only in iron dome missiles, before anything else.
Do the math and you'll realize that it's just not feasible for ukraine.
They are WAY better off spending that money elsewhere >

A single missile can do a lot more damage than 100k worth (the rough cost of the interception). All it takes is one good hit into an apartment building and that's several million dollars worth of damage.
Hell, this would be great for energy infrastructures where the downtime and costs vastly outweigh the interception price. 
Not to mention the cost of human lives. >

Yeah but you have to consider the delivery, installation, training, maintenance, logistical support for parts and ammunition. Ukraine needs that money elsewhere, and needs it now. Iron dome would brle great, but it might hamper more than hinder at this moment in time. >

Israel probably wants to make sure the Iron Dome can effectively take out these drones >

Would be a good test against Iranian drones. >

That's the whole point of it. >

Putin: "the Jews are Nazis too!" >

They already said that >

When Ukraine gets it, can they rename it the iron curtain? PLEASEEEEEEE >

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 >

Sounds to me like he’s trying to distract everyone from his attempts to dismantle democracy in Israel. >

Of course. That's also why he's "considering" giving it instead of just giving it or not giving it: he's attempting to see if doing so will give him support, then he'll decide based on the response. >

I imagine Ukraine would use it to defend cities or power plants, not the entire border of Ukraine. >

And supply depots, barracks, command posts or anything else that would benefit Russia to destroy.