Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!ames!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Hi-Tech Scorecard
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.030405.2346@amd.com>
Date: 6 Apr 91 05:55:12 GMT
References: <1991Apr5.091907.7913@amd.com> <1991Apr6.020949.14323@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 41
Approved: military@amd.com


From: pss4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Paul S Shannon)


In article <1991Apr6.020949.14323@amd.com> joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum) writes:
>
>From: joshual@wolf.cs.washington.edu (Joshua Landrum)
>
>>From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
>>Patriot.  Of 47 SCUDs fired against - the Patriot successfully intercepted
>>45.  "In the historical analysis of this war, Patriot will be one of the
>>key systems which influenced the outcome."
>
>Before touting the effieciency of the patriot missiles, could somebody give
>a rough estimate regarding the cost of NOT intercepting them?  I seem to recall
>that, except for one scud, those that actually came down whn an intercept was
>attempted (or would have been attempted but the patriots were not yet available)
>did damage on the order of cuts, bruises, and minor structural damage--not the
>million or so that each patriot intercept cost.  Further, it would also seem   
>that the best solution to a missile defence system would be to saturate it--
>and the patriots are far more expensive than the missiles they were shooting
>down.  So, my question is: are the patriots an effective weapon system, or
>merely a shield against political fallout?
>		  Joshua Landrum

I don't believe the patriot was ever designed to defend cities, that it was
to protect SAM sites and airfields, etc.

But consider the cost of the political fallout: Israel entering the war would
have been disasterous for the coalition.  Isn't that more costly than the
number of patriots used (maybe 100.  I don't know the number, but I think
they launched at least two at a target to increase the hit probablity).
The argument that is will be considered one of the most important weapons
of the war is for the political shield it provided.

And defenses of this type are generally more costly (in terms of dollars)
than anything the attacker invests.  Consider the Battle of the Atlantic
in WWII.  The Allies spent 10 times the amount of money in ASW than
Germany did in submarines, but you can't argue that it was not worth the
cost.  If the ASW failed, Britain could well have been eliminated from
the war.