How Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ Knocks Almost Every Incoming Missile Out Of The Sky

This is one of the greatest military technologies ever. I remember wondering at the stupidity of the Cold War doctrine of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) and why anyone thought it made sense. Basically the idea was that the Soviets and the Americans both built so many nuclear warheads that neither would never start a war because they knew they both would lose.

Ronald Reagan was the first president to end that nonsensical strategy and actively promote and fund the technology to stop missiles before they hit their targets. He was derided as a fool for his "Star Wars" idea by the likes of Joe Biden and other liberal Democrat leaders; the very people who trumpet their supposedly superior compassion for everyday people.

Now we see abundant evidence that Reagan was right all along. Anti-missile defenses save lives without killing more people. And the bonus, back in the late 80's, was the end of the Soviet empire and the Cold War and the collapse of Communism, as numerous declassified sources admitted after the fact.

FYI, the USA gave a lot of money to Israel for this iron dome.

~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

A brilliant tactical success -- but a success that is measured by the percentage of potential damage and casualties you prevent is a strategy that is not a winning one.

I would add the the interceptors are probably much more costly than what they shoot down -- again, not an advantageous approach.

I would also add, given Israel's position, I don't know what strategy would be a winning one. But it sure doesn't seem like withdrawing from Gaza has worked out very well.

Weeeee, we are the USA!!! We are 16 trillion in debt. Let's go buy other country some weapons, with money we don't have and put our USA citizens further in debt. YEA!

Meanwhile, Iran is supplying Gaza their weapons.

Can the world and the USA ever get our of the war game?

No. Why, because it makes the 1% richer.

Where are President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when the our Federal Government wants to interview them of their knowledge of the Embassy being attacked? Well they are out of the country and can't be interviewed, because they are just to busy!!!!

You see, they knew in advance, why the Embassy being attacked and they knew it was a terrorist attack, but for the sake of good Politics and the election, they said it was just a bad demonstration that went wrong. Ooopsie!!!! What really made it bad was then they lied to Congress for the sake of politics and not for the sake of security of USA. If they lied to congress for the sake of security, they might receive forgiveness, but to lie for the sake of Politics will kill Hillary Clintons chance to be a future President, lol.

While they are out of the country and we have this 16 trillion dollar fiscal cliff problem, they know and want the USA people and government to forget them and fall back to focus on the debt.

So USA, how do you feel about being manipulated by President Obama and Hillary Clinton for the sake of Politics and lying to our government?

^Robot for president!^

It's time to resurrect the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). It worked almost 100% in tests,consistently shooting down artillery and mortar shells as well as rockets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCBwLJjzDJQ&feature=fvwp&NR=1).Cost estimates were about $1000 a shot,much cheaper than $60,000 for an Iron Dome missile.

My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do...Mel7.Com

This article had some inaccuracies that do not match up towards all the facts that exist. First and foremost the anti-missile defense system used back in the desert storm confrontation was the patriot PAC 2 that was initially designed as a anti-aircraft weapon with modifications source (defense-update.com), the majority of the patriot PAC 2 failures where the result of a software malfunction (www.BBC.co.uk) the patriot PAC 2 is replaced by the PATRIOT PAC 3 (varouse websites, but to name one www.defenseindustrydialy.com) and last but not least the Patriot Pac 3 system worked over 100% of the time against Iraqi scuds in 2003 (defense-update.com) and in addition the Israelis themselves have expressed interest into incorporating the Patriot PAC 3s because the Iron-dome lacked the capabilities to intercept some rounds (defense-update.com) into there multi-layer missile defense system. And in addition the PAC 3s also have a long and rich history of excellent performances advantages (www.defenseindustrydialy.com, www.defensetalk.com, defense-update.com, www.missilethreat.com, and many others. Plus the Palestinians have used small and infrequent attacks which make it easy to intercept, even the PAC 2s in desert storm worked well against single missiles and the real problems came from large numbers of missiles being fired at once which is what lead to the failure of Reagan's star wars (ironically popular science article published several years back)

insomniackoala42,
Thank you, but no, lol.

All I want for Christmas is to keep the original USA written down government and oust the current leadership, who is currently corrupted by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. But instead elect not by electoral vote, but actually by individual personal vote.

Oh and if at all possible, get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and go back to a monetary system that is based on something real and tangible, say platinum\gold\silver\copper\’real’ and regulated by the government and not this private company.

Robot, Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Also, it has been proven by thousands of economists that reverting back to the gold standard would put us into a deep depression setting us back over 150 years market wise. By the way, the US currently only has about half a trillion dollars worth of gold at today's market value.

Silverbird,
Fair enough this is why I adore democracy, freedom of speech so all the great ideas can come to the surface and the poor ones noted and considered too.
What ever the past 50 years government is doing is not working. Its time for better ideas!

Our 16 trilllion dollar debt is obvious and so is the fiscal cliff. If the government does nothing, it get reduced by 10% across the board and we all get tax more.

If the government makes a budge, still budgets WILL happen and the fact we have a hudge debt is still there and all will be taxed more.

With this all the USA being taxed more, it will cause another recession or worse, but the declared the word depression a forbidden word.

So as of now, each person in USA 320 million owes 50k to the USA. Now I have excellent credit and pay my bills, but if somebody slams me with a 50k bill and tells me I have no social security or medicare, I am screwed and so is the rest of the USA peoples.

Write now also, my home is worth half of what I paid for it and I own twice the amount, if that makes sense. I have no IRA or 401k to speak of like many USA people too.

I have been working since age 14 and being told I have no social security or medicare is F.U.

What is it that you want Robot? Because it seems you want contradictory things. On one hand you complain about our country's debt. Please remember the keyword there is country; the debt isn't only our government's responsibility -- each and every person who rode the credit bubble is equally at fault. You say your home was worth more when you bought it? Guess what, you were participant of the credit bubble, no doubt hoping for the prices to go up even more.

Now you mention working since you were 14 and somehow you haven't accumulated any social security benefits. Now I'll tell you that is not possible unless you trigger the right conditions. Guess what the key condition is? Not paying income tax. I'm not sure if you know this, but people who don't pay taxes contribute to the growing debt.

While it's easy to blame the government, but the ones who deserve the blame is us. We created an illusion of value, believing that our homes can magically be worth more each year. But value is tied to demand and even if homes increased in value, more homes were being built at the same time. Eventually the number of homes on the market would outpace the demand -- but we ignored basic economic principles and kept the illusion going. The result is what you see today. Don't blame the government, blame yourself and deal with it. At least you have your home, others -- myself included -- were not so fortunate.

ristlin,
Yes at times I do seem to be contridictr. I have paid my taxes and social security and at the same time my government says to me and the rest of the public my and your social security will be broke.
And if I get an additional tax from my government for over spending, then if any social security I will recieve most like seem less with the additional taxes and as our government continues to dumb money into the system to bail those poor poor banks, then we have inflation and my current money is worth less and my itty bitty social security will be less too.
And after the fiscal cliff and we go once again into recession, my home will be worth even less and I continue to pay on a large debt.
By the way, who set the rules for the bank for which they were allowed to take risks, our sweet little government. You know the same government that bailed out the banks. Now there are less banks which makes for more of a monolpy of money and the Federal Reserve too is just betting oh so more powerful as ever.

ristlin,
Yes at times I do seem to be contradicting, but not really. I have paid my taxes and social security and at the same time my government says to me and the rest of the public my and your social security will be broke.

And if I get an additional tax from my government for over spending, then if any social security I will receive most like seem less with the additional taxes and as our government continues to dump money into the system to bail those poor poor banks, then we have inflation and my current money is worth less and my itty bitty social security will be less too.

And after the fiscal cliff and we go once again into recession, my home will be worth even less and I continue to pay on a large debt, with my take home pay being less, since the government will give me more taxes.

By the way, who set the rules for the bank for which they were allowed to take risks, our sweet little government? You know the same government that bailed out the banks. Now there are fewer banks which makes for more of a monopoly of money and the Federal Reserve too is just betting oh so more powerful as ever.

The best I can do not and am doing is pay of my home faster and have less bill at age 65, with the grim fact I will have to continue working until some medical reason, I can not work and shortly I just die.

I think we have different perspectives on life. I'm an optimist and I believe despite what has happened the economy will recover and we'll all be better off until the next misstep. You know who else advocates that line of thinking? Warren Buffett. I think the man has done enough for us to consider why he would say such a thing.

As for the government setting the rules that allowed big banks to take risks, yes I agree they were at fault. But the government isn't some evil entity, the people who run the government were voted in by us. Our representatives, people we vote to speak for us, voted on fewer regulations. And since we voted them in, that means we, as a people, wanted fewer regulations on banks. Why? Because fewer regulations allowed us to buy more homes for our American Dream. Those risks you are talking about are banks, run by people, ignoring reason and relenting to pure hope. Thousands of bankers saw loan applications from millions of people who were barely able to afford their home and let it slide, knowing if they didn't pass the application someone else would.

There is no evil genius behind the collapse, simply people. People who think, who feel, and who sometimes make mistakes. People like you and me.

As a robot, I am currently breathing in a paper bag to calm down, lol.

I wish you a nice Thanks Giving!

Happy thanksgiving to you too, sir. Thank you for the conversation.

@Silverbird,
You say it's proven??? Proven?? I usually don't comment but I couldn't resist here, but your statement is flat wrong. First off, we (and economists included) need to have a little bit more humility when it comes to understanding the limitations of what the study of economics can tell us.

Now on to your comment, I do think most economists would agree a sharp drop in the money supply is a bad thing. What you were trying to get at is a gold backed dollar would inhibit the fed from reversing this fall by devaluing the dollar.

Where economists disagree is how to fix this situation. Some say we should induce inflation by manipulating the money supply, some say the credit expansion is to blame, and by inflating you are making this worse. It gets much more complicated, but there have been Nobel prize winners on both sides, so to say it is proven gold would put us in a depression is just ridiculous (what would they blame the 2008 recession on btw??).

Gold does have two distinct advantages over fiat though.

1. Long term price stability
2. Restricts the governments ability to spend

It would keep the govt from trying to re-expand the money supply during a recession, but I think it would be better to focus instead on the credit expansion during the boom years.

Robot, I pegged you for someone who was more intelligent than to believe the conspiracies and lies of Fox News. No, Obama nor Clinton lied about Benghazi. They were intentionally "aloof" about it because the CIA begged Congress and the White House to not immediately declare it a terrorist attack. They had been doing extensive surveillance on Libya for months, and putting the terrorists on the defensive would ruin their efforts. The Republicans knew this, but still attacked Obama for it. They even revealed the strength and location of the CIA operatives in the area. They had to scrap the whole operation thanks to those idiots. And why does everyone seem to forget it was Mitt Romney, trying to make a political argument for his position on free speech, who first declared the video was the reason. I guess another lie from him wasn't anything new.

And you only have to do the slightest research to know that the current administration had almost nothing to do with the debt. Bush cranked it up to $10 trillion, then Obama came along and it rose another 6. $2.4 trillion of that was from an outstanding war debt Bush had left over. Another $1.8 trillion was from the interest we had to pay on all Bush's war debts, and most of the rest was from trying to run an economy with the wealthiest Americans not paying their fair share. Look back through history at all the recessions and the depression we had. They were all caused when the rich weren't paying their share, and they were all fixed when a Democrat came in and made them pay equally to everyone else. In fact, Obama has the lowest spending record of ANY president in 60 years, so it sure ain't Obama that caused this mess.

Really Robot, you seem too smart for these kinds of lies and imaginary fears. Maybe you've been reading too many of the nutjob trolls who frequent this site like Aldron or snowboard. Don't be a victim to the mental illness that is self-imposed ignorance. Do some research!

When the USA was on a gold standard, over a period of 100 years or so, we had more or less 1% inflation.

Months prior to the great depression a few banks pooled all their money out of the stock market and after the great depression they bought up all the close banks and their assets, then went to the USA government and offered to save USA from its economic woes by managing the value of money. This private company is called the US Federal Reserve and you can see their name printed on your money.

Since President Kennedy and their after our government has been dipping into the social security excess fund, always promising to pay it back and use the money for other projects. They never paid it back and since they make the laws, it’s all legal.

The same is true of the National Highway system and a great many other programs in the USA.

Money is taxed for certain programs and when an excess is created in 'good times', the Politian’s wanting votes cannot leave it alone and spend it inappropriately.

This is how the 16 trillion dollar debt was created and of course to feed this need for greed, selling treasury bonds as well.

Little side note, our law makers created a law to help fight slavery, when poor folk get caught in financial situations they cannot escape. It is well documented in our history. Workers on the farm, in debt to the company store, miners in debt to the company store and recently holding credit card debt at impossible to pay back interest rates. This is illegal and called debt servitude slavery.
As our government now holds all 320 million USA peoples, including babies in debt to the sum of 50k dollars, they decide to ignore this little fact and the only one who benefits is the Federal Reserve Bank.

The 1% rich continues to get richer and the rest of us continue to be poorer. And to help control us, they created new laws after 9/11 and enhance and built the NEW NSA to keep track of all people in the world, real time.

It may take 5 or 50 years, but once the collapse of the world economics finishes, a new world order will come into power, with one world currency and we all be tagged physically and tracked in every action we do.

@syfyguy, "Recessions are caused by the rich not paying their fair share", wow. Talk about needing to do some research. You really do need to take a step back and realize you do not have a clear understanding of the business cycle. There are volumes and volumes of research that disagree with that statement and not even the most socialist of economists would agree with what you said.

I'm with you on Bush though, he, just like every president before him in the last 80 years, drastically grew the size of government during his tenure.

Also, I do like how everyone likes to point to someone else as the person who needs to pay more.

I would love if for one year the federal government was forced to operate by voluntary donations, instead of forcibly taking. Then we would get a good idea of how big the people really want the federal government to be.

Oh and the national media's are a monopoly too. The only current threat to this is the internet and they are working hard to close that gap and you can see often 3rd world countries all the time, closing the internet with the public gets unrest.

@Robot, that comment was kind of hard to follow, and I'm not really sure what you were trying to say. I will note though, the 1% is not some fixed group of people as you seem to indicate. The people in the top 1% are constantly changing.

Also, I don't have a problem with the 1% if they earned their money through voluntary exchange. I do have a problem however, if they got their money by theft, or by using unfair advantages gained through government.

Hickery10,
Becoming the 1% rich by earning it honestly is one thing. But being this 1% and controlling our lives is not democracy, it is a monopoly ofs kings and we are the peasants. The power should always rest with the people, not the minority 1% rich.

Hickey, I shouldn't have made it sound like the rich not paying was the ONLY cause, but it is a big one. I'm a scientist, not an economist, but I am a big fan of history. Look at the great depression. Hoover cut taxes on the rich, deregulated financial institutes, cut programs for the poor, and increased tariffs...pretty much the same policy Republicans always have. Then we had the Depression. Roosevelt came in and raised taxes on the rich, increased social programs, and regulated financial institutes...pretty much the same policy Democrats always have. Even the GOP's favorite Reagan couldn't keep it up. His tax cuts were blowing the debt up so bad he had to raise taxes 11 times. Then H.W. Bush came along. I wouldn't call it a lie, but he of course was wrong when he said "read my lips, no new taxes". Reagan had left him such a mess we ended up in recession, once again while the rich paid less and were making record profit. Then Clinton comes along, and guess what? He made the rich pay their fair share, increased social programs, and increased regulations. We had some golden years, then dubya came in and did what all Reps do: cut taxes, primarily on the rich, deregulated, and cut social programs. BOOM! Great Recession!

Democrat policies are once again bringing us from the brink. It's going so slowly because we weren't allowed to make the rich pay, our main tried-and-true method. Remember when the Reps held us for ransom and said they'd shut down the government if the rich didn't keep their cuts? The only way we are going to not fall off the cliff is if the wealthy pay.

This is not "picking" on one group. Does anyone honestly think it's fair for millionaires to pay often less than HALF percentage-wise what the middle class pay, especially when during this whole recession they have been making RECORD profits while the rest of us suffer? Is it fair that our wages are going down or stagnated while they are tripling and quadrupling their fortunes?

And unfortunately, the people in the 1% are not changing. The Warren Buffets and Mitt Romneys are the same wealthy guys that were there 30 years ago. This is the ultimate lie behind the "American Dream". These wealthy hold such a stranglehold on wealth that no one else has a chance. This is why they're so terrified of the inheritance tax, or "death tax" as they call it. This tax is set up to prevent the creation of dynasties like the Romney family. Sure, there are a few "new money" people getting into the game, but they are few.

Wealth is not "created", it is always redistributed. When I buy something, my wealth is passed to that company. That company then redistributes it to employees, vendors, and executives, which they in turn redistribute to the things they buy. The problem is that the wealthiest are not distributing it to anyone else, and are forcing their employees to do "more with less", all while they just make more and more. Where is the "trickle down" Reps are always talking about? Robot was right about one thing: the 1% own this country. We have become a plutonomy. I know conservatives hate the word "Socialism" (mostly because they know nothing about it, and think it's the same as Communism), but Marx was dead-on in his prediction of what would eventually happen in a capitalistic society. The divide between the rich and the poor would grow so great, the wealthy would own everything, and there eventually will be revolution.

The rich have already anticipate a revolution, they created the NSA to monitor our communications and they will eventually give us a personal id to track us and our lives. They will create a new currency and the 1% already controls the government which controls the most powerful military and police in the world. The 1% rich is making ready for a revolution and they will control all the power in this too.

The new and improved legally enhance after 9/11 NSA.

www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

My only hope Robot is that more people start to understand what is going on before they completely control us. I am afraid that with the Tea Party and the voice of the GOP, Fox News, the exact opposite is happening, and the oppressors are lying to people so much they are blissfully blind to the disparity. They have preyed on the gullibility of the religious by trying to appear they are following god's word. We've been at this crossroads before. The secular Romans had advancements in technology and engineering we didn't see for over a thousand years later because religion crushed freedom. Once again it was simply a tool to fool the masses into thinking they had their best interest in mind, and the kings and bishops got rich off of it. Now, we can go back to that feudal dark age thinking, or we can deny religion and those who would abuse it and continue to grow as a species as we did in the Age of Reason.

@Syfyguy - I'm an engineer, not an economist, but reading and learning about economics and philosophy has been my top hobby for about 3 years (I'm a nerd, whatever). It's one of those areas where the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

So, that's why when I see people making blanket simple statements about economics it really irks me. I realize my understanding is limited, that's why I don't say silly things like "hoover cut taxes in 1929, and depression happened after, so therefore cutting taxes caused depression" - fallacy of correlation and causation

If you are a scientist you surely know what confirmation bias is. You are looking at history and finding the tings that confirm what you believe. I try not to do this, that's why I'm happy if someone can point out when I'm doing this.

Using your reasoning I could say, we had mild recessions all throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, yet the only on that turned into a great depression was when the government finally rolled up its sleeves and tried to solve it, therefore govt spending causes depressions.

Actually looking back, FDR did do some egregious things that prolonged the depression, mainly forcing employers to keep up wage rates (do some research on wage rigidity and how wage rates must come down for the labor market to clear during a recession).

As to your 1% point, research by steven Kaplan disagrees with your statement that it's the same people.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/kaplan_on_the_i.html

Oh and one more thing. Wealth is most definitely created. How could we have ever created anything in the first place if wealth is never created?

Here is how it is done.

1. Businessman pays $10 for raw materials
2. Businessman does something to raw materials to create product
3. Businessman exchanges product with consumer for $15

Result:
Both businessman and consumer are happier than before the exchange, therefore, wealth was created. Business man has $15 instead of the $10 he started with. Consumer has product, which they valued at more than $15.

Hickey, I wasn't flat wrong, you just over analyzed my statement. Going directly back to the gold standard would cause an immediate decrease in money supply stifling growth and pretty much destroying all progress made in the last 50 years or so. I appreciate your comments, but I think your over analysis was a bit superfluous.

While Kaplan certainly has an impressive resume, you'll have to forgive me if I don't take the word of someone who trains people to be venture capitalists and private equities, or who consistently donates and supports the Republican Party. These are the very people who are the problem! But let's say he might have been somewhat honest in his research. In the interview he even states that they only had data for 20% of the top 1%. That's not very conclusive. I may have missed it, but I didn't see where he said the 1% was constantly in flux. Talk about a difficult article to read! Would it kill them to add a paragraph break?! He did claim CEOs, entertainers, hedge fund managers, vulture capitalists, and private equities filter in and out, but once again, that only accounts for 20%. He didn't account for "old money", the dynasties like Mitt Romney who never have worked a real job in their lives and made their fortunes off their daddy's fortune. That is the 80% he said he can't account for, and they are the same old money that's ruled for decades.

You'll have to do better with an example of wealth creation. You're error is in that you assume the consumer overvalues the product. Businessman has $15 instead of $10, and consumer is $15 poorer with a product that is only worth $10. That $15 was redistributed to the consumer through their employment, then redistributed again to the businessman. Nothing was created. That $5 is profit, and is the core of capitalism, but greed destroys the promise of fair value. We're not talking about $5 here, we're talking about millions in profit. Using your example, the businessman did not have to charge $5 extra. He could have charged $1 extra, and the consumer would be much happier. Or the businessman could have charged the $5, and given $4 to his employees. That is not what happens. Companies overvalue a product by paying their employees so much less than what it is worth. If this profit "trickled down" as the saying goes, this wealth would be more evenly redistributed. But as we've seen, that's not what happens, and instead of paying fair wages or charging a fair price, the businessman ups it to $30, then cuts half his employees and pays the ones he has less, and keeps all the profit for himself and his investors.

And I do understand how you feel when people make blanket statements about issues they're not experts at. I see it every day on here with the whackos who deny climate change, evolution, the moon landings, and science in general. As a scientist, this growing trend of science-denial coupled with their conspiracy theories and disregard for scientists drives me nuts! I am sure there are a plethora of little details I don't know about how recessions begin, but what I do know is history. I can't without a doubt say the things I mentioned cause recessions, but we certainly can say that during these recessions, this is what was going on.

The idea that FDR prolonged the depression is simply not true. It wasn't like today, where we squabble over whether minimum wage should be $7 or $8. This was a time when there was no minimum wage, no rights for workers. The New Deal worked, but received tremendous opposition from the Republican Party. "You can't tell me I have to be fair to my workers!" The mini recession that happened during the recovery was completely fabricated when the Republicans asked Rockefeller to create it.

The Earths doom is being controlled by the fallen Annunaki\Angels or the Nephilim.

I wish everyone a Happy Thanks Giving and if the world is doom and Armageddon is on its way, it is always best to die a Christian. God Bless ALL!

Currently Israel and Gaza are just pawns to other countries malipulation. I wish all the killing to stop.

@syfyguy The link I included in my last comment was a podcast, I'm not sure who transcribed it but I think that's done mostly for people to be able to search for content. It would probably be easier to listen to it. It's actually a good podcast for anyone wanting to learn economics, the host openly admits his biases and he has good conversation with all types of people.

Anyways, on to the wealth creation discussion. The consumer does not "overvalue" the product, I'm not even sure what that means really. This is a voluntary transaction between two parties. Consumer has something (in this case $15) and the producer has something (in this case product A).

No one is forcing them to make this transaction. So by definition each of the parties values the other object more than the one he currently has. Consumer values product A more than $15, producer values $15 more than product A.

If the transaction never took place, the consumer would have his $15, and the producer would have product A, and they would both be worse off (by their own definition) than they would had they made the transaction. Therefore, the transaction has made both parties better off, meaning, wealth was created.

Now, you are saying the producer should only charge $11 instead of $15. But who is the best one to decide the margin? I say these should be decided by free individuals, socialist minded people would say this should be centrally designed. Then you get into the economic calculation problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

This type of discussion was huge among economists in the early 1900s, but mostly faded after the failures of socialist countries. Now, the argument among economists seems to be how to fight business cycles, and how to deal with externalities, ect..

You said the consumer has a product that they valued at more than $15, thus overvalue. How often do you here a consumer say, "man, I should have paid $20 instead of $15"? As I said, profit is important to a capitalist society, but greed destroys capitalism. This is what Marx predicted, and is exactly what is happening today. When we let these "free individuals", the makers, decide what to charge, greed compels them to drastically overvalue their product. True, no one forces me to buy food, shelter, gasoline, health care (except soon), but these are necessities for survival. I'm not talking about iPhones here.

Take BC/BS for example. We are the only industrialized country that does (did) not have healthcare regulated by the government. Because we let BC/BS set their price, they decided they wanted to take in 85% in profit. Since they are the only company that is allowed to have a monopoly, and we need healthcare, we had no choice but to continue to pay more every time they decided to raise rates because an executive wanted a new private jet. Take the oil industry. I've done consulting work for BP, and they make $1 million an hour, and you don't even want to know the obscene amount their executives make. The GOP loves to whine and lie about "doubling gas prices under Obama", but crude is relatively down at the moment, and production costs have decreased thanks top the "more with less" philosophy, so why is gas staying around $4? Greed. And drugs: we are the only country in the world that advertises prescriptions, and we pay the most for them because of it. What other democratic countries do is a far cry from socialism, but when we try to do the same thing they do, the right cries "Socialism!!!".

Luxury items should remain priced by the makers, but the way companies hold people hostage over necessities for survival is disgusting, is what drives the 1%, and it has to stop. Marx predicted everything correctly about capitalism so far, so we just have to wait and see when the revolution will be.

So when it comes to the things that humanity requires for survival, who is the best one to decide the margin? The people.

This article was about a defensive weapon systems performance in the last couple weeks. Take all the political b.s. over to a Fox news forum. This is POPULAR SCIENCE, say it with me now, SCIENCE. I knew you could. I tire of sifting through the crap pile to find article relevant comments. Robot, take your pill and stay on task por favor.

Apoc,
Ha ha, you funny!!! "Popular - Science", say it with me now. Notice the old 'Popular' Science articles and notice they sometimes write about anything popular too, not always science. In addition, as I read your profile and your comments about others who comment, you tend to insult often and offer little to the article.

A technical detail; having now provided hundreds of chances to analyze Iron Dome's radar signals, it may be taken for granted that, at the very least, radar absorbing material cut for the frequencies observed will find their way onto Arab. Persian and Russian missiles in short order. Perhaps even for the reloads.

Active ECM countermeasures are almost certainly under development, if not deployed. They need not be mounted on the missiles and some misses during PoC may even have been tests.

This is "old" technology with a new face.
I can't help but wonder: What if our technology allowed every square mile on land to have 5 of these and they were upgraded to 100% efficiency! No missile would be worth launching at anyone for whatever reason because they would end up destroyed in flight!
Maybe then a challenging throw-down of rock-paper-scissors would make more sense.
Well, then we would have those pesky quantum nano-neurons reading everyone's mind...
I'm stumped.

Heap,
Actually, it the media it was said they were 85% accurate, but in the practical sense that 15% or so incoming rockets were ignored, since they were known to explode in farm fields and harmless areas.

Not knowing how much or how long an attack might happen, you have to be careful you maintain reserves to further defend yourself.

How this went from missles to money I do not know. It looks like this Iron Dome is a work in progress. As best I rember the laser had some problem with the fule. It is toxit, and what is left after it was burnt was toxit, not a gas I would want released upwind of where I was living.
About the Fed, after the stock market crashed the banks had to rase there reserve rate (the amount of money in the valt verses what was out on lone). So They had to call in some lones, and could not make more lones untill more people deposited money. What would happen today it every body who was not paying off there credit cards every month had there credit cards frozen?
I hope I am wrong, but as best I understand when the goverment wants to expand the money supply the Fed prints the bonds, sell them, then lones the money to the goverment. Our goverment then repays the money to the fed plus interest. Who then payes off the bond, but keeps the interest. No can do with Gold

1954Walter,
Sir, I could not follow some of your points, since many of your thoughts were fragmented or poorly written. I hope you write again one day a little more clearly.

@robot
No need to push you political beliefs or your religious beliefs. I am Catholic and I respect all other religions. To say dying being christian is the best is egocentric, rude, and insulting.

Furthermore.. The country is in 16 trillion in debt because politicians make money on each bill that is signed. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of embezzling money for personal gain. If we could fix that then things would fix themselves. Providing massive social programs with no way to fund them is irresponsible.

As for the Iron Dome.. the USA funded the program to "outsource" the project to another country who needs it. This in turn will allow it to be tested and perfected for the use of the USA. The tech is shared with the US and we will then make improvements based on our needs. Don't make assumptions on the % accuracy of the dome since it was not stated how the results were calculated.

Stop insulting users on here, it's ridiculous. Nothing is finite. I would ban you if I was an Moderator.

How on Earth does this go from "missile defense system" to "politics"!? How come every article with the most comments features a commentator debate about politics, even the genuinely scientific ones!?
Enough ranting, here's my comment on this Iron Dome:
Use one of those EMP missiles on it, then send an explosive missile straight at it. If that doesn't work, send kamikaze paratroopers. They might fall slowly enough so that they are not processed as missiles. However, the EMP missile could be beyond the resources of terrorists and their allies.

Varsity,
You said no need for me to make my comments. Yes you are correct, I did so freely make comments and it was not out of need. And as for your own opinions, you offered no proof behind them, plus stating politicians make laws only for the purpose of embezzling is a wild point on your part. I wish you provide proof to that too.

I opinionate, so what. My words do not insult and again you are free to ingore them or to respond as you did with your own opinions. Take care. ;)

@Mukuro and others: read the very first comment and ask again how this article became political. Since it is political SCIENCE, there is nothing wrong with discussing it in a science forum, but believe me, I would love to see less of it. So please tell all your ignorant conservative science deniers to stop trolling these articles simply to bash and lie about Obama, tell lies about climate change or evolution, or bash scientists in general. If you right-wing morons can post a comment that doesn't involve "brainwashed liberals drinking kool-aid", then those of us who are scientists will be able to stop constantly proving how ignorant you are.

And really Mukuro, how many times can you whine about POLITICAL SCIENCE in PopSci? I stopped counting at 7. You're not fooling anyone when you back up the science deniers and only complain when someone of intelligence calls them out.