The cost for one night of defence seen as significantly higher than the price Iran paid to mount its attack

It cost Israel more than $1bn to activate its defence systems that intercepted Iran’s massive drone and missile attack overnight, according to a former financial adviser to Israel’s military.

“The defence tonight was on the order of 4-5bn shekels [$1-1.3bn] per night,” estimated Brigadier General Reem Aminoach in an interview with Ynet news.

“If we’re talking about ballistic missiles that need to be brought down with an Arrow system, cruise missiles that need to be brought down with other missiles, and UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles], which we actually bring down mainly with fighter jets,” he said.

“Then add up the costs - $3.5m for an Arrow missile, $1m for a David’s Sling, such and such costs for jets. An order of magnitude of 4-5bn shekels.”

  • Neuromancer@lemm.eeEnglish
    112·
    9 months ago

    You didn’t cite anything. You made a claim. A citation would have something I could verify. A claim is something I can’t verify. If Bernie is quoting it, it’s probably wrong. That man is dumb as a box of rocks.

    If you’d like to cite the Cato report, I’d love to read it. I can’t find it as you claimed

    • prettybunnysEnglish
      6·
      9 months ago

      I cited nothing.

      I quoted the word because you used it incorrectly in a myriad of ways.

      Here’s one, it’s not by their campaign so maybe you might be able to throw that bias of yours out.

      Sorry it came from Lancet and not Cato. These studies are literally EVERYWHERE it’s honestly hard work to truly believe what you do.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8572548/

      ^ the article was published in Lancet.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeEnglish
        111·
        9 months ago

        You either didn’t read the article or didn’t t read what I said. The numbers are similar to mine. Yet the article doesn’t address what I stated. A citation is supposed to prove a point. With was it would increase taxes which the article confirms would happen but doesn’t quantify it.

        Also with the drop in wages for doctors and nurses, we would face another shortage.

        • prettybunnysEnglish
          7·
          9 months ago

          The Abstract ALONE claims the opposite.

          You’re using words hoping people will believe you because you’re saying them like an asshole talking down to children.

          To your “lower pay” point that’s not necessarily true and the article explains the how.

          The savings to providers alone would be double the “decrease” in pay, again pay would only go down through a grift.

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeEnglish
            111·
            9 months ago

            The abstract is not the article and no it doesn’t talk of the increased taxes. That’s further in the article.

            If you’d read the article you’d see it prove my claim. Touché

            • prettybunnysEnglish
              8·
              9 months ago

              My claim is most people will pay less, my claim has been that from the beginning.

              The study I linked makes that argument.

              There are countless others.

              AFTER the article makes mention of government revenue increase it then informs how that increase in taxes revenue would result in a net decrease for the actual average person.

              Your taxes might go up more than you pay into your health plan and it’s telling that you can’t see past your own nose to the point.