Probably they prefer to not intercept missiles that go to low populated areas because they are less likely to kill people and prefer to use them to intercept ones that go to the city . I don't think its a monetary issue... they get the money from US government
I mean hey you can't pick and choose every battle, right? Just reality if you're getting shot at all day every day like this. There will be some compromise
It's not that at all. If there's a single missile the system will intercept even at low population areas.
If there's a large volley of missiles (like today) and only so many can be caught, the system will prioritise high population density areas to protect.
The system can only intercept a certain number of missiles per unit time. It makes best use of that time when it needs to. The system isn't perfect but it does a very good job. It doesn't just ignore low population areas. It just prioritises larger population areas when it needs to.
Logical would be building a more impenetrable iron curtain, not sacrificing civvies. With all the money that they are getting from us its not like they cant afford it.
That was actually a really good read. I had assumed enough redundancy could fix most of the issue(s) but clearly theres things baked in i didnt account for. Much appreciated.
There is a failure rate for missile interceptors. if you fire 100, some percentage will fail. As a result, if you shoot 100 interceptors at 100 rockets some will inevitably get through or require a 2nd or 3rd missile. These decisions are occurring by real people that have to make decisions in a few minutes.
No bother at all. Still has many of the same issues, and you did have a very solid point. Just that one little error. But even with computers controlling it - that only removes the real time human error as it happens. There is still a failure rate from the interceptors etc.
81
u/msrichson Oct 01 '24
It also tracks trajectories and attempts to not engage rockets that it believes will hit low population areas.