>> What would one pay to stop the bullet coming at their head?
A lot, of course.
However, suppose it were cheaper to eliminate the threat BEFORE it reached the point of putting a gun to your head? Wouldn’t that be the wiser choice?
Excellent article.
The idea that a viable defense is morally wrong is absurd. By this same logic, troops wearing body armor or using tanks is morally reprehensible because it encourages the enemy to shoot at you!
The author's outrage is misdirected at a wonderful and important technology, when it ought to be directed at weak-willed leadership alone. The false dichotomy established in the article -- Iron Dome or killing the enemy -- is a dangerous and liberal analysis. The correct solution is Iron Dome and an effective response to the enemy.
Blaming technology for the decisions and behaviors of people is the real insanity.