DACS Working Paper
March 1993
CASUALTIES AND DAMAGE FROM SCUD ATTACKSIN THE 1991 GULF WAR
George N. Lewis, Steve Fetter, and Lisbeth Gronlund

The Defense and Arms Control Studies Program is a graduate-level, research and training
program based at the MIT Center for International Studies. It is supported by grants from theCarnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, and the DACS Corporate Consortium.

1

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEFENSE AND ARMS CONTROL STUDIES PROGRAM

Working Paper

CASUALTIES AND DAMAGE FROM SCUD ATTACKS IN
THE 1991 GULF WARMarch 1993

George N. Lewis
Defense and Arms Control Studies Program, M.I.T
Steve Fetter
School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland
Lisbeth Gronlund
Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mass. and M.I.T.
Defense and Arms Control Studies Program
WP # 93-2

2

Table of Contents
Introduction

1

Previous Ballistic Missile Attacks
The V-2 Attacks on London
The Scud Attacks on Tehran
The Scud Attacks in Afghanistan

3
4
10
12

The Scud Attacks on Israel

13

The Role of Patriot

16

Factors that Contributed to Limiting Casualties in Israel
Inaccuracy of the Modified Scuds
Warning Time
Blast-Resistant Dwellings
Dud Warheads
Civil Defense
Coincidence

19
19

Assessment of Expected Casualties in Israel

26
27
29
30
31
32

Property Damage in Israel

34

The Scud Attacks on Saudi Arabia

36

What if Chemical Warheads Had Been Used?

37

Conclusions

39

Appendix: Chronology of the Scud Attacks on
Israel and Saudi Arabia

42

3

CASUALTIES AND DAMAGE FROM SCUD ATTACKSIN THE 1991 GULF WAR1INTRODUCTION
The proliferation of ballistic missiles has in recent years become a major international
security concern. This increased concern is in part due to the highly visible role played by Iraqi
Scud missiles during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. However, it is also due to the widespread -- but
incorrect -- perception that even conventionally-armed ballistic missiles are tremendously
destructive.2
This perception that ballistic missiles are inherently weapons of great destructive
capability may have played a key role in the politics of the Gulf War. Iraq fired more than 80
modified Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, causing 31
deaths, numerous injuries, and substantial property damage. However, with the exception of the
Scud that hit a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and killed 28 U.S. soldiers, the number ofcasualties caused by these Scuds was much lower than was generally anticipated. During thewar, the Patriot missile system was credited with almost complete success in intercepting the1

A short version of this paper was published as Steve Fetter, George N. Lewis, and Lisbeth Gronlund, "Why
Were Scud Casualties So Low?" Nature, 28 January 1993, pp. 293-296.
Some of the numbers in this paper are different from the those in the Nature paper due to additional
information we have received since the short version was completed. In the Nature paper, we estimated, based onnews media reports, that 10 to 11 Scud warheads detonated in Israeli metropolitan areas. Based on recent interviews
conducted in Israel by Reuven Pedatzur, we have now been able to identify a total of 13 Scud warheads that detonatedin Israeli metropolitan areas; in addition, we are now able to produce a map of the impact points. We also now havesome additional information about dud Scud warheads and Patriots that dove into the ground in Israel. Finally, thefigure for the number of Scuds fired at Israel was 38 in the Nature paper; since the U.S. Army now appears to use afigure of 39, that is used here (with the additional Scud falling on January 18).
2

Ballistic missiles are often referred to as "weapons of mass destruction," without regard to the nature of theirwarheads. While missiles armed with nuclear, biological, and, under some circumstances, chemical warheads
deserve that designation, a high-explosive warhead delivered by a missile is not significantly more destructive than thesame amount of explosive delivered by other means, and should not be termed a weapon of mass destruction. For a
discussion of the destructive capabilities of ballistic missiles armed with different types of warheads, see Steve Fetter,"Ballistic Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What Is the Threat? What Should Be Done?," International
Security, Summer 1991, pp. 5-42. For an assessment of the military effectiveness of ballistic missiles relative toattack aircraft, see John R. Harvey, "Regional Ballistic Missiles and Advanced Strike Aircraft: Comparing Military
Effectiveness," International Security, Fall 1992, pp. 41-83.

4

Iraqi Scud missiles, and the low casualty rate (relative to the public's expectations) seemed toconfirm Patriot's success. The belief on the part of the Israeli population that they were being
successfully defended by Patriot was crucial in keeping Israel out of the war.
Since the end of war, the casualties caused by the Scuds have become part of the debate
over the effectiveness of the Patriot missile defense system. Several analysts have cited therelatively low casualty rate as evidence of the success of Patriot3, while others have argued that3

Robert M. Stein, Manager of Advanced Air Defense Systems for the Raytheon Company, has argued that "theone or two civilian deaths directly related to TBMs [tactical ballistic missiles] in Israel and no civilian deaths in Saudi
Arabia contrasted sharply with the effects of Scuds against other countries without anti-TBM (ATBM) defense, suchas the "War of the Cities" between Iraq and Iran, in which TBMs killed or injured more than 5000 Iranian citizens,and in Afghanistan when three Scuds killed 300 people on a single day . . . the casualty rates per TBM in Israel andSaudi Arabia differed from those in the comparison examples by orders of magnitude. Such differences transcend thepossible variations in circumstances. . . ." (Robert Stein, "Correspondence: Patriot Experience in the Gulf War,"International Security, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Summer 1992), p. 200.) Stein acknowledges in a footnote the 28 U.S.
military personnel killed when a Scud, which Patriot failed to engage, struck a barracks in Dhahran on 25 February
1991. Similar statistics were cited by Charles Zraket, a Scholar in Residence at Harvard University's Center for
Science and International Affairs and past CEO of the MITRE Corporation, as evidence of Patriot effectiveness in his
Defense News article "Patriot Gave Stellar Gulf Performance," 9 December 1991, p. 31.
Both Zraket and Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and Senior fellow for Arms Control and Verification at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, gave testimony to the Subcommittee on Legislation and National
Security of the House Committee on Government Operations during hearings on the performance of the Patriot missile
in the Gulf War on 7 April 1992, in which they asserted that there was a "common sense" argument that Patriot was
successful because no catastrophic damage occurred. In his testimony, Zraket stated "...if you don't have a lot ofcatastrophic damage in an area and say in Israel or in eastern Saudi Arabia, when something like over 30 Scuds fell ineach of the inhabited areas and almost 50 were fired into each area, then common sense tells you that something isgoing on that's preventing that catastrophic damage." During later questioning by Representative Steven Neal,
Zimmerman stated, ". . . the common-sense argument that Dr. Zraket has made indicates to me very clearly that large
numbers--reasonable fractions--of the incoming al-Hussein missiles were interdicted, were neutralized, and wereprevented from causing damage on the ground." (Performance of the Patriot Missile in the Gulf War, Hearing before
the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House ofRepresentatives, April 7, 1992 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), pp. 179, 209.) Morerecently, Zimmerman again stated that a common-sense case could be made that Patriot was modestly successful in
defending Israel because the Scuds did not cause as much damage as might have been expected (Max Boot, "New US
House Committee Report Will Say Patriot Missile Failed," Christian Science Monitor, 23 September 1992, p. 9.).
These arguments have been repeated in several editorials and opinion pieces, including "An Unjustly
Criticized Patriot" by Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr. (Wall Street Journal, 8 April 1992, p. A20), and "Conyers vs. thePatriots" (Detroit News, 13 April 1992, p. 8), which states that "Saddam Hussein lobbed 40 Scuds at Israeli cities, andno significant damage occurred in the areas defended by Patriot batteries....compare that with the 1988 Iran-Iraq"War of the Cities" when Iraq launched 125 Scuds at Teheran and other populated areas, killing 1,000 to 2,000
Iranians." Former U.S. Congressman Frank Horton similarly argues that ". . . the historical evidence that whentactical ballistic missiles are shot at defenseless civilians, casualties are high, but that in Desert Storm, the only
situation where civilian populations were defended--by Patriot--casualties were exceedingly low." (Frank Horton,"The Patriot Debate: Part 2," Arms Control Today, January/February 1993, pp. 26-27.)5

the same casualty data suggests that the Patriot may not have been very successful.4
In the nearly two years since the end of the Gulf War, however, it has become apparent
that Patriot was far less effective in intercepting Scuds than was believed during the war.5 Howthen can the apparently low casualties caused by the Scud attacks be explained?
In this paper, we review the casualty rate from previous ballistic missile attacks, compare
this to the experience in the Gulf War by taking into account differences in population density
and warhead size, and examine a variety of other factors that may account for the casualty rate in
the Scud attacks on Israel. We primarily focus on Israel because relatively little data is available
from Saudi Arabia. We conclude that there were a number of factors that, taken together, appear
to be able to account for the number of deaths and serious injuries in Israel. The most importantof these factors were the inaccuracy of the modified Scud missile; its small warhead and breakup
upon atmospheric reentry; the availability of attack warning, which allowed citizens to takeshelter; and Israeli construction practices, which prevented buildings from collapsing and burying
their occupants. Finally, simple good fortune may have played a role. The available data do notsupport claims that Patriot played a significant role in reducing casualties. We conclude withsome observations on lessons learned that may be relevant to future ballistic missile attacks.

PREVIOUS BALLISTIC-MISSILE ATTACKSIn order to put the casualties and damage in Israel into perspective, it is useful to review
the effects of previous ballistic missile attacks. Before the 1991 Gulf War, ballistic missiles had
been used extensively in war only three times: the Germans launched over 3,000 V-2 missiles
against urban British and European targets during World War II; Iraq and Iran together launchednearly 1,000 missiles against each other's cities during the 1980-88 Persian Gulf War; and the
Kabul government fired over 2,000 Soviet-made Scud missiles against Mujahideen guerrillas in
4

Theodore A. Postol, "Lessons of the Gulf War Patriot Experience," International Security, Vol. 16, No. 3(Winter 1991/92), pp. 119-171. This paper notes that the deployment of Patriot in Israel did not appear to have
reduced the damage per Scud missile relative to that before Patriot was deployed.
5

After the war, the U.S. Army claimed a 96% success rate. The Army's currently claims a 40% success rate in
Israel and a 70% success rate in Saudi Arabia. However, only 40% of the Army's claimed successful intercepts arein the Army's "highest confidence" category. See John Conyers, Jr., "The Patriot Myth: Caveat Emptor," Arms
Control Today, November 1992, pp. 3-10.

6

the Afghanistan civil war. In all cases the missiles were armed with conventional high-explosive
warheads. Detailed information on casualties and physical damage is, however, available only
for the V-2 attacks on London.
The V-2 Attacks on London
From September 1944 until March 1945, Germany launched over 3,000 V-2 ballistic missiles at targets in Britain and continental Europe.6 Of the approximately 1,400 V-2s fired against
Britain, 518 fell in the London Civil Defense District. In addition, nearly 10,000 V-1 cruise
missiles were fired against London, and although most of them malfunctioned or were destroyed
by British defenses, roughly 2,420 V-1s fell in London.

Casualties
Table 1 gives the number of deaths and injuries that resulted from V-1 and V-2 impacts in
the London area.7 Although the V-2 and the V-1 missiles produced roughly equal areas ofphysical destruction (see below), the number of casualties (deaths and injuries) per V-2 impact inLondon was about twice that caused by the V-1. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded
that the lower casualty rate for the V-1 was due to the fact that people in the target area could
hear the V-1 approach and could take cover before its warhead exploded,8 while the V-2 gave nowarning of its approach.9
6The primary sources of the V-2 statistics cited in this paper are: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, PhysicalDamage Division, V-Weapons in London, Report No. 152, January 1947; Air Chief Marshall Sir Roderic Hill, "AirOperations by Air Defence of Great Britain And Fighter Command in Connection with the German Flying Bomb andRocket Offensives, 1944-45," London Gazette, 20 October 1948, pp. 5585-5617; C.L. Dunn, The Emergency
Medical Services, vol. 1: England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1952), pp. 170-180; M.C.
Helfers, The Employment of V-Weapons by the Germans During World War II (Washington, DC: U.S. Army, Officeof the Chief of Military History, 31 May 1954); Terrence H. O'Brien, Civil Defence (London: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, 1955); and Norman Longmate, The Doodlebugs: The Story of the Flying Bombs (London:
Hutchinson, 1981).
7

The London area is defined by the boundaries of the wartime London Civil Defense District.

8

V-1s flew at a constant altitude until a timing device caused the missile to go into a steep dive, which cut off theflow of fuel to the engine. People in the target area knew that when the sound of the engine stopped, an explosion
would soon follow, typically in 8 to 12 seconds.
9

An additional factor is that the V-2 produced more intense destruction than the V-1 (i.e., walls were not only

7

Table 1. Deaths and injuries from V-1 and V-2 impacts in the London area.10
Casualties per Missile
Casualties
Number of
Serious
SlightSerious
SlightMissilesDeaths Injuries
Injuries
Deaths Injuries
Injuries-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------V-1
2420
5,370
15,250 19,900
2.2
6.3
8.2
V-2
518
2,510
6,050
13,200
4.8
11.7
25.5
──────────────────────────────────────
Source: Dunn, The Emergency Medical Services, pp. 174, 179.

Table 2. The number of houses destroyed or seriously damaged by V-1 or V-2
impacts in the London area.

Houses per Missile
Number of
Number of Houses
MissilesDestroyed Seriously Damaged
Destroyed Seriously Damaged------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2938
29,400170,000+
1058+

blown over, but blasted into small pieces), which may have resulted in the suffocation of victims buried under thedebris who might otherwise have survived. However, if this was a significant factor, we would expect the death rate
for the V-2 relative to that of the V-1 to increase more than the injury rate. Since both deaths and injuries per missile
are greater for the V-2 by roughly a factor of two, the more intense disintegration of debris produced by the V-2 does
not appear to be a decisive factor in increasing the death rate.
10

Some sources give figures for deaths which are slightly (up to about 10%) higher. In addition, these figures arefor civilians only and do not include casualties among military personnel, which were about 5% of the total for the V1 attacks (Kenneth P. Werrell, Archie, Flak, AAA, and SAM: A Short Operational History of Ground-Based Air
Defense (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 19). Thus the figures in Table 1 likely
represent lower limits.
8

Property Damage
More than a million homes were damaged by the nearly 3,000 V-1 and V-2 missiles thatfell in the London area, although most of these suffered only light damage. It is difficult to sortout damage caused by the V-2s from that caused by the V-1s; the available data suggests that, on
a per missile basis, they caused roughly equal amounts of damage. These data, which aresummarized in Table 2, indicate that about ten houses were destroyed and sixty seriously
damaged per missile impact.
The effects of a number of V-1 and V-2 impacts were investigated in detail by the British,and the results of these investigations were published in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.11
The British compared the effects of the V-1 and V-2 missile warheads with those of the German
SC bomb on brick row houses, which were a common building type in London. All three
weapons contained roughly equal amounts of high-explosive (HE); Table 3 gives the total massand the mass of HE for each weapon, and the mass of TNT that would result in an equivalent
explosive yield.
In calculating the total explosive energy released on impact, the kinetic energy of thewarhead must be taken into account. This contribution is quite small for the SC bomb and the V1 cruise missile, since their velocities at impact were relatively small.12 The V-2, on the other
hand, reached a terminal velocity of about 800 meters per second;13 in this case
11

Strategic Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London.

12

A 1-tonne (1,000-kilogram) mass traveling at the speed of sound (330 meters per second) would have a kinetic
energy of ½mv2 = ½(1000 kg)(330 m/s)2 = 54 megajoules (MJ); since 1 kilogram of TNT releases 4.6 MJ, this isequivalent to 12 kilograms of TNT per tonne of mass, or only about 1% of the energy released by an equal mass of
TNT. Since the impact velocities of the bomb and the V-1 were substantially less than the speed of sound, thecontribution of their kinetic energy to the explosive yield will be less than 1% of the total and can therefore beneglected.
13

Gregory P. Kennedy, Vengeance Weapon 2: The V-2 Guided Missile (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1983), p. 18. To achieve this velocity, the empty missile must have had a ballistic coefficient ("β") of about
8500 kg/m2 (1700 lb/ft2), assuming a burnout velocity of 1600 meters per second, a burnout altitude of 28 kilometers,
and a reentry angle of 45 degrees; since β = M/CdA, where M is the mass (4000 kilograms) and A is the area (2.14m2), this corresponds to a drag coefficient Cd of about 0.22. This value is in agreement with German measurements,
which found that Cd was 0.22 at a velocity of 800 meters per second. Hermann H. Kurzweg, "The Aerodynamic
Development of the V-2," in T.H. Benecke and A.W. Quick, History of German Guided Missiles Development(Brunswick, Germany: Verlag E. Appelhans & Co., 1957), p. 59.

9

Table 3. Characteristics of the German SC bomb and the V-1 and V-2 warheads.
aEnergy (kg TNT equiv.)
Type of
Mass (kg) of
WeaponHE
DeviceHE
HE Kinetic Total__________________________________________________________________________b
SC Bomb
Amatol
1089
620
520
--520
b
800
V-1
52A
900
849
800
--V-2
Amatol
978
736
620
280
900
__________________________________________________________________________
Source: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London.
a
Amatol (60% TNT, 40% ammonium nitrate) releases about 84% as much energy as an equal mass of TNT; 52A (a mixtureof RDX, ammonium nitrate, dinitro benzine, and calcium nitrate) is about 94% as energetic as TNT. Explosiveenergy releases estimated from data in Gilbert Ford Kinney, Explosive Shocks in Air (New York: Macmillan, 1963).
bBoth the SC bomb and the V-1 had relatively low impact velocities, and their kinetic energies were therefore negligible. Seefootnote 12.

Table 4. Average damage radii (meters) and corresponding peak overpressures (psi)for three types of weapons against brick-row houses for three levels of damage:completely destroyed ("A"), damaged beyond repair ("B"), and seriously damaged but
habitable with repairs ("C").

Overpressure (psi)Number of
Damage Radius (m)WeaponExplosions
A B
C
A
B
C
________________________________________________________________________SC Bomb
5
l6 26 4832.6 10.2 3.5
V-1
19
22 31 52
19.7 9.7 3.9
V-2
22
23 31 57
18.9 10.6 3.6________________________________________________________________________
Source: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Physical Damage Division, V-Weapons in London.

10

the kinetic energy of the missile is a significant fraction of the energy released by the HE.14 Table
3 gives the kinetic energy and the total energy released by the impact and detonation of each
weapon.15 The average damage radii of each of these weapons against a brick row-houses are
given in Table 4. Radii are given for three levels of damage: completely destroyed ("A"),damaged beyond repair ("B"), and seriously damaged but habitable with repairs ("C"). Note thatthe damage radii for the V-1 and V-2 are quite similar for each level of damage, with the V-2
being slightly more destructive (which is consistent with its slightly greater energy release on
impact). The SC bomb, which released significantly less energy on impact, had smaller damage
radii.
Since in each case the damage to the structures was due almost exclusively to blast, weshould expect that for each given level of damage ("A," "B," or "C") the radii for the threedifferent weapons would correspond to about the same peak overpressure. Table 4 lists the peak
overpressures from each weapon at the radii for "A," "B," and "C" damage.16 Note that, with the
exception of the "A" level damage for the SC bomb, there is excellent agreement in every case.17
In general, brick row houses were completely destroyed at overpressures greater than roughly 20
pounds per square inch (psi), damaged beyond repair at about 10 psi, and severely damaged but

14

A 4-tonne missile traveling at a speed of 800 meters per second would have a kinetic energy of ½(4,000)(800)2= 1300 MJ, which is equivalent to 280 kilograms of TNT.
15

The table does not include the energy released by unburned fuel that may have remained in the tanks of themissiles; the Strategic Bombing Survey makes no mention of this or of its possible contribution to the initial explosion
or subsequent fires. If one percent of the gasoline remained in the V-1s tanks at impact, the additional energy
released would have been equivalent to 50 kilograms of TNT; in the case of the V-2, one percent of the alcohol fuelwould have been equivalent to 250 kilograms of TNT.
16

The overpressures given here are calculated assuming that the weapons are ground-burst. Data for the
overpressure as a function of distance from the explosion were taken from Kinney, Explosive Shocks in Air, p. 188,
for a free air burst of a 1-ton spherical charge of TNT at sea level. If the ground was an ideal reflector, theoverpressures from a ground burst would be twice that of a free air burst of the same yield. Because some of the
explosive energy is expended in ground shock and cratering, however, the actual yield for a ground burst is only about
1.6 times greater. The factor of 1.6 can be derived from data in Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, eds., The
Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 1977), figs. 3.72 and 3.73.
17

The exception of the level "A" damage from the SC bomb may be due to the relatively small number ofobservations in this case (five), combined with the fact that small variations in the height of burst or the immediatesurroundings of the blast would result in much larger variations in the radius of level "A" damage.

11

repairable at overpressures of about 3 to 4 psi.18 The excellent agreement in the overpressures atwhich a given degree of damage occurs from these three very different types of weapons should
give us a measure of confidence in using these results to predict damage from missile attacks insimilar circumstances.19
It is informative to compare the average radii for deaths and injuries with those fordamage to brick row houses. This can be done by dividing the average number of casualties per
missile impact by the average population density of London to find the area per missile, and thencalculating the radius of that area. The average population density of London during the missile
attacks is difficult to estimate because of widespread evacuation. The V-1 attacks began in June
1944; by August, 1.45 million people (about 20 percent of the population) were estimated to haveleft London.20 In July, the nighttime population was estimated at 6.75 million.21 Assuming thatthese population estimates correspond to the London Civil Defense Region, the population
density during the V-weapon attacks was about 3,600 per square km.22 Thus, in the case of theV-2 attacks, the average radii for deaths, serious injuries, and slight injuries were 21, 32, and 48
18

It is interesting to compare the results in Table 4 with the results of U.S. studies on the effects of nuclear
explosions on buildings. In nuclear tests in Nevada, unreinforced, two-story brick houses were exposed to peak
overpressures of 5 and 1.7 psi. At 5 psi, the houses were completely destroyed; at 1.7 psi the damage wasconsiderable but the houses were repairable. Thus, the peak overpressure required to damage this type of structure toa given extent is two to four times higher for a 1-ton conventional explosive than for a 30-kt nuclear explosive. Thisis because the blast wave from the nuclear explosion lasts much longer. For example, the duration of the blast wave
is nearly 1 second for a 30-kt nuclear explosion and a peak overpressure of 5 psi; for one ton of TNT and an
overpressure of 20 psi it is only about 0.01 s. Because the duration of the chemical blast is short compared to thenatural period of the structure (which is roughly 0.2 s), increases in the duration (which is proportional to the cube
root of the yield for a given overpressure) result in increased displacement and damage. When the duration of theblast is longer than the natural period of the structure (as is the case with most nuclear explosions), damage becomes
insensitive to duration and depends only on peak overpressure. The observed ratio of 2-4:1 for the peak overpressuresrequired to destroy these structures with chemical and nuclear explosives, respectively, is in accord with theoreticalpredictions. See Kinney, Explosive Shocks in Air, pp. 142-144.
19

The 6:1 ratio of houses damaged to houses destroyed in London (see Table 2) is what one would expect from theroughly 2.5:1 ratio of the radii for "A" and "C" damage given in Table 4, since the area of destruction is proportional
to the square of the damage radii.
20

O' Brien, Civil Defence, p. 655. This was apparently the peak number of evacuees, at least during the V-1
attacks. Some of the evacuees subsequently returned to London before the missile attacks ended.
21

Longmate, The Doodlebugs, p. 261.

22

The London Civil Defense Region had an area of about 730 square miles, or 1,900 square kilometers. (Strategic
Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London, p. 1.)

12

meters, which are comparable to the radii for the "A" (destroyed), "B" (damaged beyond repair),and "C" (seriously damaged but repairable) levels of structural damage, of 23, 31, and 57 meters,
respectively.
The Scud Attacks on Tehran
Only limited information is available on casualties and damage from the Iraqi Scudattacks on Tehran during the so-called "War of the Cities." A total of 189 modified Scud-B
missiles (dubbed the "al Hussein" by Iraq--the same missile used against Israel and Saudi Arabia)
fell on six different Iranian cities from 29 February to 20 April 1988; 135 of these landed in
Tehran.23 On 4 April, after about 125 missiles had fallen, Iranian sources reported that 1,150
people had died and 4,000 had been injured from the missile attacks.24 However, some foreign
analysts believe that Iran underestimated casualties to minimize civilian panic, and estimate that
2,000 people died.25
If 1,150 people died, and if all of the Iranian cities attacked have roughly equal population
densities, then as few as nine people were killed and 32 injured per missile impact in Tehran; if
2,000 died, then about 16 people were killed per missile impact in Tehran. If the smaller cities
had population densities significantly less than that of Tehran (or were small enough that a higher
fraction of Scuds missed the city), the casualty rate in Tehran would be somewhat higher.
Assume for the moment that the circumstances of the Scud attacks on Tehran weresimilar to those of the V-2 attacks on London. Under this assumption, we need only modify thecasualty and damage rates for London to account for differences in population density andwarhead yield in order to estimate the expected casualty rate in Tehran.

Population density
23

W. Seth Carus and Joseph S. Bermudez, Jr., "Iraq's Al-Husayn Missile Programme," Jane's Soviet Intelligence
Review, Vol. 2, No. 6 (June 1990), pp. 242-248. During the entire war, Iraq claims to have fired 331 Scuds against
Iran ("Iraqi Missile Declarations," Arms Control Today, November 1992, p. 28). Iraq also fired many shorter range
missiles at Iranian cities closer to its borders.
24

John Bierman, "A Battered City Under Siege," Maclean's, 18 April 1988, pp. 34-36.

25

Carus and Bermudez, "Iraq's Al-Husayn Missile Programme," p. 244.

13

In 1988, the Tehran metropolitan area had a population of about 8.6 million26
concentrated in a relatively small area of 290 square kilometers,27 for a population density of
about 30,000 per square km. As in London, large-scale evacuation resulted from the missile
attacks; some diplomats estimated that as many as two million people (nearly one-quarter of the
population) left the city.28 If, for lack of better information, we assume the same fraction ofevacuees as in London (about 20 percent), the population density of Tehran would have been
about seven times greater than that of London during the missile attacks. Therefore, all else
being equal, the same type of warhead would on average kill and injure about seven times as
many people if targeted against Tehran rather than London.

Warhead yield
Iran claimed that the modified Scud used by the Iraqis carried a warhead containing 160
to 190 kilograms of high explosives;29 in addition, the kinetic energy of the intact missile at
impact would have been equivalent to about 400 kilograms of TNT.30 However, reports from
Iran suggested that the missiles did not remain intact, but that the Scud's warhead separated fromthe booster prior to impact.31 Based on the Gulf War experience, it seems clear that these reports
were actually referring to the breakup of the booster during reentry due to the instability of themodified missile.32 In this case, the total energy released on impact would have been less than26

The population of the Teheran metropolitan area was 7.52 million in 1985 and 9.38 million in 1990. (John W.
Wright, ed., The Universal Almanac 1990 (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1990), p. 533.) Assuming a constantrate of growth during this time, the population in 1988 would have been 8.6 million.
27

The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1992 (New York: Pharos Books, 1992), p. 821. According to theaccompanying text, "to the extent practical, non-residential areas such as parks, airports, industrial complexes andwater were excluded from the area," so the population density estimated here may be somewhat too high.
28

Bierman, "A Battered City," p. 34.

29

Carus and Bermudez, "Iraq's Al-Husayn Missile Programme," p. 244.

30

Assuming a total mass of 1500 kilograms and a velocity of 1600 meters per second at impact.

31

Bierman, "A Battered City," p. 28.

32

At least some of the problems with the Iraqi-modified Scud missiles were known to the Iranians. In March 1988,
Iranian Majlis speaker Rafsanjani publicly discussed the modifications the Iraqis had made to the basic Scud missile inorder to increase its range. He stated the welding done by the Iraqis was of poor quality and that the modifications

14

the equivalent of 250 kilograms of TNT. (Recall that the total energy released on impact by theV-2 was equivalent to about 900 kilograms of TNT). Since the area subjected to a given peak
overpressure scales as the yield to the two-thirds power, assuming an energy release equivalent to
250 kilograms of TNT, the lethal area created by the impact of the modified Scud (and therefore
the expected number of casualties and houses destroyed) would be about 0.43 times that of theV-2.
Thus, scaling for differences in population density and warhead yield, one would haveexpected the casualty rate in Tehran to have been roughly three times greater than that in London,
with 14 deaths and 35 serious injuries expected per Scud impact. This estimate is in generalagreement with the available information, albeit scarce and of unknown reliability, aboutcasualties in Tehran. However, it is difficult to draw any conclusions because there are relevant
circumstances in Tehran that may have differed significantly from those in London, and about
which we have inadequate information (for example, construction practices and civil defense -see our subsequent discussion of construction practices in Israel).
The Scud Attacks in Afghanistan
Beginning in October 1988, the Soviet-backed government of the Democratic Republic of
Afghanistan (DRA) launched over 2,000 Scud missiles at positions held by Mujahideen
guerrillas.33 Unlike the missile attacks on London and Tehran, many of these attacks weredirected at military targets: Mujahideen formations, staging areas, ammunition dumps, andsupply lines. Because these relatively small targets are difficult to destroy with inaccurate
missiles (the Scud-B is estimated to have a circular error probable (CEP) of about 1 km)34 armed
had led to stability problems that could cause the missiles to "do somersaults" while outside the atmosphere. He also
claimed that the missiles had a number of additional problems which he did not wish to reveal to the Iraqis. "2dSermon on Missile Attacks," Daily Report - Near East and South Asia, Foreign Broadcast Information Service(hereafter referred to as FBIS), March 14, 1988, pp. 59-62.
33

For information on missile attacks in Afghanistan see Joseph S. Bermudez, "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World- Afghanistan 1979-1992," Jane's Intelligence Review, February 1991, p. 51-58. See also Anthony H. Cordesman
and Abraham R. Wagner, The Lessons of Modern War, Volume III: the Afghan and Falkland Conflicts (Boulder,Colo.: Westview Press, 1990), pp. 163-164.
34

Steven Zaloga, "Ballistic Missiles in the Third World: Scud and Beyond," International Defense Review,
November 1988, pp. 1423-1427. The CEP is the radius of an imaginary circle, centered at the missile's aimpoint,15

with conventional warheads, the attacks were militarily ineffective. The attacks did, however,serve to terrorize villages that were captured by the Mujahideen or that were suspected ofsupporting the guerrillas. For example, when the village of Khost was captured by the Mujahideen, four Scuds were fired by the DRA, killing 14 and wounding 30. The most frequently citedattack is one in which two Scuds hit a crowded bazaar in Asadabad, reportedly killing 300 andwounding 500.35
The missiles used in these attacks were apparently unmodified Scud-Bs, with full-size(1000 kg) warheads. While their poor accuracy has been noted above, they almost certainly wereconsiderably more accurate than the modified Scuds used by Iraq against Iran, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia. It is also possible that larger, more accurate Scud-Cs (with a CEP estimated at 300 m)36
were used in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, very little detailed information is available about the number of attacks on
civilian targets and the resulting casualties and damage in Afghanistan, and we are not able todetermine if the casualties are consistent with what would be expected based on the London V-2
experience.

THE SCUD ATTACKS ON ISRAEL
The 39 modified Scud missiles that reached Israel directly killed two people and injured
about 230 more.37 Almost all of the injuries were light, with only ten classified as moderate andone as severe. The number of Israeli deaths and serious injuries produced by the modified Scudmissiles at first glance seems remarkably low compared with previous ballistic missile attacks.
In fact, the total number of direct deaths and serious injuries in Israel was less than that caused byjust one average missile impact in London or Tehran.38
inside of which half the impacts would occur. The actual impact patterns of ballistic missiles are typically ellipticalrather than circular, however, with the range error generally being larger than the cross-range (or track) error.
35

Bermudez, p. 52.

36

Cordesman and Wagner, p. 164.

37

Casualty statistics are given in Eric Karsenty, Joshua Shemer, Itzhik Alshech, Bruno Cojocaru, Marian
Moscovitz, Yair Shapiro, Yehuda L. Danon, "Medical Aspects of the Iraqi Missile Attacks on Israel," Israel Journalof Medical Sciences, Vol. 27 (November-December, 1991), pp. 603-607; and Avi Bleich, Anat Dycian, Meni

16

Most of the casualties and damage in Israel occurred in the Tel Aviv area. As discussed
above, it is necessary to account for differences in population density and warhead yield whenestimating the expected casualty rate. The Tel Aviv metropolitan area had a population densityof about 7,000 per km2 in 1991.39 As was the case in London and Tehran, many people left Tel
Aviv during the missile attacks. One study of Israeli casualties cites this as a factor in reducing
casualties, noting that "quite a number of the badly damaged homes were in fact empty at the

Koslowsky, Zahava Solomon, and Michael Wiener, "Psychiatric Implications of Missile Attacks on a Civilian
Population: Israeli Lessons from the Persian Gulf War," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 268, No.
5 (5 August 1992), p. 613-615. These two studies differ only marginally in the total number of direct casualties cited(234 and 231 respectively).
Many reports cite only one, rather than two, direct deaths. This discrepancy arises from the third attack on Israel,
when a single Scud hit the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan on the evening of 22 January and three people died. Initialreports attributed all three deaths to heart attacks (and this is what was widely reported afterwards), but one of these
deaths was a direct result of the Scud attack: "It should be noted that heart attack was not the cause of death in all
three cases, as reported earlier. The dead woman who was taken to Ichilov Hospital died of crushing wounds as aresult of the explosion. The two other dead women suffered heart attacks as a result of the missile impact."
Jerusalem Voice of Israel and IDF Radio Network, 4:20 am [Israel Time], 23 January 1991, in FBIS, Daily Report:
Near East and South Asia, 23 January 1991, p. 28.
The other death was a man killed (also in Ramat Gan) in the fifth attack, on the evening of Friday, 25 January,
apparently from a head wound. "Brig. Gen. Yehuda Danon, chief medical officer of the Israeli Defense Forces, said
one death resulted from a direct hit on a house Friday night and the other was a woman who was crushed by debris
and cut by shattered glass." The latter is the death described in the preceding paragraph. William Claiborne andJackson Diehl, "Patriots Launched to Meet New Scud Attack Over Israel," Washington Post, 27 January 1991, p.
A22.
In addition to the direct casualties, there were also a large number of indirect casualties in Israel. Seven
people suffocated due to improper use of gas masks and five fatal heart attacks were attributed to the missile attacks.
Another 815 indirect casualties were treated at hospitals and can be attributed to the Scud attacks. These wereprimarily cases of people with acute anxiety or who had injected themselves with the atropine provided in their civil
defense kits. More than half of the indirect injuries were not due to actual missile attacks but to the five false alarmsthat occurred during the first few days of the attacks. Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects."
38

It is the direct casualty figures that are generally mentioned in discussions of casualties in Israel, and we assume
the casualty figures cited for London and Teheran are also for direct casualties. It is worth noting that the number ofindirect casualties per Scud attack on Israel declined rapidly as the war progressed. Sixty four percent of the anxiety
reactions and atropine injection cases requiring hospitalization in Israel occurred in the first day of the attacks andanother 15% were due to the second attack (Bleich, et. al., "Psychiatric Implications," p. 614). On the other hand,
London had been subjected to bombing for several years prior to the V-1 and V-2 attacks.
39

The population density of the metropolitan Tel Aviv area was 5,910 per km2 in 1983 (Atlas of Israel:
Cartography, Physical and Human Geometry (New York: MacMillan, 1985), map 23.). Between 1985 and 1990, theIsraeli population increased at a rate of 1.66 percent per year; between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of the Israeli
population living in the Tel Aviv area increased from 34.9 to 40.9 percent (World Resources Institute, World
Resources 1992-93 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 247, 265.). Assuming constant growth rates
during these periods, the population density of the Tel Aviv area would have been 7,030 per km2 in 1991.

17

time of explosion."40 Although this evacuation was widely noted in the press, its extent isdifficult to estimate, especially since many of the evacuees left only at night, returning to theirjobs in the morning.41 In the absence of better information, we assume the same fraction ofevacuees as in London (about 20%), which would give a population density of about 5,700 per
km2 for the Tel Aviv metropolitan area during the missile attacks--about 1.6 times that of
London.
The Iraqi-modified Scud missile (the al-Hussein) used against Israel was apparently thesame as that used against Iran, and it appears that essentially all of the missiles launched by Iraq
during the 1991 Gulf War broke up on reentry. Thus as with the Iraqi attacks on Tehran, we
assume that the total energy released on impact was equivalent to 250 kilograms of TNT.42
Recall that the total energy released by a V-2 impact was equivalent to 900 lbs of TNT. Thus,taking into account the differences in population density and warhead yield by applying theappropriate scaling factors to the casualty rates from V-2 attacks on London, the expectedcasualty rates are about 3.3 deaths, 8.1 serious injuries, and 18 slight injuries per Scud impact in
Tel Aviv. This would lead to 129 expected deaths, 316 serious injuries, and and 702 slight
injuries from the 39 missiles that struck Israel, assuming that all the missiles fell into a
metropolitan area similar to Tel Aviv. Thus, the actual number of direct deaths (two) that
resulted from the Scud attacks was more than sixty times less than what one might have expectedbased on this very simple extrapolation from the V-2 experience in London. Similarly, thenumber of serious injuries (11) was roughly 30 times smaller, and the number of light injuries(220) more than 3 times smaller than would have been expected based on the V-2 data.
However, as we discuss below, there are a number of factors that can account for most or all of
40

Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 606.

41

The daily exodus from Tel Aviv resulted in massive traffic jams. (Judy Siegal, "Gridlock, Tel Aviv Style,"
Jerusalem Post, January 28, 1991, p. 2; and Michal Yudelman, "Coping with the Indignities of Life," Jerusalem
Post, January 25, 1991, p. 2). This daily evacuation occurred because the Israeli population understood that Coalition
air power was forcing Iraq to launch after dark. The only daytime attack on Israel was the second one, which
occurred at 7:15 am on 19 January.
42

Since Tel Aviv and Haifa are 50 to 100 kilometers closer to Iraqi launch sites than Teheran, Iraq could havearmed the missiles launched at Israel with slightly heavier warheads. It is quite likely, however, that the same
warhead was used in both cases.

18

these apparent discrepancies.

THE ROLE OF PATRIOTThe Scud attacks on Israel began early in the morning of 18 January, 1991, but the first
Patriot battery did not become operational in Israel until after 12 Scuds had already fallen. Of the
39 Scuds that reached Israel, 27 were fired after Patriot was operational; of these, 17 were
engaged by Patriot missiles.43 Most or all of the other ten Iraqi missiles apparently fell in areas
not covered by the Patriot batteries, which were deployed in the Tel Aviv and Haifa areas,44 andproduced few casualties and no significant damage.45
According to the U.S. Army's most recently revised estimates of Patriot effectiveness, ofthe 17 engagements in Israel, only 40 percent were successful.46 Furthermore, the Army statedthat it had "highest" confidence in only 40 percent of the claimed successful engagements in
Israel and Saudi Arabia.47 Thus, of the 17 Scuds engaged in Israel, the U.S. Army credits Patriot
with at most seven successful intercepts, with only about three of these being in the "highest"
confidence category (assuming equal confidence levels in Israel and Saudi Arabia). Moreover, as
we shall discuss subsequently, six Scuds fell in areas defended by Patriot before it was
operational. Thus even using the Army's data, Patriot would have been expected to reduce the43

Eric Schmidt, "Israel Plays Down Effectiveness of Patriot Missile," New York Times (International edition), 31
October 1991, p. A8; and Ethan Bronner and John Aloysius Farrell, "US, Israeli Experts Dispute Patriot Claims,"
Boston Globe, 19 March 1992, p. 1.
44

There were two Patriot batteries in Haifa and four at Tel Aviv. In addition, a Dutch battery arrived towards near
the end of the war and was deployed near Jerusalem, however, it did not engage any Scuds.
45

Bleich, et. al., "Psychiatric Implications," p. 614, indicate that two people were injured on 25 February. The
two Scuds fired at Israel that day fell in the Negev desert, well out of the range of Patriot batteries in Tel Aviv.
46

U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist to Conclusively Say How Well
Patriot Performed, GAO/NSIAD-92-340, September 1992, p. 3.
47

The assignment of an engagement as a high confidence successful intercept does not mean that the Army isclaiming that it is certain that the engagement was successful. "According to the Deputy Project Manager, theassignment of a high confidence level to an engagement's outcome did not mean that the Army was absolutely
confident that the assessed outcome was correct. Rather, given the limited data available for assessment purposes, theArmy scorers had higher confidence in the assessed outcome of these engagements than in others." U.S. General
Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist, p. 3.

19

casualty rate by no more than 13 to 30 percent.48 Moreover, there are reasons to believe that the
Army's claimed Patriot success rate is too high.49 In addition, any damage prevented bysuccessful intercepts must be weighed against the damage caused by the at least four Patriot
missiles that struck the ground and exploded in Israel.50 Finally, debris from Patriots that
detonated above cities or from intercepted Scuds may have caused some damage.51 Due to thelack of accurate track data on the Scud and Patriot missiles, the effect of Patriot in mitigating
casualties and damage in Israel will never be known with any certainty. Since large statisticalfluctuations would be expected in the damage caused by small numbers of inaccurate ballistic
missiles armed with conventional warheads, any effect that Patriot may have had on casualties
and damage in this case is lost in the noise.
Casualty and damage statistics support this conclusion. Of the 231 direct casualties, 52

48

These percentages are calculated assuming 3 to 7 out of 23 Scud warheads were destroyed. The total number ofScuds reaching Israel (39) should not be used in this calculation because Scuds that fell outside of defended areas weremuch less likely to cause casualties.
49

See Conyers, "The Patriot Myth". A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that only
about 9 percent of the Patriot engagements are supported by "highest" confidence data indicating a successfulintercept. U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist.
In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence in the form of news media videos of Patriot engagementsthat suggest that its success rate was much lower than the current U.S. Army claims. See George N. Lewis and
Theodore A. Postol, An Evaluation of the Army Report "Analysis of Video Tapes to Assess Patriot Effectiveness,"
Dated 31 March 1992: A Study Performed in Response to a Request by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of
the House Government Operations Committee (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Defense and Arms Control Studies
Program, September 1992).
50

The U.S. Army and Raytheon acknowledge that some Patriots dove into the ground, although the exact number
remains classified. Publicly available news media videos show at least three Patriots diving into the ground in Israelon the night of January 25; two of these were in Tel Aviv and one was in Haifa (Lewis and Postol, "An Evaluation of
the Army Report," p. 61). At least three Patriots reportedly dove into the ground in Tel Aviv on this night, with twoof them striking residential neighborhoods (Fred Kaplan, "Specialists Debate the Value of Patriot, Boston Globe, 5
May 1991, p. 1). Charles Zraket (Zraket, "Patriot Gave Stellar Gulf Performance") states that four Patriots hit the
ground in Israel (however, Zraket also incorrectly says that no Patriots dove into the ground in Saudi Arabia). Morerecently, in interviews conducted by Reuven Pedatzur and Theodore Postol, three Israeli experts gave figures of 8, 9,
and 11 for the number of Patriots that dove into the ground in Israel.
51

The Patriot intercept attempts together with the Scud breakups must have generated a considerable amount offalling debris. Such debris would have been greatly slowed up by the atmosphere, greatly reducing its damageproducing potential. Most Israelis were indoors during the attacks, and thereby had a considerable degree ofprotection from such debris. Nevertheless debris undoubtably caused some damage to buildings, most of it probably
light, and appears to have caused at least a few injuries.

20

occurred before Patriot was operational (4.3 per Scud) and 179 after (6.6 per Scud).52 All but twoof the 179 casualties that occured after Patriot was operational were caused by Scuds that wereapparently engaged by Patriot. Moreover, both direct deaths occurred during the period of Patriot
defense, and press reports suggest that most or all of the injuries that occurred before the Patriot
deployment were light.
The situation with respect to property damage is more complicated. The Tel Aviv newspaper Ma'ariv compiled a list of damage to buildings that indicated 2,797 apartments suffereddamage before (233 per Scud) and 9,029 after Patriot was operational (334 per Scud).53
However, much of the damage to apartments was very light (e.g., broken windows). If only
apartments that were seriously damaged or destroyed are counted, the figures are 37 per Scudbefore, and 34 per Scud after the deployment of Patriot.54 Unfortunately, no definitive studies ofdamage comparable to those on casualties appear to be available.
52

Casualty figures for each day of the Scud attacks are given in Bleich, et. al., "Psychiatric Implications," p. 614.
To calculate casualties on a per missile basis, we assume 12 Scuds before Patriot and 27 afterwards. In thesecalculations, we have included all the Scuds that struck in or near Israel. An argument could be made that the ten
Scuds that were not engaged after Patriot was operational should be excluded, because most or all of them presumably
fell outside the Patriot's defended perimeter and thus almost certainly fell in areas of much lower population density.
However, this has not been done because we are unable to make the corresponding determination of how many of the
Scuds launched before Patriot would have been outside of the defended perimeter. A better argument can be madethat the three Scuds apparently fired at Dimona should be excluded; however, to be conservative, we have included
these as well (excluding them would slightly increase the per missile damage and casualties after Patriot).
53

Translated and reproduced in Postol, "Lessons of the Gulf War Experience," pp. 141-144.

54

The interpretation of the Ma'ariv statistics has been a subject of dispute. Light damage is generally conceded to
be greater after Patriot activation, but the situation for heavy damage has been disputed. Postol excludes from his
count those Scuds which Ma'ariv lists as not falling in the Tel Aviv or Haifa Metropolitan area and which caused nodamage, and finds that heavy damage per Scud was greater after Patriot. (Postol, "Lessons of the Gulf War.") This
is not entirely satisfactory because the number of Scuds falling in metropolitan areas is not broken down for the four
multiple missile attacks, which account for almost 60% of the Scuds reaching Israel, including all of those before
Patriot was operational. Thus it is possible that some of the Scuds launched before the deployment of Patriot also did
not fall in a metropolitan area, and should also be excluded, thereby giving a higher damage rate before Patriot was
operational.
Stein, in his rebuttal to Postol, argues that very few Scuds fell on Tel Aviv before Patriot, and that the heavy
damage per Scud was greater before Patriot. (Stein, "Patriot Experience in the Gulf War," p. 222). This conclusion
follows from his statement, presumably based on classified data, that more than twice as many Scuds fell on Tel Aviv
after Patriot than hit before Patriot. However, Stein's acknowledgement that the light damage in Tel Aviv was greater
after Patriot indicates that fewer than three times as many Scuds fell after Patriot deployment than before Patriot.
This indicates that even with Stein's figures on the numbers of Scuds before and after Patriot, that the casualties per
Scud were still greater after Patriot if one uses the casualty figures cited in this paper (which are far more definitive
and authoritative than ones in the Ma'ariv article used by Postol and Stein).

21

Thus while serious damage to apartments per Scud appears to have decreased slightly
after Patriot became operational, light damage, deaths, and injuries all increased. Given thesmall number of Scud impacts in inhabited areas, however, the differences before and after
Patriot are not statistically significant. The only conclusion suggested by the available data isthat Patriot had relatively little effect on casualties or damage.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO LIMITING CASUALTIES IN ISRAEL
The role that the small size of the modified Scud warheads and the breakup of the Scudmissiles played in reducing the explosive yield and kinetic energy of the Scuds has already been
described in the section "Scud Attacks on Tehran." There are a number of additional factors that
could have played a significant role in limiting the casualties from the Scud attacks on Israel.
Inaccuracy of the Modified Scuds
A crucial factor in limiting the damage to Israel was that the modified Scud missiles were
so inaccurate that many of them did not strike populated areas.55 According to a study of Israeli
casualties, only six Scud warhead explosions caused direct casualties.56
As previously noted, the basic Scud-B, at its maximum range of 300 kilometers, is so
inaccurate that half of the impacts would be more than one kilometer from the target. Moreover,the modifications made to the missile by Iraq decreased its accuracy even further, because therange of the missile was roughly doubled and the missile tumbled and broke up on reentry.57 The
55

Three of the Scuds, however, were apparently not fired at cities but at the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona. All
three apparently fell in the surrounding desert.
56

Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Implications," pp. 604-605. This figure is not inconsistent more than 6 warheads
detonating within cities, since some fell in nonresidential areas that would have been deserted at the time of the attack.
In addition, it appears that two other attacks besides these six caused a few casualties, perhaps from falling debris.
See the table in Bleich et. al., "Psychiatric Implications," p. 614.
57

Since the CEP is roughly proportional to the range, the operational CEP of the al Hussein would be doubled
simply due to the range extension. The breakup of the missile would also decrease its accuracy by altering its ballisticcoefficient, thereby changing its reentry aerodynamics and its range in an unpredictable manner. Indeed, in 1988, an
Iranian official said that the modifications to the Scud made it "not precise," and that the missile was three times lessaccurate than the Iranian Scud-Bs ("Rafiquist, Kharrazi Discuss War of Cities," FBIS, 11 March 1988, p. 65).

22

Scud-hunting campaign carried out by Coalition aircraft also may have significantly reduced theaccuracy of the Scuds by causing the Iraqi launch crews to rush their setup and alignment
procedures and to launch Scuds from locations that had not been surveyed in advance.
It is difficult to determine the exact number of Scud impacts in Israeli metropolitan
areas.58 To avoid giving useful targeting information to Iraq, Israeli censorship regulations did
not allow the release of the precise locations of Scud impacts, and did not allow the reporting of
impacts in the Mediterranean Sea. After the first two weeks of the missile attacks, Israel also
stopped reporting whether or not Patriots were fired at particular Scuds. In addition, the breakupof the Scuds, Patriot intercept attempts, and Patriot ground impacts caused debris to be scatteredover a wide area.59 Thus, even an attack by a single Scud could result in widespread damage,
making it more difficult to determine from news reports the location of the warhead impact oreven if there was a warhead impact.60
Nevertheless it is possible to sort out much of what must have happened in the attacks in
Israel. A chronology of the Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia is given in the Appendix.
In attacks involving a single Scud missile to a given area, there is little difficulty in
58

The metropolitan area we consider here is the area shown as having a 1983 population density of 5,910/km2 in
Atlas of Israel, map 23. This area of about 200 km2 is approximately a 10-by-20-km rectangle, with its long sideparallel to the Mediterranean coast. Thus we take any Scud falling near Tel Aviv and within 10 km of the coast as
having fallen in the metropolitan area. (One Scud landed approximately 10 km from the coast on February 12; itcaused casualties and damage, so we count it as falling in the metropolitan area). For Haifa, the geographic situation
is more complicated. However, it appears that only one warhead exploded in the Haifa metropolitan area.
59

See Postol, "Lessons of the Gulf War," pp. 148-149, for figures illustrating the possible extent of debris
scattering. The breakups of Scuds often led to the double-counting of Scud impacts in Teheran (FBIS, 11 March
1988, p. 67).
60

There is, however, a enormous difference between the effects of falling debris and a high-explosive warhead.
Relatively small, dense pieces of debris could potentially penetrate several floors of a building. At least one person in
Israel was injured by being directly struck by missile debris, when a missile motor crashed through his ceiling(Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 606.), and some injuries also may have resulted from flying glass, etc.
produced by falling debris. Less dense pieces of debris, which were much more common, would fall more slowly
and would only be dangerous to people caught outside. Thus, the timing of the attacks and the few minutes of
warning may have been important in reducing casualties from debris. Unlike debris, a high-explosive warhead
produces intense destruction in a relatively localized area. The blast wave generated by the explosion can knock downwalls and destroy nearby buildings, and can shatter windows over a much greater distance. Any small building
directly hit by such a warhead would be completely destroyed. If the warhead explodes on or near the surface, acrater will be produced. Thus, there should be little difficulty in distinguishing between the explosion of a warhead
and damage caused by debris for anyone who had access to the area after an attack.

23

identifying the cases in which a warhead detonated in a populated area. In the fifteen single-Scudattacks, only three warheads appear to have exploded in populated areas in or near Tel Aviv orHaifa.61 The other twelve warheads fell in uninhabited areas, were duds, or possibly weredestroyed by Patriot missiles.62
It is more difficult to sort out what occurred in the four multiple-Scud attacks in whicheight, four, seven, and five missiles, respectively, were fired at Tel Aviv and Haifa.63 The firsttwo attacks occurred before Patriot was operational. Eight missiles were fired at Tel Aviv andHaifa at about 2 am on 18 January, and four missiles were fired at Tel Aviv at about 7 am on thefollowing day. Stein states that the majority of these missiles "were not on target, and only very
few fell on Tel Aviv."64 Taken literally, this means that no more than five Scuds were on target;
and as we shall see, at least one of these did not explode. A Pentagon briefing on 25 January1991 also implied that no more than five or six of these missiles landed in populated areas andcaused damage.65 As discussed in the Appendix, we have been able to identify six Scud warhead
61

These attacks occurred on 22 January, 9 February, and 12 February 1991. See the Appendix for details.

62

It is possible that some of these Scuds landed in areas, that although uninhabited, were still in a metropolitan
area. The Scud fired at Haifa on the evening of 23 January was the only one of these twelve not reported by the Israeli
government or press to have landing in an uninhabited area. This was also the only one of these twelve Scuds
reported as causing damage, but the damage (primarily broken windows) was attributed to debris falling over a widearea, which might well have been caused by debris from the breakup of the Scud or from the Patriots that were fired
at the Scud. There were no injuries and no reports that suggested a warhead impact. Joel Brinkley, "No Immediate
Retaliation, Israelis Say," New York Times (International Edition), January 24, p. A15; and Jackson Diehl andWilliam Claiborne, "Patriot Battery in Israel Intercepts Iraqi Missile," Washington Post, January 24, p. 1.
63

Even the number of missiles fired in each of these attacks is somewhat uncertain, as the various data sources forthese numbers are not always in agreement. The numbers used here represent our best estimate based on currently
available information.
64

Stein, "Patriot Experience in the Gulf War," p. 222.

65

According to Gen. Thomas Kelly, "Up until today [January 25]...34 Scuds had been launched against Saudi
Arabia and Israel -- 21 against Saudi Arabia, 13 against Israel. Eighteen of them were destroyed by Patriots, ninelanded in uninhabited areas or in the sea. Of the remaining seven, to one degree or another they impacted the earthand caused some damage." Pete Williams, Lt. Gen. Thomas Kelly, and Capt. David Herrington, Pentagon Briefing,
3:30 pm, Jan. 25, 1991 in Steven A. Hildreth, Evaluation of U.S. Army Assessment of Patriot Antitactical Missile
Effectiveness in the War Against Iraq, report prepared for the House Government Operations Subcommittee on
Legislation and National Security, 7 April 1992, p. 31.
At this point, only two of the thirteen Scuds that had reached Israel were fired after Patriot was operational.
The one on the 22nd caused significant damage and the one on the 23rd was credited as a successful intercept. Even
assuming that none of the Scuds in Saudi Arabia caused any damage (although one of the earlier attacks did cause
damage and injuries in Riyadh), this means that no more than six Scuds impacted the ground in inhabited areas in the24impacts (one warhead did not explode) in populated areas in these first two attacks.
The other two multi-Scud attacks occurred during the period of Patriot defense: seven
Scuds were launched at Tel Aviv and Haifa on 25 January and five the next day. In neither
attack were there reports of explosions in populated areas near Haifa. In the first of these two
attacks, we have so far been able to clearly identify only two explosion sites in populated areas inor near Tel Aviv. In addition, at least three Patriots dove into the ground and exploded in or near
Tel Aviv on this night.66 There were also reports of damage from falling debris. In the second
attack, a Scud is known to have exploded on a deserted beach north of downtown Tel Aviv.
From press reports, it is possible to identify about ten or eleven Scud warheads that
exploded in populated areas in Israel. Interviews conducted by Reuven Pedatzur in Israel haveestablished a number of additional Scud warhead impact sites and have allowed us to construct
the map shown in figure 1. This shows the impact location of 17 Scuds that fell in the generalvicinity of Tel Aviv.67 Three of the Scud warheads (numbers 3, 7, and 13 on the map) did not
explode. Two others (numbers 15 and 17) are outside our defined Tel Aviv metropolitan area(that is, they are more than 10 km from the coast). Thus about 13 warheads exploded on the
ground in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Since one additional warhead is known to have
exploded in the Haifa metropolitan area, it appears that a total of 14 Scuds exploded in Israeli
metropolitan areas.

January 18 and 19 attacks on Israel.
66

Although no reports specifically attributed damage to Patriots diving into the ground, it is clear that most or all of
the incidents of Patriots diving into the ground in Israel occurred on the night of 25 January.
67

This map is based on the best information available to us at the time of publication. Some of the impact points,
in particular those for which no date is given, are somewhat uncertain. It is likely that most of tthe impact with nodate occurred on January 25 or 26.
25

What happened to the other Scuds? Of the 39 Scuds, three were fired at Dimona andlanded harmlessly in the desert. Roughly six others were fired at Haifa; most of these probably
landed in the Mediterranean. Roughly 30 Scuds were fired towards Tel Aviv; 17 are shown on
figure 1 and another four apparently landed in the West Bank. It seems likely that many of theremaining Scuds landed in the Mediterranean. An anonymous senior Pentagon scientist
reportedly stated that Scuds not engaged by Patriot "either fell in the sea or out of range of thePatriot batteries, near towns in the West Bank or in the Negev desert."68 One the Israeli casualty
studies noted that of the missiles launched against Israel, "a number fell in the sea or exploded in
the air."69 It is also possible that a few Scuds were destroyed by Patriots.
Finally, it is interesting to see if the available data can tell us anything about the CEP of
the modified Scuds. First, however, it is important to note that the concept of CEP may not be
truly applicable to the entire set of Scud attacks on Israel. This is because the accuracy of the
Scuds may have changed as the war progressed. The general pattern of the Scud attacks on Israel
suggest that the accuracy of the Scuds may have decreased dramatically towards the end of thewar.
In the first two attacks, before Patriot was operational, 12 Scuds were fired at Tel Aviv
and Haifa. One landed in Haifa and five near Tel Aviv. Four of the five Tel Aviv impacts (oneof which did not explode) were within the Tel Aviv-Jaffa city limits. It seems quite probable thatmost or all of the other Scuds landed in the Mediterranean.
The next 14 Scuds fired at Tel Aviv and Haifa came in four attacks over five days after
Patriot was operational. It appears that about 11 or 12 of these were engaged by Patriot.70
However, this tells us relatively little about the CEP because the area defended by Patriot wasquite large.
The accuracy of the last ten Scuds fired at Tel Aviv and Haifa (we exclude the threeapparently fired at Dimona) appears to be significantly poorer than that of the earlier Scuds.
68

Schmidt, "Israel Plays Down Effectiveness," p. A8.

69

Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 604.

70

This assumes that the figure of 17 total engagements in Israel is correct. There were at least 5, and possibly 6,
engagements after this period.

24Only five or possibly six of these last ten Scuds were engaged. Four Scuds landed far short ofTel Aviv in the West Bank. Even two of the Scuds that were engaged landed well east ofdowntown Tel Aviv (these are the Scuds that hit on February 12 and February 19 -- numbers 10
and 3 on figure 1). This strong eastward shift of the impact points strongly suggests a change in
the nature of the Scud or a change in the way it was being launched.
Thus the available information strongly suggests that, at least towards the end of the war,
the accuracy of the Scuds declined greatly. This is not surprising given the vigorous Coalition air
campaign against the Scud launchers.
The other major problem in attempting to assess the Scud's CEP is that many of the
impact points are not yet known and none of the Scud aimpoints are known (we do not know if
all the Scuds fired at a given metropolitan area had the same target). It appears that there wereabout 30 Scuds fired at Tel Aviv. We know the exact or approximate impact point of 17 ofthese and we know four others landed somewhere in the West Bank. So this leaves us with about
9 "missing" Scuds -- about half before Patriot deployment and half afterwards.
These missing Scuds would not necessarily be a problem in estimating the CEP if it could
be assumed that their geographic distribution was similar to that of the Scuds whose impact point
is known. However, such an assumption would clearly be incorrect in this case. The absence ofnews media reports on these missing Scuds suggests that many of them may have fallen inremote areas. Most importantly, Tel Aviv and Haifa are coastal cities, so some Scuds would be
expected to fall into the Mediterranean -- and wartime Israeli censorship rules forbade reportingof Scuds that fell into the Mediterranean. Thus it appears likely that many of the "missing"
Scuds fell into the Mediterranean.
Without knowing how many Scuds fell into the Mediterranean, no meaningfulconclusions about the CEP of the Scuds can be drawn. If we assume that most or all of themissing Scuds landed in the Mediterranean and were relatively close to shore, and we exclude thelast 13 Scuds fired at Israel, then the data might support a CEP of about 4 kilometers. If many ofthe missing Scuds landed outside the metropolitan area and we include all the Scuds fired late in
the war, the data suggest a larger CEP -- but no greater than about 7 kilometers. At present, theavailable data is simply inadequate to allow a reliable CEP estimate to be made. However, in
any case, the CEP was much greater than that of the unmodified Scud-B.

25

Warning Time
A major difference between the V-2 attacks on London and the Scud attacks on Tel Aviv
was that the Israeli population generally had a few minutes warning time in which to take cover,because the United States shared satellite information on missile launches with Israel.71 We canaccount for this very approximately by comparing the casualty rate for the V-1 attacks, for which
there was some warning, with that for the V-2 attacks, for which there was no warning. Aftercorrecting for its slightly smaller yield, the death rate from V-1 attacks was 0.50 times that fromthe V-2 attacks.72 The corresponding ratios for serious injuries and light injuries were 0.58 and
0.35, respectively. Thus, taking into account warning time in addition to population density andwarhead yield, the expected casualty rates in Tel Aviv are reduced to about 1.6 deaths, 4.7
serious injuries, and 6.2 slight injuries per missile impact.
Another factor that may have played a role in reducing casualties is that virtually all of themissile attacks occurred at night, whereas the attacks on London and Tehran occurred throughout
the day.73 Thus, most people were at home during the attacks, and on hearing the warnings
simply had to go into interior rooms to obtain a degree of shelter, as they were instructed to do by
the Israeli government.74
Blast-resistant dwellings
71

However, in the first two attacks on Israel, the population had at most only a few seconds of warning time.

72

The Strategic Bombing Survey also attributed the lower death rate from V-1s to the more intense disintegration ofdebris produced by V-2 explosions, but, as discussed earlier, this was not a decisive factor. In any case, apparently
due to the much lower yield of the al Hussein and the reinforced-concrete construction of Israeli apartment buildings,
such intense disintegration did not appear to occur from the impact of the modified Scud missiles in Israel. Video ofdamage scenes show relatively coarse debris at Scud detonation sites, and there were several instances of people being
dug out relatively unharmed from beneath destroyed buildings. Moreover, both deaths in Israel were reportedly
instantaneous (Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 604).
73

A 1944 British study, based on a number of the first V-1 attacks, estimated that nighttime attacks would cause
only half as many casualties as daytime attacks. Dunn, The Emergency Medical Services, p. 171.
74

While these rooms might not have been as effective as underground blast shelters, victims of V-1 attacks had
little time to get into such shelters if they waited (as many did), for the sound of the V-1 engine sound to stop 8 to 12
seconds before impact.

26

One Israeli study of the Scud casualties concluded that the most important factor in
reducing casualties was the construction practices used in modern Israeli apartment buildings.75
The multi-story apartment buildings erected in Tel Aviv over the last 30 years are constructedwith reinforced concrete columns, beams, and floors.76 The reinforced concrete elements
apparently prevented buildings close to Scud detonations from collapsing and burying their
inhabitants.77 Even when the external unreinforced masonry block walls were destroyed, as longas the buildings did not collapse, the occupants were generally not seriously injured.78 On theother hand, in the few cases in which missiles struck near single-family houses or older,unreinforced masonry buildings, the buildings were often completely demolished, with the roof
and walls collapsing.
In contrast, the typical London dwelling was the brick row house, which, because its
walls were load-bearing, readily collapsed when explosions occured nearby. The limited data
available on the effects of V-2 missiles on reinforced concrete buildings indicates that the area ofstructural damage was roughly eight times smaller than for brick row houses.79 Since deaths andserious injuries were due primarily to structural collapses, significantly decreased rate of deaths
75

Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 606.

76

David Rudge, "Keeping Those Buildings Up," Jerusalem Post, 22 February 1991, p. 8; Karsenty, et. al.,"Medical Aspects," p. 606.
77

According to Ya'acov Gluck, a Professor of Structural Engineering at Israel's Technion University: "Ourbuildings, as a whole, have stood up well against the blast effects. We have seen very few total collapses except in
the case of direct hits or incidents relating to old buildings or those not constructed in accordance with modern
standards." He went on to say that they had been ". . . pleasantly surprised by the ability of buildings to withstand theshockwaves from explosions. It is very fortunate, otherwise we would have had a catastrophe with far morecasualties." Rudge, "Keeping those Buildings Up."78

According to Professor Gluck, when this occurred, "there would normally be limited effects in inhabitants.
People in the vicinity of the walls and windows would be injured, but not seriously." According to Gluck, themajority of injuries were from this type of incident. Rudge, "Keeping those Buildings Up."
Israeli doctors noted the same effect: "When the buildings involved were of the multi-level type - i.e.,apartment blocks constructed of concrete with a steel girder shell and deep foundations - the injuries were mainly
superficial, resulting from glass splinters or building fragments." Karsenty, et. al, "Medical Aspects, p. 605.
79

Strategic Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London, p. 22, gives a total floor demolition area of 94 m2 forreinforced concrete buildings, compared with 740 m2 for similar-sized buildings with load-bearing walls (740/94 =8). Moreover, the mean distance from the warhead explosion at which walls were demolished was 11 m forreinforced concrete walls and 31 m for the 9-inch-thick unreinforced walls of brick row houses; note that (31/11)2 =8.

27

and serious injuries would be expected for reinforced concrete buildings compared with brickload-bearing buildings.
It is important to note that the buildings in Tehran during the War of the Cities weregenerally similar to those in Tel Aviv. While the traditional architecture in Tehran featuresbuildings made of mud bricks, most of the buildings in modern day Tehran are constructed withsteel skeletons and walls that are not load-bearing. Tehran is in an earthquake zone and for thelast few decades, has had strict building codes based on those for San Francisco.80 Moreover,most of the buildings in Tehran are relatively new: the population of Tehran roughly doubled in
the decade 1978-88. As a consequence, by the 1986 census roughly 12% of the residential units
in Tehran were steel or reinforced-concrete structures, and an additional 80% were constructed ofbrick and steel or stone and steel, where the underlying load-bearing structure is steel and theouter walls are covered by a cladding of brick or stone.81 Presumably a similar fraction ofcommercial and other buildings were constructed with load-bearing steel substructures.
Recall that after adjusting for warhead yield and population density, the expected casualty
rate in Tehran roughly agreed with that in London. However, since the construction found in
Tehran in 1988 was quite similar to that in present-day Tel Aviv and quite different from that in
World War II London, we might expect the deaths and injuries (adjusted for warhead yield andpopulation density) in Tehran to have been reduced relative to those in London. On the other
hand, the civil defense benefits of such construction are realized only if people are inside. Thus,
advance warning of an attack and the time of attack are also critical factors. In contrast to thesituation in Israel, no warning was available in Tehran and the attacks took place during both day
and night. It therefore seems likely that the benefits of the steel reinforced building constructionin Tehran were not fully realized because there was no warning and the attacks took place whenpeople were not necessarily inside. Nevertheless, we caution the reader that the data available ondamage and casualties in Tehran is sparse, and that we do not have a thorough understanding of80

Private communication with Professor Fred Moavenzadeh, Director, Center for Construction, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 15 October 1992.
81

Data taken from 1986 National Census of Population and Housing, compiled by the Statistical Center of Iran.
This information was provided by Ata Safai, Tehran.

28

the various factors that played a role in modifying the consequences of the attacks on Tehran.
Dud Warheads
Some Scud warheads landing in Israel simply failed to detonate; there were also reportsof dud warheads in the Scud attacks on Tehran.82 By contrast, very few if any of the 518 V-2
warheads landing in London failed to detonate.83 At least four Scud warheads striking Israel
failed to detonate. In the second attack on Israel (on 19 January, before Patriot was operational),
one Scud warhead penetrated several floors of a building in downtown Tel Aviv before coming
to rest in a ground-floor jewelry store, where it was recovered intact.84 In addition, one of themissiles fired at Israel did not carry an explosive warhead, but only concrete.85 Two other Scuds,
one that fell on February 19 (number 3 on figure 1) and one that fell on a presently unknown date(number 13 on figure 1), were also duds.86 Based on this very limited data, the dud rate in Israel

82

According to one source, "several" of the first 60 Scuds fired at Teheran in the 1988 War of the Cities failed todetonate. Middle East Economic Digest, 19 March 1988, p. 10.
83

In the first 1,150 V-2 impacts in Britain and continental Europe, only two dud warheads were recovered. In all,only four or five were found. Strategic Bombing Survey, "V-Weapons in London," p. 9.
84

Joel Brinkley, "Israel Says It Must Strike at Iraqis but Indicates Willingness to Wait," New York Times, 20
January 1991, p. 1. There is also a report of an intact Scud warhead being recovered by a French ordnance team at
the base of a mosque on 24 February in Riyadh. Jeffrey M. Lenorovitz, "Poor Workmanship Discovered in Scud
Missile Fragments," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 11 March 1991, p. 61.
85

We have been able to confirm only one concrete warhead impact in Israel, although it is known that more thanone Scud armed only with a concrete warhead was fired during the war (it is possible that the other(s) may have been
fired at Saudi Arabia). This Scud landed in the Negev desert in southern Israel. ("Iraq Fired Scud with Concrete
Warhead," Flight International, 13-19 March 1991, p. 13; David Ellis, "...and Stone-Age Scuds," Time, 8 April
1991, p. 21.). Another report cites eyewitness accounts of warheads containing nothing but concrete. Hildreth,
Evaluation of U.S. Army Assessment, p. 11.
86

These last two duds were presumably both engaged by Patriot and are presumably both claimed as warhead killsby the U.S. Army. However, despite recovering the warheads, the Army could not produce for Congressional
investigators any chemical or metallurgical evidence that Patriot was responsible for causing the warhead to fail to
explode. In no case was a Patriot warhead fragment recovered from a dud Scud warhead.
According to the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, "In the Army assessment, a
dud Scud scored as a warhead kill if a Patriot had attempted an intercept. However, many of the Scuds were duds tobegin with. Scuds were found with concrete warheads, or little explosive, or broken wires in the fuzing section.
Several of these were scored as kills, even without corroborating evidence such as radar data. The duds were often
burned and broken from impact, but this was hardly "clear physical evidence of Patriot intercept damage," although in
one case an Army officer thought a Patriot fragment caused a hole. This opinion was not supported by any chemical
or metallurgical analysis or recovery of a fragment. Duds not engaged by Patriot showed similar damage." John29

was apparently somewhat greater than 10%.
A possibly related factor is that there were apparently no injuries in Israel from shrapnel
produced by the warhead explosions.87 The Scud explosions apparently produced only small
numbers of large fragments. It is unclear whether this was by design, or whether it was due tosome flaw in the warheads.
Civil Defense
Most of the beneficial effect of civil defenses has already been accounted for in thediscussion of warning time. While most Israelis apparently followed their government's
instructions and remained in sealed interior rooms rather than going to bomb shelters, this still
provided much better protection than was available in Tehran or London, where there was no
warning. This is especially true given the reinforced concrete construction prevalent in Israeli
apartment buildings. In addition, Israel devoted substantial effort to rapid rescue efforts (e.g.,sending helicopters aloft on warning of attack to rapidly pinpoint impact locations and using
trained dogs to find people trapped in demolished buildings), and several people were rescued
from under collapsed buildings with only minor injuries. However, it is unlikely that Israeli
efforts were much better than those of the British rescue services, which had experienced several
years of German air attacks. Thus, excluding warning time, civil defense probably played aminor role in reducing the casualty rate relative to that in London.

Coincidence
For ballistic missile attacks involving only small numbers of missiles, large statisticalfluctuations in casualty rates would be expected. Since, as we discuss above, only about thirteen
warheads appear to have exploded in Israeli metropolitan areas, the statistics of small numbers
come into play and coincidence inevitably will be an significant factor in the casualty rate. Thereis considerable anecdotal evidence that good fortune may have played a role in reducing
Conyers, Jr., "The Patriot Debate: Part 2," Arms Control Today, January/February, 1993, pp. 27, 29.
87

Karsenty, et. al., "Medical Aspects," p. 606.

30

casualties in Israel. The following descriptions of the identifiable Scud impacts in the six attacks
that inflicted the bulk of the damage give an indication of the role luck may have played.
In the first attack on Israel, at 2 am on 18 January, one Scud hit a densely populated
neighborhood, but "at the edge of the only empty lot for blocks."88 The external walls of anumber of buildings collapsed (but the buildings themselves did apparently did not collapse), but
only light injuries from flying glass resulted. Two other Scuds exploded at a shopping mall thatwas under construction in Haifa and at a leather factory near Tel Aviv, both of which would havebeen deserted at the time of the attack.
At about 7 am on 19 January, one of four incoming Scud warheads struck a building but
failed to explode.89 Of the two warheads that did explode in or near Tel Aviv, one struck next toa municipal center, blowing open a basement that was used as a bomb shelter (but which was
empty at the time), and the other fell in a park near the Tel Aviv exhibition center.
On 22 January, a missile landed in an alleyway between several apartment buildings, killing one person and injuring 84.90 One family was buried for several hours under the wreckage of
their home, but they were not seriously injured.
At 6 pm on 25 January, two Scuds exploded a few hundred meters apart in a residential
area. One warhead destroyed a two-story house and severely damaged several others. Anothermissile landed next to an empty school in a residential neighborhood, seriously damaging it.91
However, only one man was killed in this attack and 67 were injured. According to one report,
two people in one house survived only because they disobeyed government instructions and went
to their basement bomb shelter.
On 9 February, a Scud struck in the middle of a road in a residential area of Ramat Gan.92
88

Sabra Chartrand, "A Day of False Alarms and Fear, Flanked by Real Explosions," New York Times, 19 January
1991, p. 7.
89

Joel Brinkley, "Israel Says It Must Strike at Iraqis but Indicates Willingness to Wait," New York Times, January
20, 1991, p. A1.
90

William Claiborne and Jackson Diehl, "Dazed Israeli Survivors Assess Wreckage in Streets of Tel Aviv,"
Washington Post, January 23, 1991, p. A1.
91

Joel Brinkley, "7 Iraqi Missiles Are Fired at Cities in Israel," New York Times, January 26, 1991, p A1.

92"Tel Aviv Missile Attack Renews Feeling of Fear," Jerusalem Post, February 10, 1991, p. 2.

31

Although the front walls were pulled from buildings on both sides of the road, there were no
deaths and no serious injuries.
On 12 February, a Scud struck between two private houses, demolishing both of them andseriously damaging a number of other houses.93 One of the two houses was empty; in the otheran elderly man was buried and, with the assistance of dogs trained for rescuing earthquake
victims, was rescued with only minor injuries. Seven or eight people suffered minor injuries.
Two clear trends emerge from these reports. First, many Scuds hit unoccupied sites thatwould have been occupied during the daytime. Second, in instances where Scuds struck
residential areas, the deaths and serious injuries appear to be lower than might be expected given
the location of the impacts - although much of this effect may be attributable to Israeli building
practices.

ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED CASUALTIES IN ISRAEL
As we discuss above, based on the V-2 experience, and taking into account the explosive
yield of the modified Scud missiles and the population density of the Tel Aviv area, one would
have expected 3.3 deaths, 8.1 serious injuries, and 17.6 slight injuries per missile exploding in a
metropolitan area in Israel.94 By taking the availability of warning into account, these figures are
reduced by roughly a factor of two, to 1.6 deaths, 4.7 serious injuries, and 6.2 slight injuries per
missile. Thus from the roughly 13 warheads we estimate exploded in Israeli metropolitan areas,
we would expect a total of about 21 deaths, 61 serious injuries, and 81 slight injuries.
However, it is likely that a somewhat higher number of casualties would be expected, forseveral reasons. Most importantly, the four or more Patriots that dove into the ground in Israel
are not included in the above estimates. Although the Patriot's explosive warhead is smaller thanthe one in the Scud, it is likely that each of these missiles also contained a substantial amount of
unburned rocket fuel at impact. However, at present, little information is available about these93

Seven Hurt, Homes Wrecked in Scud Attack No. 33," Jerusalem Post, February 13, 1991, p. 2.

94Note that we do not treat Haifa (which is a smaller target but has a higher population density) separately.
However, since only one missile Scud warhead explosion appears to have caused damage in Haifa, apparently without
producing any serious injuries, this is not a serious shortcoming.

32

Patriot impacts and their consequences. In addition, some casualties could have resulted from
Scuds that fell outside of metropolitan areas.95 It is also possible that there are a few missile
impacts in Israeli metropolitan areas that we have not been able to identify. Finally, as discussed
previously, some casualties resulted from falling debris. Thus it is likely that the total number of
expected casualties should be somewhat higher than the above figures.
As we discussed earlier, the actual casualty totals were 2 deaths, 11 serious injuries, andabout 220 slight injuries. It appears that much of the apparent discrepancy between expected andactual casualties may be attributable to Israeli construction practices, which apparently played acrucial role by preventing the collapse of heavily damaged buildings. As previously noted, thelimited data from London indicates that the area of destruction for reinforced concrete buildings
was eight times smaller than that for brick row houses. If we apply this factor of eight to the
expected total casualties in Israel, they are reduced to 2.6 deaths and 7.6 serious injuries. Thisfactor of eight is probably too high, since not all of the residential buildings destroyed ordamaged were of reinforced construction. Nevertheless it is clear that construction practices
played a crucial role in holding down deaths and serious injuries.
The influence of Israeli building practices on the number of slight injuries is less clear.
By preventing the collapse of damaged buildings, these construction practices may have in effecttransformed deaths and serious injuries into slight injuries. This may in part explain why the
number of slight injuries in Israel (220) was actually higher than the 87 slight injuries (before
taking building practices into account) that would be expected based on the V-2 experience.
However, it is also possible that the standards for determining which injuries are significant
enough to be reported were significantly different in London during World War II and in Israel in
1991.
Given the significant statistical fluctuations in expected casualties that would be
anticipated for such a small number of warhead explosions, the factors discussed in this paper95

The almost 600 V-2s that fell outside the greater London area on average caused 0.38 deaths per missile;
however, some of these were aimed at cities other than London (Dunn, Emergency Medical Services, p. 179). In the
Israeli case, it appears that Scuds falling outside metropolitan areas caused little damage and at most only a few
injuries. In Saudi Arabia, however, there was at least one Scud that fell outside Patriot's defended perimeter at King
Khalid Military City, destroying several buildings and causing several minor injuries (see February 14 in the
Appendix).

33

appear to be able to account for the relatively small number of deaths and serious injuries in
Israel. However, it is also true that with such a small number of detonations, luck will inevitably
play a role, and in terms of deaths and serious injuries, Israel's fortunes appear to have been
relatively good. Even a single direct hit on a densely occupied residential building could havedrastically altered the casualties in Israel.

PROPERTY DAMAGE IN ISRAELThe available data on damage to buildings in Israel is incomplete and often inconsistent,
but suggests the following overall picture: a total of 4,100 buildings were damaged in some way,
and at least 28 of these buildings were destroyed. Nine to twelve thousand apartments sufferedsome form of damage, with roughly 200 to 400 apartments destroyed, and roughly 1,600 to 2,500
apartments suffering moderate to heavy damage.96
Based on the London experience, after scaling for the reduced yield of the modified Scudwarhead and the greater population density of Tel Aviv, we would have expected about 90
houses to have been destroyed and about 520 to have been seriously damaged by the roughly
96

The Jerusalem Post reports that a total of 4,095 buildings were damaged and that 1,644 families were evacuatedin Israel. The latter number probably corresponds to the number of apartments damaged seriously enough to renderthem at least temporarily uninhabitable. ("Scud Toll: Summing Up the 39 Missile Attacks," Jerusalem Post, 1 March
1991, p. 2.)
A table in the Tel Aviv newspaper Ma'ariv gave totals for both the City of Tel Aviv and for the most heavily
damaged Tel Aviv suburb, which was Ramat Gan. In these two cities 7,559 apartments were damaged, with 2,493 ofthese heavily damaged (the article does not indicate how many apartments were actually destroyed). At least 28
buildings (containing about 118 apartments) were destroyed in Ramat Gan. The descriptions of some of the individual
attacks on Tel Aviv refer to 152 apartments being destroyed, but it appears that some of these may have been outside
the city limits of Tel Aviv. Another 1,700 apartments were damaged in Haifa, (although it appears that most of thesewere not heavily damaged). Few if any apartments were destroyed in Haifa or anywhere else in Israel outside the Tel
Aviv area. (Ma'ariv, 29 March 1991. An English translation of the table appears in Postol, "Lessons of the Gulf
War," pp. 141-144.) (continued . . . .)(. . . continued) The data in the Ma'ariv article suggest that the number of apartments destroyed could beover 400. Ma'ariv does not give a total for apartments destroyed within the city of Tel Aviv, but it does report that in
Ramat Gan, 700 apartments needed major repairs and at least 118 apartments were destroyed. Ma'ariv reports 1,793
heavily damaged apartments in the city of Tel Aviv. If the ratio between heavily damaged and destroyed apartments
was the same as in Ramat Gan, then about 300 apartments would have been destroyed in Tel Aviv, for a total of over
400 apartments destroyed in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan.
Another report cites a total of 12,118 apartments damaged in Israel, of which 195 were destroyed and 1609
suffered moderate damage, with the remainder being only lightly damaged (BIAF--Israel Aviation and Space
Magazine, No. 72 (Spring 1991), p. 31.). According to the Israeli housing ministry, over 200 buildings were totally
destroyed and hundreds more seriously damaged.

34

thirteen Scud warhead detonations in Israeli metropolitan areas.
Comparisons between London and Israel are not straightforward, however, because in
London damage was reported in terms of the number of houses destroyed, whereas in Tel Aviv it
was reported as numbers of apartments destroyed. If a typical London row house is roughly
comparable to three to five Tel Aviv apartments,97 then the number of apartments destroyed andseriously damaged in Tel Aviv would be in general agreement with the London experience.
While this comparison is very rough, it suggests that property damage in Israel per warhead
exploding on the ground was not anomalously low.

THE SCUD ATTACKS ON SAUDI ARABIA
Although our primary emphasis is on the attacks against Israel, it is useful to consider
briefly the attacks on Saudi Arabia. About 42 modified Scud missiles landed in or near Saudi
Arabia, 17 of which were fired at Riyadh and seven at King Khalid Military City (KKMC). The
remainder were apparently launched at the large airbase at Dhahran; at least five of these fell into
the Persian Gulf. It appears that as many as 29 or 30 of the Scuds fired at Saudi Arabia were
engaged by Patriots. The U.S. Army currently claims that 70 percent of the engagements in
Saudi Arabia were successful, but, as noted previously, the Army says it has high confidence in
only 40 percent of its claimed successful engagements, and there are reasons to believe that theactual percentage of warheads destroyed was much lower than the Army claims.
It is difficult to establish a clear picture of the effects of the attacks on Saudi Arabia
because the Saudi government, which routinely downplayed the extent of the damage caused by
the Scuds, has not released comprehensive damage or casualty data. The 17 Scuds fired at
Riyadh killed one person and injured more than 70, although most of the injuries were reportedly
minor. Four explosions appear to have accounted for all of the casualties and almost all of the
publicly reported damage in Riyadh (one of these explosions may have been due to an errant

97

Maps in Strategic Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London, indicate a density of roughly one row house per 300
m . Stein states that a typical Israeli apartment building contains 12-24 apartments and has a plan area of 750 to 1,500m2, or roughly 60 m2 per apartment. (Stein, "Patriot Experience in the Gulf War," p. 221.) Thus one row house in
London corresponds to about five Tel Aviv apartments. Allowing for open space around the Israeli apartmentbuildings would reduce this scaling factor to some extent.
235

Patriot). Since the population density of Riyadh is similar to that of wartime London, casualties
at first glance again appear to be much lower than might have been expected from the number ofmissiles launched. However, many of the same factors that resulted in lower casualties in Israel
also appear to apply to Riyadh.98
There is relatively little data on damage or casualties due to the attacks on Dhahran and
KKMC. Other than the Scud that hit the U.S. military barracks, killing 28 and injuring 98, and a
Scud that destroyed a house and an automobile repair workshop near KKMC (there were fourminor injuries in this attack),99 there were no reports of casualties or significant damage. Given
the low population density of these areas, the 28 deaths at the barracks are almost certainly morethan would have been anticipated from the number of impacts in these areas. This simply
illustrates the statistical nature of casualties from conventionally-armed ballistic missiles.100

98

Based on press and Saudi government accounts, only four explosions accounted for most of the damage andcasualties in Riyadh. Three of the four explosions were in areas that were unoccupied or nearly unoccupied, butwhich would have contained many people during the day. The other Scud did hit a residential area at about 1 am on 3
February; 29 people were injured, but all were released from the hospital the same day.
99

It appears that this may be the only Scud that fell outside of areas covered by Patriot to cause significant damage.

100

A similar effect was also seen in London, where 537 deaths (more than 19% of the total) were due to only five
V-2s. (Strategic Bombing Survey, V-Weapons in London, p. 27).

36

What if Chemical Warheads Had Been Used?
Although all of the missiles used by Iraq in its attacks on Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia
were armed with conventional high-explosive warheads, Iraq had used aircraft-delivered
chemical agents extensively against civilian and military targets during the Iran-Iraq War. It was
precisely for this reason that Israeli civil defense efforts concentrated on preparing the population
for chemical attack. Indeed, United Nations' inspections of Iraq after the Gulf War revealed theexistence of several indigenously-produced chemical warheads for the Scud, as well as extensive
programs to develop nuclear and biological weapons.
If the modified Scuds launched against Israel had been armed with chemical warheads,
casualties could have been far greater. Assuming that each chemical warhead could have efficiently dispersed 70 kilograms of the nerve agent sarin over Tel Aviv,101 each attack would havecreated, under average weather conditions, an area of about 0.01 to 0.03 km2 in which unprotected people would die; if the attack occurred during unfavorable weather conditions, the lethal
area would increase to 0.2 to 0.3 km2.102 Since the population density of Tel Aviv during theattacks was about 6,000 per km2, a single chemical warhead would have had the potential to killhundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of unprotected people.
The widespread availability of gas masks and sealed rooms would have substantiallyreduced, but would not have eliminated, casualties from chemical attacks. It is commonly
assumed that sealed rooms greatly reduce the dose received, but in fact a chemical agent will stillleak in. Even tightly sealed rooms will not afford much protection unless they are thoroughly
ventilated as soon as the cloud passes, for otherwise the occupants will receive about the same
dose as individuals remaining outdoors, but at a slower rate.103 Gas masks provide excellent
101

Only about 30 percent of the mass of a chemical warhead is agent, and the most efficient warheads could
distribute no more than half of the agent as a fine, respirable aerosol. Because of its high volatility and lethality,
sarin--a nerve agent known to have been manufactured by Iraq--would be ideally suited for attacks on civilian
populations.
102

Steve Fetter, "Ballistic Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction." It should be noted that unfavorable
weather conditions--calm, clear nights--occur frequently in desert climates.
103

If people remain inside buildings for several hours, the dose inside will be nearly equal to the dose outside. To
see this, consider a house of volume V in which the residence time of air is T; air will flow into the house at a rate of
V/T. If the concentration of agent in the outside air is c for the time of the cloud passage t, then the amount of agent
flowing into the house is c(V/T)t, and the concentration of agent inside the house, C, is equal to ct/T. Therefore, the37

protection against nerve agent, but they must be applied immediately and they must fit properly.
Even among soldiers carrying masks and trained for chemical combat, the U.S. Army estimatesthat 4 to 8 percent of troops who would have died without masks will die nevertheless because ofdelayed masking, mask leakage, defective or missing masks, or early unmasking.104 The
percentage of masking errors among civilians would undoubtedly be much higher; it seems
unlikely that even the best civil defense program could reduce fatalities to much less than 10
percent of the number that would die without protection. Atropine, which was included in Israeli
civil defense kits, can be an effective antidote for people who know that they have been exposed
to high doses of agent, but the undeniable benefits of atropine and gas masks are counterbalanced
to some extent by the consequences of their misuse by an untrained populace. Even in theabsence of chemical attack, seven Israelis suffocated from improper use of gas masks, five diedfrom heart attacks, and 815 were admitted to hospitals suffering from acute anxiety, unwarranted
atropine injections, and from injuries sustained while rushing to shelters.105 If Iraq had usedchemicals, the ensuing panic, which creates symptoms that can be mistaken for nerve-agent
poisoning, undoubtably would have led to far more casualties from heart attacks, atropine
injections, and anxiety.
Thus, the impact of 14 chemical warheads in Israeli metropolitan areas might have causedon the order of 100 deaths if all of the attacks occurred under average weather conditions. On theother hand, just one attack under unfavorable weather conditions could have killed as many
people, even if the entire population was equipped with gas masks. In addition, hundreds or
thousands of additional casualties may have been caused by the indirect effects of chemical
attacks.

time-integrated dose inside the house (CT) is equal to the dose outside (ct). The effects of most chemical agents areinsensitive to the time over which the dose is delivered. If the building is tightly sealed, T will be large (e.g., 10
hours) and C initially will be much smaller than c, and occupants can greatly decrease their total dosage by ventilating
the house after the cloud passes. To do this, however, the occupants must be told when it is safe to go outside. A
series of chemical attacks, or fears of additional attacks, could keep people in their houses for many hours (which iscomparable to the residence times of air in western dwellings).
104

FM 3-10, Employment of Chemical Agents (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, March 1966), p. 36.

105

Karsenty, et al., "Medical Aspects."

38

CONCLUSIONS
Given the number of missiles fired, casualties in Israel at first glance appear to be very
low compared to what might be expected based on previous ballistic-missile attacks.
Several characteristics of the modified Scud missile helped to limit damage andcasualties. The inaccuracy of the missile (together with what appears to be a roughly 10% dudrate) was a major factor in limiting damage. Only about one-third of the Scud warheads
detonated in Israeli metropolitan areas. In addition, the reduced size of the warhead and thebreakup of the modified missile diminished the lethal area of the Scud by more than a factor of
two relative to the V-2s fired at London.
The warning time provided by U.S. launch-detection satellites was an important factor.
The difference in the V-1 and V-2 casualty rates suggests that warning reduces casualties by anadditional factor of two. The Coalition air attacks that forced Iraq to launch their Scuds after
dark, when most Israelis were at home, ready to move quickly into their sealed rooms, may also
have made an important contribution.106 Israeli construction practices probably contributed
greatly to casualty limitation by preventing the collapse of many heavily damaged buildings.
Given the significant statistical fluctuations that would be expected in a casualty rate
based on such a small number of explosions, the factors discussed in this paper can account forthe observed casualty rate in Israel. Further, the damage to buildings appears to be generallycomparable with the damage caused by V-2 impacts in London. In addition, the anecdotal
evidence discussed above suggests that, as far as casualties are concerned, Israel's luck wasprobably relatively good. As illustrated by the Scud that hit the barracks in Dhahran and killed
28 soldiers, shifting the impact point of a single missile by tens of meters could have changed thecasualty statistics dramatically.
While the number of casualties in Israel was low, the available evidence does not support
claims that this was due to the Patriot missile defense system. Although the U.S. Army claims
that Patriot destroyed from three to seven warheads that would otherwise have caused casualties,
the available data contains no evidence for a reduction in casualties or damage due to Patriot.
Several important lessons can be drawn from the Gulf War experience. First, the widely held
106

These air attacks may have also made an important contribution by reducing the accuracy of the Scuds.

39belief that ballistic missiles are themselves weapons of mass destruction is simply incorrect, as
demonstrated by this as well as past episodes. It is the nature of the warhead, not the mode ofdelivery, that counts.
Second, however, attacks with conventional warheads can vary greatly in lethality. The
Scuds fired by Iraq during the war were very inaccurate, had relatively small warheads, and had asignificant dud rate. Had the Iraqi missiles instead had a CEP of roughly 1 km or less (in whichcase almost all of them would have landed in Israeli metropolitan areas), and had a reliable
explosive energy release comparable to the V-2 missile, their expected lethality would have beenroughly seven times greater.
The Israeli experience also illustrates that in addition to the characteristics of the missile
and warhead, other factors can have an important effect on the casualty rate. These factors
include the characteristics of the target (such as construction practices), the amount of warningavailable, and the timing of the attacks. The type of building construction and its vulnerability to
nearby explosions will in part determine the relative benefits of different civil defense measures.
Depending on the size of the warhead, an underground shelter may only be marginally better at
providing protection against a conventional explosive than an interior room in a building withsteel-reinforced construction and non-load-bearing walls. The Israeli government faced anapparent dilemma of whether to advise its population to go to underground shelters where theymight be more vulnerable to chemical attack, or to stay in above-ground buildings, where theywould presumably be more vulnerable to high-explosive warheads. Had the civil defense
benefits of reinforced steel construction been understood before the war began, this dilemma
would have been eased.
The experience in Israel and Saudi Arabia also reemphasizes the World War II lesson
derived from the different casualty rates from the V-1 and V-2 attacks: even a small amount of
warning time of missile attack can significantly reduce casualties. However, at present, only theUnited States and Russia have early-warning satellites (or large early-warning radars) capable ofdetecting missile launches, so a country under missile attack would be dependent on receiving
warning from the U.S. or Russia.107

107

Israel reportedly is being given a downlink from U.S. warning satellites. (Barbara Starr, "Israel Will Get Early

40

The distribution of the population during an attack will be affected by the time of attack;for example, several empty buildings that were hit by Scuds would have been occupied during
the day. Since the Coalition attacks on the launchers forced the Iraqis to launch primarily atnight (and probably also reduced both the number of missiles fired and their accuracy), they
played an important role in reducing casualties despite the fact that they apparently destroyed
relatively few of the Iraqi mobile missile launchers. For this reason, there may be benefits fromattempting to attacking missile launchers even if these attacks are not highly successful.
Finally, the casualties in Israel, and particularly in Saudi Arabia, highlight the statisticalnature of casualties caused by small numbers of conventionally-armed ballistic missiles.
Although there are steps that both the attacker and defender can take to change significantly the
expected lethality of a ballistic missile attack, if the number of missiles fired is comparable to or
smaller than that fired at Israel or Saudi Arabia, luck will inevitably play a key role indetermining the final outcome.

Warning Downlink," Jane's Defence Weekly, February 13, 1993, p. 5.) Under certain circumstances, it may bepossible for radars associated with air or missile defense systems, such as Patriot, to detect a missile in either theboost or re-entry phases of its flight. However, if detected during re-entry, there may not be sufficient time available
to transmit a warning to the population.

41

Appendix
Chronology of the Scud Attacks in Israel and Saudi Arabia
Many details about the attacks on both Israel and Saudi Arabia remain classified orotherwise unavailable. This chronology represents our best current assessment of events, and isconstructed from a variety of often-contradictory public sources including U.S. and Israeli
government announcements, newspaper and television news reports, and published articles aswell as private communications from Israelis.108 All times given are local time in either israel or
Saudi Arabia.109
It appears that about 81 Scuds fell in or near Israel and Saudi Arabia and that somewhat
less than 47 of these were engaged by Patriot.110 It has also been reported that an additional small
number of Scuds (roughly 5 to 8) failed shortly after launch and thus did not reach either Israel or
Saudi Arabia.111
108

The most important sources used in constructing this chronology were: U.S. military press conferences (a very
useful compilation of these is contained in Hildreth, "Evaluation of U.S. Army Assessment"; Official Israeli and
Saudi Arabian statements (contained in FBIS); the compilation of attack damage in Ma'ariv (March 29, 1991) and theJerusalem Post (March 1, 1991, p. 2); Joseph S. Bermudez, "Iraqi Missile Operations During Desert Storm Update," Jane's Soviet Intelligence Review, May 1991, p. 225; Bleich et. al., "Psychiatric Implications"; daily
reporting in the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, and Jerusalem Post; and television reports fromthe ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, and NBC networks. Much of the information on the Scud attacks in Israel (in particular,
on impact locations) is based on interviews conducted by Reuven Pedatzur in Israel).
A generally similar chronology (based in large part on reporting by the Los Angeles Times) appears in
Gregory S. Jones, The Iraqi Ballistic Missile Program: The Gulf War and the Future of the Missile Threat (Marina delRey, Calif.: American Institute for Strategic Cooperation, 1992).
109

During the war, the time in Israel and Saudi Arabia was respectively 7 and 8 hours ahead of the time in theeastern United States.
110

The figure of 47 engagements was released by the U.S. Army after the war, but the Army's current figures are
somewhat lower. Conyers, "The Patriot Myth," note 3.
111

The U.S. Army reported that 88 Scuds were launched. Another source says 86 Scuds were launched, but thatfive of them broke up immediately after launch (Bermudez, "Iraqi Missile Operations - Update"). The Iraqis claimthat they launched 93 Scuds during the Gulf War (5 of which were a longer-range Scud variant called the al-Hijara).
"Iraqi Scud Missile Declarations," Arms Control Today, November, 1992, p. 28.

42

ISRAEL
It appears that about 39 Scuds fell into Israel or the adjoining Mediterranean Sea. Twelve
Scuds fell before Patriot was operational, and 27 afterwards, of which 17 were engaged. The
Scud attacks directly killed two people, seriously injured 11, and slightly injured another 220.
January 18, about 2 am - 8 Scuds towards Tel Aviv and Haifa (probably five or six to Tel Aviv).
Patriot was not yet operational. One Scud hit in a poor and crowded neighborhood in the Ezra
district of Tel Aviv, but hit "at the edge of the only empty lot for blocks." A second Scud
exploded at or near a leather factory in the Tel Aviv suburb of Azor. Another Scud exploded at a
shopping center under construction in Haifa. Twenty-two injuries were reported (apparently all
due to the Scud in the Ezra district), but most or all were light injuries.
January 19, about 7:15 am - 4 Scuds towards Tel Aviv. Patriot was not yet operational. Three
Scuds fell in Tel Aviv. One directly struck a multi-story building in downtown Tel Aviv but did
not explode, and its warhead was recovered intact from a ground-floor jewelry store. One Scudhit directly next to a municipal center in Tel Aviv's Hatkiva district, blowing open a basement
bomb shelter (it was unoccupied). The impact point was only about three hundred meters fromthe one in the Ezra district the previous day, and most of the injuries on January 19 occurred
here. The third Scud fell in Yarkon Park, near the Tel Aviv exhibition center. The fourth Scudreportedly fell along the coast somewhere south of Tel Aviv. Thirty people were injured,apparently all lightly.
January 22, about 8:40 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. This was the first Scud to be engaged byPatriot in Israel. The Scud warhead detonated in an alleyway between two apartment buildings
on Abba Hillel street in the northwestern part of the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan. One
building apparently collapsed, and many other buildings were damaged. A woman was killed
and 84 other people were injured.

43

January 23, about 10:20 pm - 1 Scud towards Haifa. It was engaged by Patriot. No casualties
occurred, but falling debris caused some damage. News media videos suggest that the Scud
exploded in the Mediterranean.
January 25, about 6 pm - 7 Scuds (some sources say only six) towards Tel Aviv and Haifa. Mostof these were towards Tel Aviv, and most or all were engaged by Patriot.112 No casualties ordamage were reported in Haifa. At least two Scuds exploded in residential areas in the Tel Aviv
area. In addition, at least three Patriots struck the ground in Tel Aviv on this night (as well as atleast one in Haifa). One Scud impact site was in Ramat Hatayasim in southeastern Tel Aviv; theScud other fell only several hundred meters away across the border in neighboring Ramat Gan. It
is known that a missile struck a two-story house destroying it and damaging many nearbybuildings, and another fell next to a school (for crippled children, according to one report) in a
residential neighborhood, seriously damaging it; however we have not yet been able to correlatethese explosions with specific impact points. One Patriot struck in or near Hamaccabia Stadium,
just north of downtown Tel Aviv.113 The impact points of the other Patriots are not known to us
at present. Falling debris also caused damage. One man was killed (in Ramat Gan), and 67 were
injured.
January 26, about 10 pm - 5 Scuds (some sources say only three or four) towards Tel Aviv andHaifa. The Scuds were reportedly fired in two salvos separated by a short period of time. Mostor all reportedly were engaged by Patriot. One Scud apparently fell on a deserted stretch ofbeach north of downtown Tel Aviv. No serious damage was caused, although two injuries
occurred.

112

Most of the engagements in Israel took place in the two attacks on January 25 and 26. It appears that there wereat least seven engagements on other days in Israel. If the figure of 17 total engagements in Israel is correct, then it
appears that about 10 of the 12 Scuds on January 25 and 26 were engaged.
113

The photograph on page 296 of the short version of this paper published in Nature (Fetter, Lewis, andGronlund, "Why Were Scud Casualties So Low?"), captioned "Scud launched from Iraq hits Tel Aviv at Night inJanuary 1991," actually shows a smoke cloud rising from the impact point of this Patriot.

44

January 28, about 9 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. The Scud fell short and landed near thevillage of Dir Balut in the West Bank (about 25 km east of Tel Aviv). No casualties or serious
damage were reported.
January 31, about 7 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. Landed in the Samaria region, reportedly
near an Arab village. The U.S. reported that it landed 15 miles southeast of Tel Aviv. No
damage or casualties were reported.
February 2, about 8:30 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It fell short and came down in an
unsettled region of the West Bank. No damage or casualties.
February 3, about 1:40 am - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It fell short and landed in the West Bank.
No casualties, but it may have caused some minor damage.
February 9, about 2:40 am - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It was engaged by Patriot. The warhead
exploded in the middle of a street in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan, pulling down walls on anumber of buildings on both sides of the street. Thirteen people were injured.
February 11, about 7 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It was engaged by Patriot. It was reported
to have hit in an uninhabited area, and it probably fell in the Mediterranean north of Tel Aviv.
No casualties or damage.
February 12, about 1:30 am - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It was engaged by Patriot. The warheaddetonated between two houses in a neighborhood of mostly private homes in or near the town of
Savyon, about 10 km east of Tel Aviv. Both houses were demolished and a number of otherhouses were seriously damaged. One of the demolished houses was empty, and a man was dug
out from the debris of the other (he was not seriously injured). Nine people were injured.
February 16, about 8:10 pm - 2 Scuds, 1 towards Haifa, 1 towards southern Israel (although an

45

IDF spokesperson has said there were four, 2 to Haifa and 2 to the Negev Desert). The one
towards Haifa was probably engaged by Patriot and may have fallen into the Mediterranean. The
one to southern Israel fell in an open area in the Negev desert and reportedly carried a concrete
warhead. No casualties or serious damage were reported.114
February 19, about 7:50 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It was engaged by Patriot. The Scudlanded in an uninhabited area about 7 to 11 km east of the municipal airport. The Scud's
warhead did not explode and no damage or casualties resulted.
February 23, about 6:50 pm - 1 Scud towards Tel Aviv. It landed in an unpopulated area andthere were no casualties or damage.
February 25, about 3:40 am and 5:40 am - 2 Scuds towards southern Israel. Both fell in
unpopulated areas of the Negev region. No significant damage was done, although two injuries
were reported.

114

In all, Iraq fired three Scuds into the Negev desert in the southern part of Israel, probably aimed at the Israeli
nuclear facility at Dimona. The Iraqis claimed that they fired four Scuds at Israel on February 16, with three of themaimed at Dimona. Bradley Burston, "Iraq: We Fired New Missile at Dimona," Jerusalem Post, February 18, 1991,
p. 8.

46

SAUDI ARABIAApproximately 42 Scuds fell in or near Saudi Arabia, and as many as 29 or 30 of thesewere engaged by Patriot. At least five of the Scuds appear to have landed in the Persian Gulf.
The Scud attacks killed 29 people and injured at least 175, with 28 of the deaths and 98 of the
injuries caused by the single Scud that struck the U.S. barracks in Dhahran on February 25.
January 18, about 4:30 am - Patriots at Dhahran were fired. This was widely reported as firstsuccessful interception of an enemy ballistic missile, however, it is now known that this was afalse alarm and that no Scud was present.115
January 20, about 9:30 pm - 3 Scuds towards Dhahran. Most or all were engaged by Patriots.
No reports of damage or casualties.
January 21, about 12:45 am - 3 Scuds towards Dhahran, 4 towards Riyadh. Two of the Scuds toDhahran were engaged; the other was not and fell into the Persian Gulf. No damage or casualties
reported at Dhahran. All four Scuds to Riyadh were reportedly engaged. News media videotapes
show at least two Scuds and one Patriot exploding on the ground in or near Riyadh. An
explosion near an office building produced a 10 foot crater and blew out the back of the building;news reports suggest that this was possibly the result of a Patriot striking the ground. Twelve
minor injuries were reported in Riyadh.
January 21, about 10 pm - 1 Scud towards Dhahran. It was not engaged and fell into the Persian
Gulf.

115

Conyers, "The Patriot Myth," pp 3-4. In all, it appears that about 24 Patriots were fired at "empty airspace."
Most of these accidental launches occurred during the first week of the war, and were apparently due toelectromagnetic energy radiated by other Coalition forces entering the Patriot radar through its back. Conyers, "ThePatriot Myth," p. 7; and Joseph Lovece, "Electronic Noise from U.S. Gear Prompted Errant Patriots," Defense
Week, September 28, 1992, p. 1.

47

January 22, about 3:45 am - 2 Scuds towards Riyadh. At least one (and possibly both) was
engaged by Patriot. A nearly intact Scud missile body -- minus its warhead and tail sections -was found lying on a Riyadh street. No damage or injuries reported.
January 22, about 7:20 am - 3 Scuds towards Dhahran. One was engaged, the other two were not
and fell in the desert. No damage or injuries reported.
January 23, about 11 pm - 5 Scuds: 2 towards Dhahran, 1 towards King Khalid Military City
(also often referred to as the Hafr-al-Batin area), and 2 towards Riyadh. All 5 Scuds werereportedly engaged (although a Pentagon briefer said that one of the Scuds towards Riyadh was
not engaged and fell in the desert). No injuries or damage were reported.
January 25, about 10:20 pm - 2 Scuds towards Riyadh. Both were engaged by Patriot. One Scudhit a six story Saudi Department of Interior building in downtown Riyadh. The building wascompletely demolished; one man was killed and 30 people were injured, although most of the
injuries were slight.
January 26, about 3:30 am - 1 Scud towards Dhahran. It was engaged by Patriot. No reports ofdamage or casualties.
January 26, about 11 pm - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. The Scud warhead
exploded in an area described as an "empty field" or "wasteland." No casualties or damage werereported.
January 28, about 9 pm - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was reportedly engaged by Patriot. Debris
was reported to have fallen on a farm in the Riyadh suburbs, but no casualties or damage werereported.
February 3, about 1 am - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. The Scud warhead
exploded in a residential area of a Riyadh suburb, damaging a number of buildings. Twenty-nine48

people were injured, although all of the injuries were apparently minor (all the injured werereleased from the hospital the same day).
February 8, about 2 am - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. It was reported thatdebris fell in a parking lot. No casualties or damage were reported.
February 11, about 10:20 pm - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. The warhead
exploded next to a school or university building, causing extensive damage. Two security guards
were slightly injured.
February 14, about 11:45 am - 2 Scuds towards King Khalid Military City (or Hafir al-Batin).
Neither Scud was engaged by Patriot apparently because they fell in an area not covered by the
Patriot batteries at KKMC. One Scud destroyed a house and a car maintenance workshop. The
other fell in a "civilian district" but apparently caused only minor damage (broken windows). A
total of four minor injuries from the two Scuds was reported.
February 16, about 2 am - 1 Scud towards Dhahran. It was not engaged and fell into the Persian
Gulf.
February 21, about 5:15 pm - 2 Scuds towards King Khalid Military City. One was engaged byPatriot, the other reportedly "exploded on its own in the air." No damage or casualties werereported.
February 21, about 9 pm - 1 Scud towards King Khalid Military City. It was not engaged and nocasualties or damage were reported. According to the US military, this Scud and the two
previous ones were launched from inside the city limits of Baghdad.
February 22, about 2:30 am - 1 Scud towards Dhahran (or possibly towards nearby Bahrain). It
was engaged by Patriot. It was reported that the Scud fell into the Persian Gulf, and also that
Scud debris fell in Bahrain.

49

February 23, about 5 am - 1 Scud towards Dhahran. It was not engaged and fell in an
uninhabited desert area.
February 24, about 4:40 am - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. No casualties
or damage were reported.
February 24, about 12:30 pm - 1 Scud towards King Khalid Military City. No information onwhether it was engaged or on casualties or damage.
February 24, about 9:30 pm116 - 1 Scud towards Riyadh. It was engaged by Patriot. No reports ofdamage or casualties.
February 25. about 8:20 pm - 1 Scud towards Dhahran. Due to a software problem, it was notengaged by Patriot. The Scud warhead hit a U.S. military barracks, killing 28 U.S. military
personnel and injuring 98 more.
February 26, about 1:30 am - 1 Scud towards Dhahran (or possibly Qatar). The Scud fell into the
Persian Gulf.

116

There is considerable uncertainty about when this Scud fell. The only source we have seen that gives a time andplace for it is Bermudez, "Iraqi Missile Operations," and the time given there is used here. However, the data from a
Pentagon press briefing suggests that this Scud attack occurred late on the 23rd or earlier on the 24th. It seems likelythat this attack did occur on the 24th, since ABC news videotapes show two Patriot engagements od Scuds in Riyadh
on the 24th.

50

George N. Lewis is a MacArthur Research and Writing Fellow in the Defense and Arms
Control Studies Program at MIT. He received his Ph.D in experimental solid state physics from
Cornell in 1983 and subsequently spent five years as a research associate in Cornell's Department
of Applied Physics. Prior to coming to MIT in 1989, he was a fellow in the Peace Studies
Program at Cornell and at the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford.
Steve Fetter is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of
Maryland, College Park. Previously he has been a Research Fellow at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and at the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard
University. He has a Ph.D. in energy and resources from the University of California, Berkeley,
and an S.B. in physics from M.I.T.
Lisbeth Gronlund is a Senior Staff Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, apublic interest research group based in Cambridge, MA, and a Research Fellow at the Defenseand Arms Control Studies (DACS) Program at MIT. After receiving a Ph.D. in theoreticalphysics from Cornell University, she spent two years (1988-90) as a postdoctoral fellow in MIT's
DACS program, and two years as a senior visiting scholar in the Center for International Security
Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, where she was supported by a Social
Science Research Council-MacArthur Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship in International Peaceand Security.

51