>>13297888I'm not familiar with the operating parameters of the iron dome but in general rounds shot into the air are a danger when they come back down but due to air resistance, their velocity is greatly diminished compared to when they were fired off.
So damage to humans and property is possible but this is still better in a couple of ways.
The first is that the missile they're destroying usually has an explosive payload. If that payload can be rendered inert or detonated prematurely in the air, the damage done on the ground by debris is lower than had the missile not been intercepted. Depending on the operating parameters and the payload of the missile, if a huge number of rounds are fired at the target, there is a small possibility that the damage from debris could exceed that of the payload had there been no attempt to stop it.
This brings us to the second reason why using interception is better than letting things go: societal anxiety. By having an active defense, even a shitty one, the public doesn't feel helpless like they would in an attack that is allowed to proceed unfettered. It doesn't matter if the damage is equal or possibly even greater, the act of interception is a good psychological boost. In the first Gulf War the Patriot missiles that were launched against the SCUD missiles were mostly worthless. The payloads almost always still came down intact. All the Patriots did was defect their course some but since the SCUD had no guidance system and were aimed at general areas instead of specific targets, the net result of there being an explosion in a general area was the same. But it had a huge psychological impact (or propaganda value if you want). It also had a political impact, keeping Israel from entering the war, which might have lead to the falling apart of the coalition of nations going after Iraq since many of them were Muslim states that could never align with Israel.
