Anand Mahindra Hails Israel Defence System Amidst Iran Attack, Calls for India to Achieve the Same

Anand Mahindra, a leading figure in Indian industry, has stirred discussion on India's missile defense capabilities after highlighting Israel's robust defense systems in the wake of recent attacks.

Mahindra emphasized the need for "ironclad defence interception systems," drawing attention to Israel's multi-layered network that includes the Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow systems, and the forthcoming laser-based Iron Beam. He stressed that possessing these kinds of advanced systems is as important as offensive weaponry.

Mahindra's comments have sparked a debate among defense analysts. While acknowledging the value of advanced missile defense, some argue that fully replicating Israel's approach within India may not be feasible. Israel's compact landmass makes comprehensive missile defense more achievable, whereas India's vast size and diverse borders present a greater economic challenge.

Additionally, Mahindra's statement suggests a potential gap in public understanding of India's missile defense capabilities. While Israeli systems might be familiar to some Indians, Mahindra's commentary implies a lack of public knowledge surrounding India's own ballistic missile shield program.

India's Ballistic Missile Shield​

India's missile defense program is currently under development in two phases:

• Phase 1: The deployment of Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) and Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missiles designed to intercept ballistic missiles at varying altitudes.
• Phase 2: Development of advanced interceptors (AD1 & AD2) for high altitude and longer-range ballistic missile defense.

Need for Nuanced Discussion​

The debate sparked by Mahindra underscores the importance of public discussion on India's missile defense strategies.

While mirroring Israel's approach might not be the solution, ongoing investments and advancements in India's own defensive capabilities remain crucial for national security.

 

[Hari Sud]

Iron dome is to cover small arms fire with 70km range. On a 5,000 miles border, you need hundreds of Iron domes. Here offence, not defence policy is better. Destroy the enemy missiles before he launches nuclear missile and let him know that we mean it.

 

[Jayhome]

Iron dome is to cover small arms fire with 70km range. On a 5,000 miles border, you need hundreds of Iron domes. Here offence, not defence policy is better. Destroy the enemy missiles before he launches nuclear missile and let him know that we mean it.

Fundamentally, the argument for why India cannot possess an air defense as effective as Israel is FLAWED when stating the reasons for ' it not working out for India', is the difference in land mass size.

India only needs to protect strategic cities/states and military assets. Remember, for the enemy to win, they need to degrade your valuable assets and installations—not some obscure lands of no military value.

 

[Superpower Bharat]

Fundamentally, the argument for why India cannot possess an air defense as effective as Israel is FLAWED when stating the reasons for ' it not working out for India', is the difference in land mass size.

India only needs to protect strategic cities/states and military assets. Remember, for the enemy to win, they need to degrade your valuable assets and installations—not some obscure lands of no military value.

Out ami. Defence lies in the fear of us within our enemy. Wheather we can intercept their attack or not that should not be the question., out enemy must think thousand times before doing this kind of miss adventure that retaliate attack from India will be devastating for them .. This fear should stay in their blood vain

 

[War is good for business]

Fundamentally, the argument for why India cannot possess an air defense as effective as Israel is FLAWED when stating the reasons for ' it not working out for India', is the difference in land mass size.

India only needs to protect strategic cities/states and military assets. Remember, for the enemy to win, they need to degrade your valuable assets and installations—not some obscure lands of no military value.

so what sites are important? Cities with over a million people? There are 35 as per the old census, now maybe 60, then nuclear installation, another 10, Important defence installations, another maybe 30, other strategically important sites 10-15 a single battery can easily be overwhelmed if one target is selected so you would need 2-3 batteries per site as the other sites cannot join in to provide cover and then of course you need strategic air defence systems that can be taken to the battle field

 

[vamkris]

India shall make multilayered defence at all military bases seaports and major cities in India
Try for iron beam like laser defence and uks latest laser beam to tackle rockets and drones

 

[Pramkumar]

every one knows about Israeli Iron dome, but how Russia, USA and China is having their missile defences. India should be having such kind of Missile defence. As we are same as these 3 countries.

 

[GMR]

Basics have changes. Enemy can unleash hundreds of very cheap drones at one time in addition to missiles.. New Air defence must be very cost effective to counter these cheap drones and a system which can destroy then in mass, moreof like soft kill / leaser, avoiding saturation.

 

[Anant]

Fundamentally, the argument for why India cannot possess an air defense as effective as Israel is FLAWED when stating the reasons for ' it not working out for India', is the difference in land mass size.

India only needs to protect strategic cities/states and military assets. Remember, for the enemy to win, they need to degrade your valuable assets and installations—not some obscure lands of no military value.

The problem with your line of thinking is that India has too many strategic cities and other assets that would need to be protected, not to mention internal transportation and communication lines. You can't say something along the lines of "This city X is not strategically important, so let's leave it be". Sooner rather than later, you'll have enough cities like that such that losses become unpalatable.

 

[Anant]

so what sites are important? Cities with over a million people? There are 35 as per the old census, now maybe 60, then nuclear installation, another 10, Important defence installations, another maybe 30, other strategically important sites 10-15 a single battery can easily be overwhelmed if one target is selected so you would need 2-3 batteries per site as the other sites cannot join in to provide cover and then of course you need strategic air defence systems that can be taken to the battle field

Exactly my point. We can't designate a city as not being strategically important, because that then leads to a point where might be leaving lakhs, if not crores, of people to their fate.

Moreover, we have internal lines of communication and transportation that would need to be protected too. A small airport or a railway station can prove to be just as crucial as a mid-sized city can.

 

[Banjo Strings]

Iron dome is to cover small arms fire with 70km range. On a 5,000 miles border, you need hundreds of Iron domes. Here offence, not defence policy is better. Destroy the enemy missiles before he launches nuclear missile and let him know that we mean it.

Quite right. India places too much emphasis on defensive armaments rather than offensive ones.
An enemy will think twice before attacking an opponent with overwhelming offensive capability

 

[Rahul Dev]

Yes, we are also surrounded by hostile neighbors so India must have multiple air defence systems.

 

[Jayhome]

The problem with your line of thinking is that India has too many strategic cities and other assets that would need to be protected, not to mention internal transportation and communication lines. You can't say something along the lines of "This city X is not strategically important, so let's leave it be". Sooner rather than later, you'll have enough cities like that such that losses become unpalatable.

Your problem is that you do not understand strategic means or aerial defense/their area of cover. You think that entire cities are left without any cover. I'm talking about maximum defense shields on strategic sites, installations, and command and control assets versus obscure villages and land masses that are not uninhabited.

If a missile lands in some forest, it serves no military purpose.
You also seem to think the enemy wants to waste their missiles and attack things that won't serve any military purpose or help with winning the war effort.

 

[Jayhome]

so what sites are important? Cities with over a million people? There are 35 as per the old census, now maybe 60, then nuclear installation, another 10, Important defence installations, another maybe 30, other strategically important sites 10-15 a single battery can easily be overwhelmed if one target is selected so you would need 2-3 batteries per site as the other sites cannot join in to provide cover and then of course you need strategic air defence systems that can be taken to the battle field

The enemy is trying to win the war in a timely manner (given the cost of war) and keeping retaliatory strikes in mind (if we do this, how will they retaliate).

They also don't want to run afoul of war crimes and actions that will get the world community against them. All of this means they will concentrate on military and strategic targets.

Their goal is not to go after an obscure city even if it has a population of 1 million IF there are no military installations or is of military strategic.