India’s missile shield invites a false sense of security — SkimNews
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- India tested two new interceptors in July designed to destroy missiles at ranges up to 5,000 km, part of the second phase of a layered shield that New Delhi calls purely defensive
- India's two known systems are the Prithvi Air Defense (PAD), an exo-atmospheric interceptor engaging missiles at 50–80 km altitude, and the Advanced Air Defense (AAD), which operates endo-atmospheric up to 30 km, with the Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV) planned to replace PAD at longer range
- India's shield cannot guarantee protection: most missile defense systems stop 75% to 80% of incoming missiles — a 20%–25% leak rate would be unacceptable whether warheads are conventional or nuclear, and capability against hypersonic missiles and MIRVs remains unclear
- The United States has spent at least $400 billion on missile defense since 1957, with a single Patriot battery costing $1.1 billion to deploy against $20,000–$50,000 Shahed-136 drones, illustrating how offense outpaces defense on cost
- Pakistan could saturate India's defenses with MIRVs, cruise missiles, drones, and hypersonic missiles; no evidence shows Pakistan is developing its own missile shield, though it is upgrading air defenses
- China has already built countermeasures against US missile defenses, could turn them against India, and is developing its own HQ-29 system, compounding the security dilemma for New Delhi
- India and Pakistan are unlikely to agree on any arms-control regime covering missile defense in the foreseeable future, including the Strategic Restraint Regime that Pakistan proposed and India rejected
Why it matters: The 20%–25% leak rate inherent to even the best missile defenses means India's multi-billion-dollar shield cannot guarantee protection against a saturated barrage, while simultaneously pushing both Pakistan (via MIRVs, drones, and hypersonics) and China (with existing US-countermeasure technology and the HQ-29) to build offensive counters. The result: India buys strategic theater, not a fortress, and both rivals gain fresh incentives to expand their own strike capabilities.
Ask SkimNews
