It's unclear which way the winds of war to the north are blowing, but they could become stronger given the threat presented by the Russian-made S-300 missile defense system erected in Syria. This system was first developed in the 1970s. Why is it a threat to pilots and why does it keep the heads of Israel's defense establishment awake at night?
First, we should remember that wars aren't decided by missiles, either surface or surface-to-air. The use of rockets goes back centuries. As early as 1379, the Italians used rockets, and the Chinese did so decades before them. In June of 1815, the British army used rockets in the Battle of Waterloo. In World War II, the German artillery forces convinced Hitler to develop missiles that would tip the scales in their favor. Germany made a massive investment in missiles, equal to the Americans' effort to develop a nuclear bomb in that same period. A total of 1,190 German missiles were fired at London and had less effect than one Allied airstrike. Fewer than 3,000 British citizens were killed by missiles – a horrible price to pay, but Britain, as we know, did not surrender.
Surface-to-air missiles are part of defense against aircraft and cruise missiles. Indeed, most fighter planes lost in wars are brought down by anti-aircraft artillery, but bringing surface-to-air missiles into battle made them a more valuable talisman.
Our planes suffered hits during the War of Attrition (1967-1970) and especially during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, but these missiles being in play did not determine which way the wars went.
"Freedom to maneuver" is a term that changes when it comes to IDF aircraft. A strike by our aircraft, even unmanned ones, is supported by systems of electronic warfare, the same what that cruise missile attacks carried out by the U.S. and its allies Britain and France are. However, the S-300 system in automated and has the capability of engaging dozens of targets simultaneously, especially ones that lie within a range of 150 to 200 kilometers (93 to 120 miles), meaning that Israel cannot operate without hesitation.
And there is the question of cost. In recent years, a demand to wage wars or military operations at "zero cost" has wormed its way into our consciousness. This thinking reached its height in the glum broadcasts and analyses about how we were "defeated" following the IDF jet downed during a strike in Syria. Even if this thinking is colored by condescension toward the enemy, as if it is nothing more than a paper tiger, the demand for zero casualties weakens our defense capabilities. It stems from the sweeping opposition some of us have to an attack on Iran, and of course the enthusiastic support for the nuclear deal with Iran brokered by the Obama administration.
In other words, the cries of defeat after the plane was shot down are a tool with which to bind the government's hands in defending its citizens, using the excuse of a "heavy price." Wars come at a cost, but blowing it up into a national disaster only bolsters the enemy's desire for war.
