Re-think Our National Service Conscription
-
How do you propose to find out one's commitment to "die for the nation" during peace time ?Originally posted by Deen Lee:This is my reply to questions posted at another forum which I think will also answer the questions here:-
(1) I have been getting lots of replies telling me how they are prepared to fight and die for the nation. Can we believe them? I rather find that out during peace time, not during time of war when it will be too late. For our women folks, it is time to end this hypocrisy and make equal responsibiities be synonymous with equal opportunities. They need not have to opt for military service, but they cannot escape from doing national service.
Was it not the intention of the Government a.k.a the Ruling Party to have Women perform National Service by increasing the Birth Rate and in Child Rearing ?
Surely it will be a welcome relief to any NS Male to help the Women Folk in their assigned Women's National Service Duty ?
Can you imagine the firepower from the guns handled by 350K NSF soldiers whom you claim to be "amateurs" ?
(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.
Can the firepower from 50K regulars match the firepower of 350K amateurs ?
While the SAF can recall a total strength of 350K, the FULL TIME force is no more then 150K - (with the 50K being regulars, and the remaining 100K being enlistees serving their time in BMT, or upgrading to higher levels of vocation specialization during their NS Full Time Service Period.
The strength of the SAF lies in the 200K of NSF that is cycled through the ten year of their NS Period, being recalled for continuous exercises and being kept updated to new doctrines, training, and weapons.
With well rehearsed training, coupled with technology and mechanisation, the SAF is becoming a well honed fighting machine that is able to conduct itself in any format of combined arms activities.
Watching the SAF since its early days - the NS "boys" and their equipment of the 1960s, and comparing to the same NS "BOYS" and their equipment at this time, we have moved a very long way.
(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job.
The money that is spent in building up the SAF into a well balanced fighting machine allows for the leveraging on technology and mechanisation so as to make it into a 'Force Multiplier' that increases the power of the average Singaporean into a better fighting machine.
With the concept of transforming the SAF into a 3G fighting machine, and with a DSTA that is well balanced in reality of thinking, we have acquired technology and machines to match the kind of scenarios that the SAF will be honed to fight.
There is no expenditure on glamour products, and each piece of equipment seems to be well thought out in terms of its application, its usability over time, and its cost effectiveness to the SAF.
Our surprising industrial strength - and good relations with major arms manufacturing countries - have enabled us to develop new weapon platforms - either independently or jointly - for the SAF, which makes us less dependent on any countries for our equipment needs.
So I wonder if your concern is misplaced.
With regards to MORALE of the NSF Force - this depend very much on the ability of the NSF Leadership in instilling the X-FACTOR through Camaradie, Pride in Self and Unit, and the commitment to the belief in the Purpose of Mission for FAMILY and COUNTRY. -
firepower and manpower are not the main issues...if they were the viet cong, poorly equipped by the standards of their time would not have beaten the us military, supposedly the most advanced and powerful military in the world. and if a lesser number of regular troops could not beat amateurs that outnumber them then countries all over the world would not be trimming down their forces and adopting smaller, better trained and equipped armies.
-
Originally posted by Deen Lee:
If you have doubt about our amatuer soldiers, then pls suggest what we should do with our soldiers to clear your doubt, not to replace them.
This is my reply to questions posted at another forum which I think will also answer the questions here:-
(1) I have been getting lots of replies telling me how they are prepared to fight and die for the nation. [b]Can we believe them? I rather find that out during peace time, not during time of war when it will be too late. For our women folks, it is time to end this hypocrisy and make equal responsibiities be synonymous with equal opportunities. They need not have to opt for military service, but they cannot escape from doing national service.
(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.
(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job.[/b]
Our military experts have determined that with our population, our current strength is what we need to defend our country. You obviously have no idea, from your argument, about what we have and what we need. so who are the experts you think can give us THE solution to our national defence?? FT again?
Our experts have also decided that we will leave our women folks alone on issue of defence. As it is, young husbands and wives are already not having enough time for each other and their children, no need to have wives involved in any form of NS, just make babies and take care of them. There is no hypocrisy, they are not escaping.
Singapore is spending a high % of our GDP for defence, one of the highest in Asia, we will spend more if we need, but certainly not to employ FT for defence!!
Go to Military Nuts and explain how your preferred "smaller professional force" can do a better job than our conscripted, amateurist soldiers.
Have you served NS? -
Firepower and manpower should be the main issues in the development of a credible defense for a tiny country that is developing a "Poison Prawn" defense strategy.Originally posted by vito_corleone:firepower and manpower are not the main issues...if they were the viet cong, poorly equipped by the standards of their time would not have beaten the us military, supposedly the most advanced and powerful military in the world. and if a lesser number of regular troops could not beat amateurs that outnumber them then countries all over the world would not be trimming down their forces and adopting smaller, better trained and equipped armies.
Currently the best equipped force in the world is bogged down in Iraq by an irregular army of "amateurs", who are able to kill at least ONE US soldier a day since the End of the War was declared about a year ago.
The Viet Cong did not win any military victory over the most advanced and powerful military in the world, but it was the North Vietnamese Government using a two prong strategy of full scale military war during the final years of the war in the mid-1970s, and through its political guile in capricious negotiating strategy from 1967 to 1972, simply to WEAR DOWN the resolve of the US Government and the US Citizens - so as to force the world's most powerful and advance country to CAPITULATE in a most face saving way of a negotiated settlement.
The same can happen again in Iraq, if the rag-tag Iraqi "amateurs" have some semblance of a Political Organisation that is able to control the vast numbers of different interest groups fighting the US Occupation Force in Iraq. -
We sure need to rethink NS, the use of humans and its size.
Suppose terrorists or our aggressors provoke us. Surely our NS defence forces will be recalled and deployed to the frontline in mass numbers.
Wouldn't it be easy for our aggressors to wipe out our NS defence force by exploding weapons of mass destruction on them there and then?
So tell me, can our 350,000 NS Defence force really defend against such weapons of mass destruction?
-
Ok then, since you say that a force of 350,000 can't defend against WMDs, what do you propose instead?Originally posted by macjoe:We sure need to rethink NS, the use of humans and its size.
Suppose terrorists or our aggressors provoke us. Surely our NS defence forces will be recalled and deployed to the frontline in mass numbers.
Wouldn't it be easy for our aggressors to wipe out our NS defence force by exploding weapons of mass destruction on them there and then?
So tell me, can our 350,000 NS Defence force really defend against such weapons of mass destruction? -
Have more WMD. Remember Japan and their large armies when two American aircrafts dropped two bombs on Japan and they surrendered?Originally posted by fudgester:Ok then, since you say that a force of 350,000 can't defend against WMDs, what do you propose instead?
Juz one demo bomb dropped in the heart of Singapore and a call for Singapore to surrender in 1 hr failing which real bombs will be dropped is enough to force Singapore to surrender and yes, even our NS forces will have to surrender.
No? -
Resources and manpower is not everything in war. It very difficult to determine how many soldiers is enough, how much hardware is sufficient and what manner of force multiplier is appropriate... without knowing first the strategies to be used.
Throughout history, generals have used various methods to achieve victory, via numbers, technology, terrain, population sympathies, etc...
If I were to bring up an example of a country that won a war with lesser troops, someone else can bring up another example where a country won a war with sheer numbers. -
Yeah right.Originally posted by ndsef:Ok ok let's do a poll here... who will stay behind and fight a war if it comes to our shores?
Since we are obscured behind our fire walls and fake nicks as well as clones, I do expect some real answers right?
As for me, I will stay and fight a war if it comes. Don't talk about the gahmen lah, talk about love for the country...
-
Would a WMD dropped in singapore affect malaysia too?Originally posted by macjoe:Having more WMD. Remember Japan and their large armies when two American aircrafts dropped two bombs on Japan and they surrendered?
Juz one demo bomb dropped in the heart of Singapore and a call for Singapore to surrender in 1 hr failing which real bombs will be dropped is enough to force Singapore to surrender and yes, even our NS forces will have to surrender.
No? -
A modified WMD that just covers enough of Singapore?Originally posted by SilverPal:Would a WMD dropped in singapore affect malaysia too? -
...and if you don't have the money to leave, play deadOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Either you leave or you fight.It's simple really.If you don't have the guts, don't get in the way. ... -
That'll work... Thanks.Originally posted by macjoe:A modified WMD that just covers enough of Singapore?
But what is the point of conquering a country that has nothing left? After a WMD flattens sg, its going to cos so much to rebuild (assuming that you want to rebuild it) and we haven't talked about resistance movements yet!
Perhaps an invading country would fare better to send ground troops to invade sg? -
the difference is the fervour which the militants have in driving out US forces out of the middle east whereas most US troops are reluctant personell just like most SAF reservists...best equipped but unfortunately not trained for urban warfare and desert warfare. US MARINES note MARINES, forces which have been trained to storm beaches were sent deep into the harsh iraqi desert towns to fight insurgents...its like sending a surfer into artic waters..preparedness and mindset are and will continue to be pivotal forces in victory and not numbers or firepower.Originally posted by Atobe:Firepower and manpower should be the main issues in the development of a credible defense for a tiny country that is developing a "Poison Prawn" defense strategy.
Currently the best equipped force in the world is bogged down in Iraq by an irregular army of "amateurs", who are able to kill at least ONE US soldier a day since the End of the War was declared about a year ago.
The Viet Cong did not win any military victory over the most advanced and powerful military in the world, but it was the North Vietnamese Government using a two prong strategy of full scale military war during the final years of the war in the mid-1970s, and through its political guile in capricious negotiating strategy from 1967 to 1972, simply to WEAR DOWN the resolve of the US Government and the US Citizens - so as to force the world's most powerful and advance country to CAPITULATE in a most face saving way of a negotiated settlement.
The same can happen again in Iraq, if the rag-tag Iraqi "amateurs" have some semblance of a Political Organisation that is able to control the vast numbers of different interest groups fighting the US Occupation Force in Iraq. -
Uh......i think you got mixed up btw the nature of asymmetric warfare and conventional warfare~Originally posted by vito_corleone:the difference is the fervour which the militants have in driving out US forces out of the middle east whereas most US troops are reluctant personell just like most SAF reservists...best equipped but unfortunately not trained for urban warfare and desert warfare. US MARINES note MARINES, forces which have been trained to storm beaches were sent deep into the harsh iraqi desert towns to fight insurgents...its like sending a surfer into artic waters..preparedness and mindset are and will continue to be pivotal forces in victory and not numbers or firepower.
-
Let's just say if a nation were to threaten us with WMD.
It will not live to see that day ever again.You think we will let WMD be used against us so easily?
Have some sense of reality guys.. -
I think the threat of a WMD is good enough to force Singapore to surrender.Originally posted by SilverPal:That'll work... Thanks.
But what is the point of conquering a country that has nothing left? After a WMD flattens sg, its going to cos so much to rebuild (assuming that you want to rebuild it) and we haven't talked about resistance movements yet!
Perhaps an invading country would fare better to send ground troops to invade sg?
Will it be used? Possibly an offshore destruction demo witnessed by everyone at east coast and surrender flyers dropped all over the island if they want our infrastructure.
Every flees and Singapore surrenders.
-
The mighty Jap forces didn't expect it in their World War.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Let's just say if a nation were to threaten us with WMD.
It will not live to see that day ever again.You think we will let WMD be used against us so easily? Have some sense of reality guys.. -
Read "Defending the lion city"...
-
if you know the extent of our Armed Forces, you will know we never let that happen.Originally posted by macjoe:The mighty Jap forces didn't expect it in their World War.
already as it is, a threat to our SLOCs is close to a tantamount declaration of hostilities against the Repubic.
furthermore, no sane nation will use WMDs in a densely populated region.it's militarily unsound.USA used the bomb on Japan to satisfy two factors, one was to prevent heavy street-to-street fighting if they had to land in Tokyo in 1946, as per Plan B.The other was an unadmitted excuse to test the nature of the bomb and to send a message to Stalin. -
so easy one meh? we will invite a few more offshore destruction demo and see whose WMD is more destructive. We will buy the most powerful WMD and use it on the others, see who surrender to whom.Originally posted by macjoe:I think the threat of a WMD is good enough to force Singapore to surrender.
Will it be used? Possibly an offshore destruction demo witnessed by everyone at east coast and surrender flyers dropped all over the island if they want our infrastructure.
Every flees and Singapore surrenders.
ai puak hang, lai loh.
no balls and no brain where you can flee?? -
Surely our aggressors are not planning to go into a direct head-on war with our Armed Forces. They're probably thinking what's the easiest way to avoid the extent of our Armed Forces!Originally posted by LazerLordz:if you know the extent of our Armed Forces, you will know we never let that happen.
already as it is, a threat to our SLOCs is close to a tantamount declaration of hostilities against the Repubic.
furthermore, no sane nation will use WMDs in a densely populated region.it's militarily unsound.USA used the bomb on Japan to satisfy two factors, one was to prevent heavy street-to-street fighting if they had to land in Tokyo in 1946, as per Plan B.The other was an unadmitted excuse to test the nature of the bomb and to send a message to Stalin.
Maybe we should learn something from 911 about terrorists hijacking planes. Are 10-20 hijacked planes considered WMD? -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
Yes, the difference is the fervour of the IRAQI Militants, which is a result of the pride and anger that is in reaction to the manner in which the 'gung-ho' US Military had conducted themselves - kicking down doors in surprise checks of Iraqi homes, and not appreciating that thier actions has insulted and affected the modesty of the Iraqi womenfolks.
the difference is the fervour which the militants have in driving out US forces out of the middle east whereas most US troops are reluctant personell just like most SAF reservists...best equipped but unfortunately not trained for urban warfare and desert warfare. US MARINES note MARINES, forces which have been trained to storm beaches were sent deep into the harsh iraqi desert towns to fight insurgents...its like sending a surfer into artic waters..preparedness and mindset are and will continue to be pivotal forces in victory and not numbers or firepower.
Can Singaporeans also feel the same anger and conduct ourselves with fervour if ever the day comes that Singapore is invaded ?
I believe that with the constant training, pride in ourselves, and the discovery of our personal capacity to endure the hardships during training, and with a clear organisation structure, doctrine, systems, and plans - we will be able to a very poisonous prawn.
If the Iraqi militants can be so effective with their disorganised structure, will we not be more effective as a trained and well organised SAF ?
With at least 350k of NSF and regulars, all well equiped and trained, the SAF will be a force that will require a larger overwhelming force to suppress us. -
if you're talking about asymmetric warfare, our security apparatus is second to none..look at our counterintel etc..Originally posted by macjoe:Surely our aggressors are not planning to go into a direct head-on war with our Armed Forces. They're probably thinking what's the easiest way to avoid the extent of our Armed Forces!
Maybe we should learn something from 911 about terrorists hijacking planes. Are 10-20 hijacked planes considered WMD? -
now you agree SAF has served its purpose as a deterrant force.Originally posted by macjoe:Surely our aggressors are not planning to go into a direct head-on war with our Armed Forces. They're probably thinking what's the easiest way to avoid the extent of our Armed Forces!
learning from 911? a bit too late to talk about this isn't it?Originally posted by macjoe:Maybe we should learn something from 911 about terrorists hijacking planes. Are 10-20 hijacked planes considered WMD?