Slashed defence budget by 20% to help the poor instead
-
So this is your definition of bare minimumOriginally posted by LazerLordz:When you realise why we buy these, you will ask yourself why did we not get them earlier.
Trust me, this is the bare minimum we need in these times.
-
Unless your defence plan involves only having enough of an army to put up a resistance in war but is effectively dumb and blind in times of peace and is not really a deterrence to the determined agressor, that would not be the way to go.Originally posted by qpicanto:Singapore new KC-135 Stratotanker was seen as a far-reaching move on the neighboring countries standpoint. Singapore air force simply does not require KC-135s for the time being. KC-135 seen to serve more to aid US military operation. Singapore now boasts a broad array of military paraphernalia spying-satellite?, submarine, F-16 jet fighters, Apache helicopters, Rapier missiles and AIM-120C. Is this what it takes to defend an island country?
There is a difference between a defence, and a deterrence. In our case we need to have a deterrence... indeed if you have armed forces that are only enough to protect the physical aspect your nation, but not your interests, you will not last long as an independent player if you are a nation like Singapore.
As Dr. M said, there are more then one ways to skin a cat. Even if an invasion is unfeasible, an agressive nation could find a lot of ways to make life miserable and difficult for Singapore without outright war. If we do not have some form of power-projection, given our size and location... what's to stop other nations from playing real big punk?
Our old defence was based on the "poisioned shrimp" idea, where we had a defence force strong enough to inflict damage to an agressor even if we were finished in the end, but quite long ago people kinda of realized that this idea was incomplete, for a much larger enemy with more resources could simply do other things to mess up your nation without firing a shot. Without an effective armed forces that proves power-project is possible... would not many nations already mess around? It is difficult to rely on the goodwill of others when often what they want might be very different from what you want.
So our KC-135s, and what have you obviously exist for a good reason. Singapore needs a big bite, enough to make one consider many things before going too far on their own plans which might be bad for us. -
NZ defence spending:
US$ figure
(FY 03/04) $1.147 billion (FY 03/04)
Percent of GDP
(FY03/04) 1% (FY 03/04)
--------------
even this is not bare minimum.
New Zealand considers its own national defence needs to be modest, due to its geographical isolation and benign relationships with neighbours. -
I think some people need to realize... if they think we are overarmed because the region is too "stable" for conflict... they need to ask themselves why our region is so "stable" in the first place. If one looks closely we realize that this stability does not come from security and stability being a natural thing in this area.
-
Originally posted by qpicanto:
Who in all the hell of on this earth wants to even bother with NZ which has near nothing of worth to even conquer? If you want to find a useless piece of rock, NZ would be it.
NZ defence spending:
US$ figure
(FY 03/04) $1.147 billion (FY 03/04)
Percent of GDP
(FY03/04) [b]1% (FY 03/04)
--------------
even this is not bare minimum.
New Zealand considers its own national defence needs to be modest, due to its geographical isolation and benign relationships with neighbours.
[/b]
Singapore is different. It is right smack in the middle of SEA and anyone who wants to attack Indonesia would most likely use Singapore as staging ground. -
Hey, NZ has sheep.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Who in all the hell of on this earth wants to even bother with NZ which has near nothing of worth to even conquer? If you want to find a useless piece of rock, NZ would be it.
Singapore is different. It is right smack in the middle of SEA and anyone who wants to attack Indonesia would most likely use Singapore as staging ground.
Lots and lots of sheep. -
Can a nuclear deterrance guarantee world peace?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Unless your defence plan involves only having enough of an army to put up a resistance in war but is effectively dumb and blind in times of peace and is not really a deterrence to the determined agressor, that would not be the way to go.
There is a difference between a defence, and a deterrence. In our case we need to have a deterrence... indeed if you have armed forces that are only enough to protect the physical aspect your nation, but not your interests, you will not last long as an independent player if you are a nation like Singapore.
As Dr. M said, there are more then one ways to skin a cat. Even if an invasion is unfeasible, an agressive nation could find a lot of ways to make life miserable and difficult for Singapore without outright war. If we do not have some form of power-projection, given our size and location... what's to stop other nations from playing real big punk?
Our old defence was based on the "poisioned shrimp" idea, where we had a defence force strong enough to inflict damage to an agressor even if we were finished in the end, but quite long ago people kinda of realized that this idea was incomplete, for a much larger enemy with more resources could simply do other things to mess up your nation without firing a shot. Without an effective armed forces that proves power-project is possible... would not many nations already mess around? It is difficult to rely on the goodwill of others when often what they want might be very different from what you want.
So our KC-135s, and what have you obviously exist for a good reason. Singapore needs a big bite, enough to make one consider many things before going too far on their own plans which might be bad for us.
Singapore mindset is still very 60s, pananoid, yes excessive fear, extremely insecured. Such mentality cannot change with the present government.
Much like edgy Japan sitting next to the giant China. Japan went on the offensive and was crushed by who ?US ! Not one but TWO atomic bombs. So why is Japanese leaders still so stubborn, want to visit the shrine. Its all politics. Its about getting elected. -
Can a nuclear deterrance guarantee world peace?
One wonders if Singapore is correct to hold it's "paranoid" mentality. Despite good relations, there is often plenty of talk going about once things go sour that Singapore was cheated and stolen from a certain nation by the British empire and hence never existed as an independent entity to begin with... and that one day it must be "reclaimed". And this talk disturbingly exists not among the gossip mongers but instead in the higher echelons of their leadership.
Singapore mindset is still very 60s, pananoid, yes excessive fear, extremely insecured. Such mentality cannot change with the present government.
Much like edgy Japan sitting next to the giant China. Japan went on the offensive and was crushed by who ?US ! Not one but TWO atomic bombs. So why is Japanese leaders still so stubborn, want to visit the shrine. Its all politics. Its about getting elected.
Also one wonders what if the governments of our neighbours change to that of a radicial regime that is opposed to our existence. Would we then with no suitable defence to deter such an agressor start to regret not having a "paranoid" mentality?
War is an extension of politics, that bit is always clear enough. It is quite obvious that given our size and geographic dept, dependence on others for natual resources and what have you not... a great part of our politics involve having a suitable failsafe in the means of a strong military. Unless of course, you want to rely on the often-fickle goodwill of your neighbours.
Unless you are rather blind or just plain gulible and ignorant of regional events, you would realize that we have plenty of reasons to be always on the edge. While we are no Israel, we are not parked in some sleepy region of the world as well. And with only 700km square of area... is there any room for mistakes? -
The entrance to middle earth is located there.Originally posted by charlize:Hey, NZ has sheep.
Lots and lots of sheep. -
Let's put it this way: We have no strategic depth, aside from the body of water that separates us between any potential enemy. If one of our armies gets obliterated, there will be no way we can raise another, and equip it. We have no significant manufacturing capability and it is difficult to retool any factory for the job. Essentially, if we don't build up now, we will not get the chance to build up in wartime. We will be at the mercy of any superpower we choose to align with, and if the said superpower decides to sacrifice us, we are deep in shit. So either we do a Malta like what the Maltese did in WWII, or we fall as we did to the Japanese as the British felt that they could not afford to sustain operations in the Far East. It was only in 1944 did they actually send a carrier battlegroup to Cylon only to play cat and mouse with the Japanese navy.
-
Singaporean leader once said its ready to go in militarily to secure our water supply if needed. Is this a threat or what? So much for war rhetorics, Syed Hamid said 'go to war' if Spore is not happy. Spore took dead serious, open mob on sunday, and its shown on TV that we are ready. Come on this is all political mileage thing.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:One wonders if Singapore is correct to hold it's "paranoid" mentality. Despite good relations, there is often plenty of talk going about once things go sour that Singapore was cheated and stolen from a certain nation by the British empire and hence never existed as an independent entity to begin with... and that one day it must be "reclaimed". And this talk disturbingly exists not among the gossip mongers but instead in the higher echelons of their leadership.
Also one wonders what if the governments of our neighbours change to that of a radicial regime that is opposed to our existence. Would we then with no suitable defence to deter such an agressor start to regret not having a "paranoid" mentality?
War is an extension of politics, that bit is always clear enough. It is quite obvious that given our size and geographic dept, dependence on others for natual resources and what have you not... a great part of our politics involve having a suitable failsafe in the means of a strong military. Unless of course, you want to rely on the often-fickle goodwill of your neighbours.
Unless you are rather blind or just plain gulible and ignorant of regional events, you would realize that we have plenty of reasons to be always on the edge. While we are no Israel, we are not parked in some sleepy region of the world as well. And with only 700km square of area... is there any room for mistakes?
Since the day Malaysia let Singapore 'go'., we already know nobody owes us a living. Whether it oil, water, sand, we got to be resourceful. Can u tell us why did govt take so many decades to built the recycled water plant while the technology is there all along?
The volumes of trade Malaysia had with the outside is tremendous. Its the world no 10 trading partner for US. It is no hermit state like NK. War is last thing they want. -
singapore has 3.6million sheep too.Originally posted by charlize:Hey, NZ has sheep.
Lots and lots of sheep. -
Contrary to popular opinion, Malaysia isn't the only threat to look out for. The Dragon up north has plenty of muscles to flex. Also, trade and what not didn't stop Sukarno from launching the Konfrontasi. War is often a result of rational political decisions.Originally posted by qpicanto:Singaporean leader once said its ready to go in militarily to secure our water supply if needed. Is this a threat or what? So much for war rhetorics, Syed Hamid said 'go to war' if Spore is not happy. Spore took dead serious, open mob on sunday, and its shown on TV that we are ready. Come on this is all political mileage thing.
Since the day Malaysia let Singapore 'go'., we already know nobody owes us a living. Whether it oil, water, sand, we got to be resourceful. Can u tell us why did govt take so many decades to built the recycled water plant while the technology is there all along?
The volumes of trade Malaysia had with the outside is tremendous. Its the world no 10 trading partner for US. It is no hermit state like NK. War is last thing they want. -
Contrary to popular opinion, Malaysia isn't the only threat to look out for. The Dragon up north has plenty of muscles to flex. Also, trade and what not didn't stop Sukarno from launching the Konfrontasi. War is often a result of irrational political decisions.Originally posted by qpicanto:Singaporean leader once said its ready to go in militarily to secure our water supply if needed. Is this a threat or what? So much for war rhetorics, Syed Hamid said 'go to war' if Spore is not happy. Spore took dead serious, open mob on sunday, and its shown on TV that we are ready. Come on this is all political mileage thing.
Since the day Malaysia let Singapore 'go'., we already know nobody owes us a living. Whether it oil, water, sand, we got to be resourceful. Can u tell us why did govt take so many decades to built the recycled water plant while the technology is there all along?
The volumes of trade Malaysia had with the outside is tremendous. Its the world no 10 trading partner for US. It is no hermit state like NK. War is last thing they want.
You assume too much. In the face of a tide of nationalism, the possibility of irrational decisions are always there. -
Ya lor.
Cut 20% -
You know a case to point was the Royal Navy. It was too focused at anti-submarine warfare vis a vis the Soviet Union and when it came to the Falklands, it lacked the capability to commit to amphibious and air operations, so much so it had to call upon an old and creaking aircraft carrier and even cargo ships to do the job. Worse, defence cutbacks resulted in destroyers and frigates that actually flammable; one hit from an Exocet sent them flaming because of the flammable Aluminium they were constructed of. I guess that is what you want with our ships?
-
Originally posted by qpicanto:
New Zealand relies on Australia for its air force and other defence needs.
NZ defence spending:
US$ figure
(FY 03/04) $1.147 billion (FY 03/04)
Percent of GDP
(FY03/04) [b]1% (FY 03/04)
--------------
even this is not bare minimum.
New Zealand considers its own national defence needs to be modest, due to its geographical isolation and benign relationships with neighbours.
[/b]
Maybe Singapore should offer to be an off-shore territory of China and rely on China for our defence needs, like Hong Kong?
Hong Kong certainly does not have to spend all these defence dollars. -
If this really accepted by relying on China to defend us, another increase in GST.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:New Zealand relies on Australia for its air force and other defence needs.
Maybe Singapore should offer to be an off-shore territory of China and rely on China for our defence needs, like Hong Kong? Hong Kong certainly does not have to spend all these defence dollars. -
Not to mention a monthly tribute to our new Lords, and good bye Singapore-US FTA and hello US-Singapore hostility.Originally posted by will4:If this really accepted by relying on China to defend us, another increase in GST. -
Singapore? Under China?
-
We don't spend 20% of our budget changing field packs! we upgraded the Bionix because we need our APC to have greater firepower. We need to maintain 40 camps because we to house 350,000 soldiers, active and in reserve. Why do we have to slash our defence budget? why 20%?
".... to help the poor instead" is an old and naive excuse used by slimy politician for their own private agenda.
how do you propose :"to help the poor"? -
True.Originally posted by nismoS132:singapore has 3.6million sheep too.
But you cannot get lamb chops from these sheep. -
While you're at it, you should also ask the government how increasing the GST can help the poor too.Originally posted by sgdiehard:We don't spend 20% of our budget changing field packs! we upgraded the Bionix because we need our APC to have greater firepower. We need to maintain 40 camps because we to house 350,000 soldiers, active and in reserve. Why do we have to slash our defence budget? why 20%?
".... to help the poor instead" is an old and naive excuse used by slimy politician for their own private agenda.
how do you propose :"to help the poor"? -
New Zealand can rely on Australia for its defence need or else New Zealand would be the staging ground for their common enemy to attack Australia.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:New Zealand relies on Australia for its air force and other defence needs.
Maybe Singapore should offer to be an off-shore territory of China and rely on China for our defence needs, like Hong Kong? Hong Kong certainly does not have to spend all these defence dollars.
May be Singapore should offer to be part of Malaysia and Indonesia and rely on them for our defence needs. At least they can offer singaporean refuge when Singapore is under fire
Offering a sovereign country to be an off-shore territory of another country is the work of traitor.!!!! -
can't you see? the PAP government is one of the slimiest polician in this bloody trick!!Originally posted by charlize:While you're at it, you should also ask the government how increasing the GST can help the poor too.