National Service for Malaysia
-
Oh well... Have to bear in mine that those troops are German infantrymen though... some of the most professional and finest foot troops known in WW2.
-
No doubt some of them are veteran troops. Under-strengthed veteran units that were sent from the Eastern front to recuperate. Most of them were above the age of 35. They didn't have much logistics support, hardly any vehicles. Ammunition was drawn via donkeys etc. The Germans on the western front were seriously lacking support of any kind. Regardless, that amount of bravery is rather unmatched.
-
One small note to Atobe: The "poisonous prawn" doctrine was discarded sometime early in the nineties. That old doctrine meant that we would aim to have the forces to fight a long battle but eventually lose, exacting a tremendous toll on the opponent in the meantime. In a sense, we were "planning to lose"
Our current doctrine is to train and build up enough strength to reliably *win* a limited war. We intend to be able to completely defeat the armed forces of any potential aggressor, possibly even if we allow them to attack us first (which is good diplomatically but bad militarily). However, we do not aim to have enough force to occupy or annex the aggressor in return (which is likely impossible considering our conscript nature). This new strategic doctrine shapes our defense procurement, force structure, manpower policies and combat doctrines.
For more details, read the excellent book: Defending the Lion City by Tim Huxley. -
I think Joe Black made a very valid & serious point. Though I personally think that their NS plans might be driven more by strategic decision to handle internal concerns, the probability of having someone mentally screwed up in his head (potential terrorist wannabe) & receiving BMT is really a very dangerous potential backfire that few can effectively control cos nobody can really see whos screwed up inside their heads from the outside.
However, I think that the move may actually benefit SG a little indirectly also. Personally, I believe that if our neighbour really go ahead wif their plan, prehaps quite a significant number of their population would then choose to come here.
And since we got quite selective criterias that only allow the cream of the crop to come, this new influx is likely to bring with them assets such as funds or biz contacts & opportunities into Singapore. Through this phenomena, we might actually emerge as a more economically powerful nation than we currently are. Just think, if we have their top industrialists here, we might then have access to previously unknown detailed knowledge of their domestic market conditions, the whereabouts of natural mineral rich resource locations, etc...
-
Well, to name one for your consideration; try those jokers up north for a start.Originally posted by WaLker:do u think any country in this region dare to wage war on others?
obviously none, why the hell behave so aggresive.
PEACE man, we want PEACE!!!!!
Dr M has suggested serveral times.
I'm sure this has crossed their mind many times in the past. In view of their recent military purchases, these could give a false impression to those jokers that they are on par wih our SAF and might just be stupid enough to make a miscalculated move that might just result in a war.
No one with a right mind wants a war. But all we need is a brainless dreamer to let the hell loose. -
read my entire post damnit!Originally posted by Shotgun:U missed the point also. The point is, are our men willing to fight to the end SHOULD the circumstances arise.
The Major did not charge foolishly to die like the stupid japs. He gathered remaining forces, and skillfully struck at the rear of the Canadian forces. Ultimately taking the command tent. His under-strengthed unit had already lasted longer than normal. His actions bought ther Germans the crucial time needed to form a crude defensive line. By charging the command tent, he had halted an armored rush deep into France.
If called for, are we even brave enough to fight so tenaciously?
they will be motivated by self-interest to fight! u think all those "quitters" or those who claims that they'll run away at the first sign of trouble will do so?
even if they had they monetary means, i doubt if they could suddenly sprout wings and FLY... u really think the gov't is dumb enough to allow an exodus just when they need the men to fight?
once u're forced to stay, u can either fight or die. THAT's what motivates soldiers to fight at the end of the day.
the bottom ine therefore, is not whether soldiers are brave enough to fight tenaciously to protect their homeland, but whether they're cowardly and stupid enough to just sit there and let the enemy use them for target practice.
i honestly do not see surrendering to a bunch of rabid malaysians to be a viable option when there is a fair chance that u could tear them to pieces and toss their remains into the gutter.
i, as well as many others have said this before: better to fight to the death than live on your knees.
the alternative to destroying the enemy is the enemy breaking into your house, burning it down and killing, possibly raping your mother, sister, wife and daughter.
-
I understand what you mean. But please examine the situation of the german soldiers i mentioned. They knew that their final raid on the Canadian command tent was gonna be suicide. So they were not fighting for their own survival and definitely not a case of fight or die.
In this case, your "fight or die" theory was simply not there. They were fighting for their national existence. So will WE fight for our national existence, at the price of OUR lives?
Roosevelt made an astonishing proclamation January 24th casablanca conference, calling for Germany's unconditional surrender. Which means they no longer had the option to surrender, remove hitler from power, and perhaps bargain for leniency. Played by the propaganda master, Goebbels, the german troops were fighting for their national existence, and not for Hitler anymore.
Somewhere along the line, the mentality changed. Each individual fought for each other, and together they fought for their national existence, from an enemy that would not stop until their country was gone. -
irreguardless whether one fights to stay alive... or one fights for a higher ideal or simply out of desire to protect wat the individual might hold dearest to them... such as family, friends, comrades or even nations... or perhaps even religion or political views....Originally posted by Shotgun:I understand what you mean. But please examine the situation of the german soldiers i mentioned. They knew that their final raid on the Canadian command tent was gonna be suicide. So they were not fighting for their own survival and definitely not a case of fight or die.
In this case, your "fight or die" theory was simply not there. They were fighting for their national existence. So will WE fight for our national existence, at the price of OUR lives?
Roosevelt made an astonishing proclamation January 24th casablanca conference, calling for Germany's unconditional surrender. Which means they no longer had the option to surrender, remove hitler from power, and perhaps bargain for leniency. Played by the propaganda master, Goebbels, the german troops were fighting for their national existence, and not for Hitler anymore.
Somewhere along the line, the mentality changed. Each individual fought for each other, and together they fought for their national existence, from an enemy that would not stop until their country was gone.
Ultimately... when one is on the field.... one will fight... those who dont... are already dead,... those who refuse or think otherwise.. will soon join the rank of the dead pretty soon... leaving only those with the will to fight to continue... the fight..
However... war... have a tendency to have a life of its own... and once the war rages on beyond a certain threshold.... war becomes unstoppable diplomatically... and could be only resolved through either force of arms or through the annihilation of the enemy force...
there are 2 points i wish to make...
1... singapore NSmen will fight... cos there is no other alternatives... its a case of kill or be killed... take your pick...
2... malaysian NS system are still in concept stage... its hardly correct to even assume that it will be as elaborate as singapore's NS system even if their NS takes off the ground.. assuming that they can bear the cost of such a system...
One must understand that the cost of NS is very very high.... for a country like malaysia having a GNP lower then singapore and a population 7 times singapore size... plus all those stupid NEP and watever nought stupid fund drainning policies of UMNO... they will need money trees all over malaysia to support an NS like singapore...
To add snow to the ice... they already have a 130,000 strong force that they have been paying for...
In short... their defence expenditure will bankrupt them way before singapore SAF even got a chance to knock it out...
Mahatir love to shoot his ass hole off one... i will wait and see... how he intends to pay for all those expenditures.... bend over every minute???
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Somewhere along the line, the mentality changed. Each individual fought for each other, and together they fought for their national existence, from an enemy that would not stop until their country was gone.[/quote]
Roosevelt made an astonishing proclamation January 24th casablanca conference, calling for Germany's unconditional surrender. Which means they no longer had the option to surrender, remove hitler from power, and perhaps bargain for leniency. Played by the propaganda master, Goebbels, the german troops were fighting for their national existence, and not for Hitler anymore.
isn't this precisely my point? they knew that they've pissed off the russians real bad and they're now coming for revenge. roosevelt has stated clearly that only unconditional surrender was acceptable to the allies and the germans, having run themselves into a corner, now had to fight to the death because an existential threat is looming at their doorstep.
this would be similar to what Sg might face in the unfortunate event of war. either we apply ruthlessly forward defence capabilities to bring them to their knees before they have a chance to make a move or they'll come in here u can ponder on the consequences of that in your free time.
to be honest, nothing motivates an army more than victory or existential threat of defeat. its the more nuanced "in between" stages of an armed conflict that might complicate things.
what are the war aims? its not fighting the war thats important. that's clear and easy enough. its ending it that's the ultimate challenge. -
If i have to choose between kill or be killed. I choose kill.Originally posted by tripwire:1... singapore NSmen will fight... cos there is no other alternatives... its a case of kill or be killed... take your pick.
For the bros out here what is your choice. -
Kill.Originally posted by want to know:If i have to choose between kill or be killed. I choose kill.
For the bros out here what is your choice.