Singapore At War
-
Thats a flawed historical argument... Siam has officially renounced all claims to the 4 northern malay states since the mid-1800s... Burney treaty if my historical knowledge serves me correctly. Furthermore, it was never exactly considered sovereign Siamese territory to begin with... just token overlordship of the Siamese monarch. Any secondary school kid could've told you that.Originally posted by tripwire:... The thais might also look forward to some land 'reclamation' as well... afterall... as history have it... the kingdom of siam (now thailand) owns land as far south as the Perak state of malaysia....
And I'm not at all convinced that Thailand wants to absorb a troublesome Muslim population bigger than one which they already have to their south...
Lets not abuse history now... Any alteration of the status quo in this region through armed actions will be a violation of UN charter chapter VII and depending on who manages to get the UN to its side, the other side is going to get badly mauled...
The only exception Chapter VII allows for is self defence which I sense, is the official position of the SG government as well... It is no longer a pre-emptive strike to disable the enemy, but the capabilities to absorb a first strike and still be able to launch a counter-attack.
Doesn't sound very attractive to me, but I'm not the one setting the rules of engagement... -
Came across an interesting article.
http://www.china-defense.com/commentary/armed_cargo_ships/armed_cargo_ships01.html -
Flush the UN down the toilet lah... everyone knows that UN cant enforce... they pass more resolution than i can count... and most, if not all would not have been enforceable without superpower agreement...Originally posted by CX:Thats a flawed historical argument... Siam has officially renounced all claims to the 4 northern malay states since the mid-1800s... Burney treaty if my historical knowledge serves me correctly. Furthermore, it was never exactly considered sovereign Siamese territory to begin with... just token overlordship of the Siamese monarch. Any secondary school kid could've told you that.
And I'm not at all convinced that Thailand wants to absorb a troublesome Muslim population bigger than one which they already have to their south...
Lets not abuse history now... Any alteration of the status quo in this region through armed actions will be a violation of UN charter chapter VII and depending on who manages to get the UN to its side, the other side is going to get badly mauled...
The only exception Chapter VII allows for is self defence which I sense, is the official position of the SG government as well... It is no longer a pre-emptive strike to disable the enemy, but the capabilities to absorb a first strike and still be able to launch a counter-attack.
Doesn't sound very attractive to me, but I'm not the one setting the rules of engagement...
UN chapter 7?? give me a break... everybody can cry that they are the real victim... just take a look at isreal and palestinians... both sides are screaming that they are the victims... and wat can big butt secretary general do??
last i heard.... he was still busy kowtowing to american for payments just to pay his own salary!! THE UN is little more then a vehicle of convenice for superpowers... and if i have to convince the UN.. i might as well convince the G7... now ... those people really pull the strings.
And so wat if thailand renouce ownership to the northern four states of malaysia?? maharaja still havent give up on the 4 southern thai province to be part of malaysia!! and if there is NO malaysia... those states are gonna need a new ruler..... watever thai promise or vow about those states would hold no water... since malaysia by then no longer exist.
Borders always changes overtime... promise.. treaty.. vows... agreements or watever not... all gets changed over time OR through force of arms... bullet talks... -
the muslim factor... indeed.. i taken that into account... but also the military and political factor...Originally posted by mooncake:this is such an interesting topic you guys are discussing. i've been reading your posts everyday. i'm getting hooked on S'pore & it's military now.
tripwire: your views about indonesia & thailand taking large chunks of malaysia if it is at war with S'pore is very interesting. thailand i would have no doubt will make a move on malaysia but as for indonesia i have second thoughts. you forgot the "muslim" factor. if S'pore is at war with malaysia then won't the population of indonesia rise up to side with their islamic brothers of malaysia?? in fact i'm afraid that much of the entire muslim world would be bent on supporting malaysia! they would be sending funds & arms to help them fight S'pore. & god know's what the savages in both indonesia & malaysia do to the ethnic chinese in those 2 countries. we would see violence directed towards them worse than the anti chinese riots of the 60's & the one's in indonesia in 1997.
IT will goes something like this:
1 Singapore invade malaysia... burn KL .. kill all its ministers.. crush its military.
1A indonesia military contemplate on intervention.. but no enough money... weapon.. ship and planes...
2. singapore send a note to indonesia.... talk money and land.
3. Secret negotiation under the table... plan set.
4. Indonesian govt will whip up strong anti- singapore sentiment in jakarta... vow support for malay brothers... indonesian politician win like mad... windfall man.
5. Singapore theaten to attack east malaysia..
6. Indonesia launch a full scale 'rescue' mission into east malaysia to preempt... further sufferings of their remaining malay muslim brothers from singapore invasion tyranny... indonesian military leaders laugh all the way to kuching....happy like fuck.
7. indonesia vows to protect east malaysia as long as singapore remains in peninsula malaysia (which will be for a long long time)
7A. singapore call off east malaysia invasion out of 'fear' of indonesian 'power'.. indonesian politician and military become hero if not demi-god in the eyes of indonesian.
8. thailand see indonesia win like siao... get jeolous also... many thai politician also want to be call hero... thai nationalism fever reach a peak... before long... thailand also want to talk about the 'kingdom of siam'
9 before long... everyone comes in under a UN broker peace treaty... singapore takes over southern peninsula malaysia.. thailand.. the northern half of peninsula malaysia while indonesia will be the new defender of east malaysia.
see... everyone wins... -
From EZ board..eh.... how the hell malaysia got 5 division??? with less then 100,000 men.. malaysia got 5 division??? if i remember correctly.. malaysia originally only have 3 division with 110,000 men... now they got less man.. yet more division???
then singapore with more then 350,000 men would have at least 25 divisions since each division only have about 13,000 men!!
not bad.... 25 division against 4 division.... so... who u gonna bet on?
AHHHH.... i see ... malaysia playing copycat again!! last time singapore also have 3 division.. the 3rd, 6th and 9th division... malaysia then also have 3 division...
but ... later singapore restructured its division into combined arms division and form 2 additional division... namely the 21st and 25th division...
so... malaysia obviously for the benefit of its moronic population decided to also have 5 division.. least, its people query about how come singapore got 5... but malaysia only got 3!!
malaysia is really a funny country... in fact last time.. when malaysia first gained independence... their govt promoted dozens of colonels and majors to generals including 4 star and 3 star generals OVERNIGHT!! despite the fact that malaysia only have a few bridgade of units then!!.... they sure dont like to loose face....
and just afew years back... the malaysian chief of armed forces an army 4 star general chided the RMAF 3 star general for trying to get one more star on his shoulder when RMAF is only 1/3 the size of RSAF but only have a 2 star general!!
And it was rumored that the RMAF general lamented in return that SAF is 4 times the size of MAF.. but SAF chief of defence force only got 3 star... why MAF chief got 4 star!! -
So far local produced weapons that are public domain knowledge include:Originally posted by mooncake:btw i'm interested in S'pore's indigenious arms industry. but only found bits & pieces about it so far. if anyone has links regarding S'pore local weapon's producing capabilities please post some up here. thanks.
Land Force
----------
1. SAR-21
2. SAR-88
3. SAR-80
4. M16S1
5. Armbrust
6. 84mm Cal Gustav
7. 7.62mm GPMG
8. CIS 0.5m Heavy Machine Gun
9. CIS 40mm AGL
10. Ultimax 100
11. M203 grenade launcher
12. Hand grenade
13. FH-88
14. FH-2000
15. Bionix IFV
16. AMX-13SM1 (modified AMX-13)
17. Modified M113s
Air Force
---------
1. A-4SU (modified A4-S)
2. F-5S (modified of F-5E)
3. S211 (local assembled)
Naval
-----
Most of naval ships except for the MCMV which are built in Sweden but fitted in Singapore. Most lead ships are built in Germany or overseas and the rest in Singapore. The newest Endurance LST are fully designed and produced locally by ST Marine.
===========
These are just a few I put down that I can remember on top of my head. I'm sure there are a lot more. Maybe everyone can join in to add on to the list
-
So you do agree that the UN can be pushed to act IF the superpower prods it to?Originally posted by tripwire:...if not all would not have been enforceable without superpower agreement...
Well then, you had better wait for a Republican president to move into the white house before u start your war 'cos a Democrat will just tell u how concerned they are but they don't wanna get involved.
While I don't necessarily disagree, as u so eloquently put it, that "bullets talk", in my opinion, your analysis seems to only exist in your imagination (no offence meant).
How long has it been since someone forcefully altered the balance of power in THIS region? As far as I can remember, Japan in WW 2 and as far as I can see, China when it develops a deep water navy.
Mental energies are wasted on megalomaniac fantasies. We might as well ponder about how to maintain this balance in our favour rather than planning on how to upset it.
What we need is a Bismark, not a Hitler. -
wat we need is based on the situation... there is never one formula for all situation..Originally posted by CX:So you do agree that the UN can be pushed to act IF the superpower prods it to?
** UN is mere vehicle of convenice... nothing more... for the superpower to play their hands... if the superpower say NO... the whole UN also L.L.
Well then, you had better wait for a Republican president to move into the white house before u start your war 'cos a Democrat will just tell u how concerned they are but they don't wanna get involved.
** Dont bother to wait... if maharaja tries anything funny... he gets it on the spot.
While I don't necessarily disagree, as u so eloquently put it, that "bullets talk", in my opinion, your analysis seems to only exist in your imagination (no offence meant).
** simi imagination?? you must be more creative... dont be a dead log.... or a robot.
How long has it been since someone forcefully altered the balance of power in THIS region? As far as I can remember, Japan in WW 2 and as far as I can see, China when it develops a deep water navy.
** and it will take a creative mind to see us through...
Mental energies are wasted on megalomaniac fantasies. We might as well ponder about how to maintain this balance in our favour rather than planning on how to upset it.
** balance of power always flux and everchanging. he who stick to the old formula... gets swamped by the formula... since CHina is coming south... its high time singapore consider some expansion to ensure future security.
What we need is a Bismark, not a Hitler. -
ARH mk 2
Violent specialist
Posts: 4747
(4/29/02 2:38:54 am)
Reply
Community Supporter
Re: Possible Malaysia-Singapore War
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin warning to Tripfire
If you come up with one more post with such an insulting tone again you will be banned from this forum. It would be a smart move to edit your post again to remove the relevant text.
First and final warning.
-------------------------------------------
LOL -
OK Trip.......I not making fun of you. Nothing personal.
Just trying to say that if this is a moderated forum, you would have been kicked out by moderators (same goes for those RMN-Best and buggers) So just tone down on stuff and avoid abusing "free-speech". It's public domain forum after all and it's open to all eyes in the world.
What I'm trying to tell you guys is let's just be open about things and keep all the insults and stuff to ourselves ok?
Already had enough racist bullshit overseas and don't wanna see Singaporeans having the same bullshit too.
Beat them by action and fact, not by empty words. -
Or childish insults and abuse. It only brings you down to their level.Originally posted by Silenthunter:Beat them by action and fact, not by empty words.
Theres a line between creativity and wishful megalomania. Not only do I think on current strength and balance of forces, it would be impossible to take out such a large chunk of Malaysia by the SAF, it would also be interesting to hear how do you propose to hold on to this chunk you advocate invading, which contains a not insignificant amount of, by dint of ethnicity or otherwise, hostile population.
At the same time while I do agree that the UN is a toothless tiger, I would like to hear your opinions on how to beat the UN trade embargo which is sure to follow a Singapore conquest of Malaysia, with or without Indonesias/Thailands cooperation. Bearing in mind our dependence on external trade to survive. And don't count on the US veto in the UNSC, if the scenario you envisage comes to pass, I'll get down on my knees and thank the stars if the US so much as abstains, not to mention vetos the resolution
BTW CX just disagreed with your argument, was there a need to call him names like "dead log" or "robot"?
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 29 April 2002).] -
Hi Viper and all.
On whether sanctions are inevitable or not, is not so certain. For one thing, if the World construes our pre-emptive strike into Malaysia as a component of self defence as mandated in the UN charter (Israel argued this sucessfully as well) then snactions will not follow from the global community.
Of course we can expect the muslim states to go rabid and stop trade altogether or in degrees less.
But I think here is that our pre-emptive strike must put us on moral high ground. i.e. it has to be take only in the face of impending malaysian military action..and/or in the face of disproportionately aggressive exercises, like the move of substantial land assets to launch points in johor and the increased activity of air patrols and aggressive to-ing and fro-ing on our international borders.
Anyway, i think i can assume quite safely that S'pore's action will always be a strike first mentality, cos by the time we wait till they strike, we'd be in the shits.
Now assuming that the muslim world embargos us, the questio is, will the rest of the western world follow? I sincerely doubt it. The US will once again try to play peacemaker and urge restraint on both sides, while quickly transferring all manner of equipment to us and they will send their pacific fleet near striking distance. I'm sure we will have Israel's vote in any action, as we will have the votes and undoubted sympathies of most of the western world.
I guess it all really depends on how the conflict is painted to be - whether it is one painted as national survival? or one painted as a secular state vs muslims, or a conflict borne out of ensuring our water routes; and depending on how the conflict is played out, the world will react accordingly.
It also depends on how long we are willing to coil the SAF up before unleashing it on malaysia; releasing it too early will not earn us sympathy. Releasing it too late will do us no good.
Ah well.
Pity the footsloggers like myself then -
Hi No Frill, I agree with you on that call. However theres a limit to what construes self-defence in the event of a pre-emptive strike. If the strike were to make limited inroads into opposing territory (the often mentioned "Mersing Line" or a little beyond), and stop there, and make it clear to the world our reasons for the move and pledging not to advance any more, it would make sense. However to follow the previously mentioned plan of going to the extent of occupying the current Peninsular Malaysian states would take the concept of "active self defense" a little far. While we could garner world sympathy for the first course of action(if, and only if we sell it to the world in the right way), even the world's best PR agency would have a lot of difficulty selling the 2nd option.Originally posted by No Frill:Hi Viper and all.
On whether sanctions are inevitable or not, is not so certain. For one thing, if the World construes our pre-emptive strike into Malaysia as a component of self defence as mandated in the UN charter (Israel argued this sucessfully as well) then snactions will not follow from the global community.
Of course we can expect the muslim states to go rabid and stop trade altogether or in degrees less.
But I think here is that our pre-emptive strike must put us on moral high ground. i.e. it has to be take only in the face of impending malaysian military action..and/or in the face of disproportionately aggressive exercises, like the move of substantial land assets to launch points in johor and the increased activity of air patrols and aggressive to-ing and fro-ing on our international borders.
Anyway, i think i can assume quite safely that S'pore's action will always be a strike first mentality, cos by the time we wait till they strike, we'd be in the shits.
Now assuming that the muslim world embargos us, the questio is, will the rest of the western world follow? I sincerely doubt it. The US will once again try to play peacemaker and urge restraint on both sides, while quickly transferring all manner of equipment to us and they will send their pacific fleet near striking distance. I'm sure we will have Israel's vote in any action, as we will have the votes and undoubted sympathies of most of the western world.
I guess it all really depends on how the conflict is painted to be - whether it is one painted as national survival? or one painted as a secular state vs muslims, or a conflict borne out of ensuring our water routes; and depending on how the conflict is played out, the world will react accordingly.
It also depends on how long we are willing to coil the SAF up before unleashing it on malaysia; releasing it too early will not earn us sympathy. Releasing it too late will do us no good.
Ah well.
Pity the footsloggers like myself then
Of course, theres the question of where do we go from there? Do we have the stomach to hold even land up to Mersing, together with the inevitable casualties from an active underground resistance?
The road to war must always be the absolute last resort. There will be no winners and losers in a war between Singapore and Malaysia, just 2 big losers. Which is the very reason why I condemn in no uncertain terms the two-bit politicians and journalists from those rag-sheets who always use the "W" whenever theres a point of dispute, and the uneducated mobs who lap up their every word.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 29 April 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 29 April 2002).] -
Alas Viper, logic and restraint doth come in small quantites in an any political dispute and even if present, logic must bow down to the whim of the maddening crowd.
Experience has shown that govts soldom have no choice to but to initiate war in the face of a determined populace to have one. Sadly or otherwise, it is then the demons who whip up the winds of war that best hold sway and reign in a volatile country and not the more restrained politicians.
Which is why, when push comes to shove, it is not the logic of mutual and utter destruction that will hold us back from the brink of war, but a well armed and oiled SAF that stands as a fierce deterrant.
And if all else fails, then to be a 'thick-green line' between the marauding hordes and our civilisation.
If it does come down to it, ours indeed, will be a fight to the finish, with our national survival and our very way of life hanging on the trigger fingers of our young men and women on the front lines.
And such is the weight of responsibility on our shoulders as NS men and NSFs; something which some posters on this forum tend to quickly forget. -
At a seminar last year with DJOPD, someone brought up a question which is at the heart of the current discussion : ~ The SAF mission is to ~ secure a swift and decisive victory over any aggressor~ what lies after the victory? What constitute a victory? Does it means the total annexation of the enemy territory like what someone mentioned or just partial occupation of a buffer zone?I agree that a total occupation would be a gross overstretch of the SAF capability....would any sane politician want to bear the burden of administering a hostile Malaysia. Then again if it was not a complete defeat, we run the risk of having a sanctuary for resistance and mischief in the North. Example the US policy of non - invasion of North Vietnam was valid from a geopolitical point of view but it led to an impossible war in the south. A continual stream of men and materiel flowed into the South and the North knew that it could wait and outlast the US in a war of attrition. What about the occupation of a buffer zone? Should it come to such, the resumption of peace and normalacy could never be contemplated for a long time. It will remain a festering sore just as the Golan Heights is in Israeli - Syrian relationship? Any occupation would inevitably lead to a certain insurgency campaign. Hence as known by all, the demographics, terrain, defensibility, strategic assets and such of a occupation zone should be carefully consider to minimise the effectiveness of such a campaign, a political engineering campaign set in motion in the occupied territories and troops must be trained in such duties. What if we fall back after teaching the Malaysians a lesson like what the Chinese did in 79 to Vietnam? Who can gurantee that a Malaysian Government reasonable to Singapore will come to power? Will we have a Country having learnt its lesson and willing to seek an accommodation with us or a country bent on revenge? The chinese saying ~ to cut the weed, remove the roots~ ...... All 3 options are fraught with their own dangers and political solutions to
the causes of a war must be found and implemented in the aftermath whoever is the victor
....perharps the best way would be the establishment of a buffer zone policed by ASEAN .... the thought of a ASEAN taking a path to a NATO like organisation is amusing enough
The Israelis faced the same conundrum as us in event of war back in 82. Should the Invade and occupy a buffer zone in Lebanon in clear out the Hizbollah? They made the decision and paid the price. Perharps we should learn from there and draw our conclusions -
What is a victory in our context? I guess that can only mean that we have established a buffer zone of sorts, to be eventually turned into a DMZ, where the malaysians will be unable to effectively threaten us again.
As to what happens, I fear that the evil W word will only lead to a much larger conflict in the far future even if we are 'victorious'. The Germans seethed with resentment for years after WW1 and all it took was a charasmatic leaderlike Hilter to whip them up again to reclaim their lost glory...and launch WW2
Alas, was is never a solution in the long term, but as in all things, a mere short term solution which will be empty if political factors do not come into play. -
My dear Tripwire,
If balance of powers were prone as u claim, to periodic flux and fluctuations, then its not a balance of power; its Balkanisation.
I have no illusions of grandeur of your magnitude and I do not believe it sustainable in the long run nor desirable to achieve in the first place.
So you would have the country fight a war for territorial gains just in case China moves South? That is a point best left alone 'cos I don't wanna touch it with a 50 yard pole.
Fight a war alone and destroy yourself if you want. I do not fight for fascists. -
Dear all, I believe we do have good discussion about the hypothetical scenarios of what if Singapore is attacked and how Singapore should response. I believe we all have thought about this hypothetical scenarios and would draw different conclusions.
I personally feel that we should hope that none of our discussion will ever come to fruition, but if so, SAF will be ready to do its job. Personally, I don't see that crushing our neighbours would be achievable or a viable solution. Singapore, being such a small nation, can't possibly take over the most of Malaysia penisula just as Japan could never take control of the whole of China in WW2. Singapore does not have the size in population to do so.
If it really comes down to having to fight, I think at most creating a buffer zone and plead the US to come to our aid is the only real solution. Just like Australia can never truly defend itself. It could only try to hold out its enemies till the aid comes across the big pond. Hopefully the whole of Australia would not have overrun.
I tend to agree with Solaris with his??her?? analysis. Either Singapore attempts to overrun Malaysia or simply create a buffer zone, Singapore loses. Singapore only wins if it doesn't need to fight at all.
Thus, arming itself sufficiently such that it will never have to fight is perhaps the best policy.
Perhaps we can also learn from the China vs Taiwan situation. If war breaks out everyone stand to lose everything. Everyone only wins when there wars are only fought on papers and through dialogues. my 2 cents -
Originally posted by CX:
What we need is a Bismark, not a Hitler.[/B]Hello CX I see that you too is a fan of Bismarck I agree with his views that war is too important to be just left in the hands of generals....after all war is a complex of military and political objectives. Sometimes to pursue the complete annihilation of an enemy may not be the most desirable goals
If we are not excessive in our demands and believe that we have conquered the world....we will attain a peace that is worth our effort..I have the thankless task ...of making it clear that we don't live alone in Europe but with 3 other Powers who hate and envy us
Bismarck - Prussian Chancellor 6th July 1866
In a hypothetical war in SEA, the reactions of not just our enemy must be consider would they want to see the status quo be disrupted? Better a profitable peace than a pryyhic victory
Sometimes I wonder, in the event of a war, would the political power of the SAF be expended and it be included in the making of political decisions in the war? It will be interesting to imagine a scenario where the SAF leadership evolved into something similar to that of the German General Staff prior to the First World War.....
CX - remember the danger a Bismarck faces from the challenges of a Von Motlke Personally i dread the day when the SAF begins to entertain political ambitions like that of the TNI
just some random thought and my 1 cents worth
By the way Joe Black, hahahaha I like women and I am not a lesbian ....what does that says about my gender -
kindly kick my butts if you wish... if you are the admin... i dont give a shit about not being able to post on a censored forum... *BLEAH*Originally posted by Silenthunter:ARH mk 2
Violent specialist
Posts: 4747
(4/29/02 2:38:54 am)
Reply
Community Supporter
Re: Possible Malaysia-Singapore War -
Originally posted by Viper52:Or childish insults and abuse. It only brings you down to their level.
*** as if i give a damn about their views.... who are they to me?
Theres a line between creativity and wishful megalomania. Not only do I think on current strength and balance of forces, it would be impossible to take out such a large chunk of Malaysia by the SAF, it would also be interesting to hear how do you propose to hold on to this chunk you advocate invading, which contains a not insignificant amount of, by dint of ethnicity or otherwise, hostile population.
*** obviously its not gonna be a piece of cake or a walk in the park... if it is... we wont need to be creative... just learn from uncle sam.... they have tons of ideas up their sleeves in dealing with their adverseries... i am not saying that all their ideas is applicable.. but one can see.. that... when push come to shove... the leaders must bite the bullet and push forth... no point crying for help... and though we may never win all the time... the important thing is that .. we will never give up against a foe... we must stand our ground... we will not be cower into submission. so wat if their population is hostile??? you mean we should kowtow to them because our country is smaller??
At the same time while I do agree that the UN is a toothless tiger, I would like to hear your opinions on how to beat the UN trade embargo which is sure to follow a Singapore conquest of Malaysia, with or without Indonesias/Thailands cooperation. Bearing in mind our dependence on external trade to survive. And don't count on the US veto in the UNSC, if the scenario you envisage comes to pass, I'll get down on my knees and thank the stars if the US so much as abstains, not to mention vetos the resolution
*** trade embargo??... come on.... if everything you do... you scare of this and that... you might as well dig a hole in the ground and stick your head in it! but of course... it will be foolish to stand in harm's way....
*** by your reasoning... we might as well disband SAF and hand our country over!! but obviously we wont be so foolish as to take on the whole fucking world!! not even USA will contemplate such an idiotic move..
*** but when you got to do it... you just have to do it... there are too many uncontrollable factors involve... we have to fight and move and think and resolve the problem as it comes along... since when everything will turn out 100% as anticipated!!?? the key thing is courage.. creativity and confidence... or else you might as well line up and suck maharaja's balls whenever he crys for war.
*** not everything will work out as we wish.... in fact.. we might even loose the war... but the key point is to fight for our rights... even if the whole world is against us... obviously, as a small nation... we would hope the world stood behind us... but if that cannot be guaranteed... we must still stand and fight... else singapore will disappear...
*** while i never liked the palestinians one bit... i must admit.. they kept fighting and fighting and fightning.... they do have the courage that i respect ... though not the intellect which they lack.
*** in the world of geopolitics... nothing is forever... friends becomes enemies and enemies could become friends...
BTW CX just disagreed with your argument, was there a need to call him names like "dead log" or "robot"?
*** nope... my apologies... all i wish is that he could be more confident.
[This message has been edited by Viper52 (edited 29 April 2002).] -
sorry viper... i cannot agreed with limited offense... to me... that could easily become a singapore version of vietnam... those malaysian are not gonna give up... they are gonna keep fighting and fighting... and as long as they have a base to operate from and a pool of population to draw from... i fear that a war of attrition would eventually doom us...Originally posted by Viper52:Hi No Frill, I agree with you on that call. However theres a limit to what construes self-defence in the event of a pre-emptive strike. If the strike were to make limited inroads into opposing territory (the often mentioned "Mersing Line" or a little beyond), and stop there, and make it clear to the world our reasons for the move and pledging not to advance any more, it would make sense. However to follow the previously mentioned plan of going to the extent of occupying the current Peninsular Malaysian states would take the concept of "active self defense" a little far. While we could garner world sympathy for the first course of action(if, and only if we sell it to the world in the right way), even the world's best PR agency would have a lot of difficulty selling the 2nd option.
Of course, theres the question of where do we go from there? Do we have the stomach to hold even land up to Mersing, together with the inevitable casualties from an active underground resistance?
The road to war must always be the absolute last resort. There will be no winners and losers in a war between Singapore and Malaysia, just 2 big losers. Which is the very reason why I condemn in no uncertain terms the two-bit politicians and journalists from those rag-sheets who always use the "W" whenever theres a point of dispute, and the uneducated mobs who lap up their every word.
isreal tried that with lebanon, china against vietnam and USA in vietnam as well.. even vietnam too when it invaded cambodia, all discovered the foolishness of fighting a half fuck war....
my idea is to move in fast.. very fast... so fast that malaysia has no time to react.. we will take over all potential war material and control its population... true it will stretch our resouces.. but only then can we ensure that:
1. we are in an umovable strong position when it comes to negotiation..
2. we would prevent a vietnam coming to fruition.
3. by preventing the other side from regrouping and attack us... we in fact help to reduce unneccessary casualty on both side... and limit the number of deaths to the bare minimum possible....
i believe that... the minute SAF step onto malaysian soil... we can more or less be sure that the muslim nations are gonna clamour for war against us... AND if we dont take out the entire malaysia fast enough... i would fear the day when muslim war materials and troops starts to land on penang or kedah... the consequences would be extremely severe....
Furthermore... as long as MAF still controls ports to the west of peninsula malaysia... indonesian reinforcement could land with impunity... that will be double bad news for us....
SAF is a NS force... much of its men are NSmen... we have no resources in singapore and we cannot go on a war footing indefinitely...
Malaysia knew that too damn well.. they know that time is on their side... and for everyday they drag singapore into a war... they draw closer to victory....
thus we cannot allow a drawn out war.... we need to move in fast... end it fast... dissect malaysia up and make sure the malaysian national anthem stays in the museum permanently... its a fight of survival... only one flag will continue to face the wind...the other one will be six feet underground.
Lastly... as far as i see it... global opinions are not gonna be changed much by whether we take over the whole of malaysia or part of malaysia.... those moronic news reporters will just keep churning out stories faster then print machine can roll...
and the longer we drag this war... the more unpredictable the outcomes become... we have little time to spare.....
oh... one more point... only by threatening the enemy that if they should choose war against singapore... they cannot expect to live to fight another day in the future... would the enemy think twice about taking on SAF...
Else... they might think they would rise again and again and again... like some undying lich....
to that end... i applause the SAF doctrine calling for victory over the enemy.. but nebber spell out wat SAF consider as victory... this would make singapore enemy to think of the worst possibility.... that SAF will do to them... and it prevents the enemy from coming up with a plan to counter SAF victory condition.
[This message has been edited by tripwire (edited 29 April 2002).] -
its ok... we are all pretty bad when it comes to future predictions...Originally posted by CX:My dear Tripwire,
If balance of powers were prone as u claim, to periodic flux and fluctuations, then its not a balance of power; its Balkanisation.
I have no illusions of grandeur of your magnitude and I do not believe it sustainable in the long run nor desirable to achieve in the first place.
So you would have the country fight a war for territorial gains just in case China moves South? That is a point best left alone 'cos I don't wanna touch it with a 50 yard pole.
Fight a war alone and destroy yourself if you want. I do not fight for fascists.
though my plan may seen out of touch... but sometimes... even more unbelievable stuffs can happen.... dont take my invasion of malaysia too serously... i would not want to go to war... if i had a BETTER option..
welcome to the real world of realpolitik... where the unbelievable is happening every minutes....
[This message has been edited by tripwire (edited 29 April 2002).] -
Well, i think victory as I defined earlier can only mean a limited occupation of malaysia rather than a full blown crushing of malaysia in total.
I mean, pushing them back far enough so as to create a physical buffer is one thing; occupying their entire country is another.
And really, I for one sincerely doubt that there is such a thing a 'totally crushing a population' so that they will not rise like 'an itch' again in the future.
Unless you are talking about the sort of destruction that the allies and the Russians visited on the Germans - leading to the total and physical destruction of everything that was German...then maybe there is a point to the madness.
But can anyone here ever envisage such an act from S'pore being committed to Malaysia?
I mean, I surely would be open to the idea that if we somehow destroyed every single iota of malaysian infrastructure and we could control the populace, then sure, sign me up and I'd gladly do the destruction - cos I would know that there is a tangible result to be obtained.
But, history has shown that the total destruction of a country ensures nothing, not the security which we crave so much.
And how are we to do something like that? We have no nukes, no strategic bombers, no WMD to ensure something like that, even if we wanted to. And thus to send in waves after waves of our soldiers to fight a politically blind war with no definite purpose is a horrible and unproductive solution.
Our economy will fall to ruin while we attempt to put down a possiblly hostile population, with no intention of submitting. Moreover, we'd lose all the moral high ground of acting in self defence if we over stay our assault. The Vietnamese were seen as 'peaceful intervenors' in 1979 in Cambodia, but then they, er, sort of like overstayed for 10 years! and they lost whatever moral mandate they started with (though i think that too was a glib lie) Further Vietnam became tied down in attritional guerilla warfare which drained their economy dry.
So i guess the only possible solution is a limited offensive aimed at carving out a huge hole in their country; then to fight a holding battle or in the worst case, a retrograde operation over a few weeks, to give time for the UN to act.
I do wistfully wish that yes, perhaps that we still lived in the lands of yore, where we as conquering hordes can sweep over the enemy's land and destroy evernthing that displeases us in our path, subjugate their populace and crush all resistance. But sigh, this unfortunate little blimp called international law has put a dent in such ambitions -
Hello TripwireOriginally posted by tripwire:sorry viper... i cannot agreed with limited offense... to me... that could easily become a singapore version of vietnam... those malaysian are not gonna give up... they are gonna keep fighting and fighting... and as long as they have a base to operate from and a pool of population to draw from... i fear that a war of attrition would eventually doom us...
isreal tried that with lebanon, china against vietnam and USA in vietnam as well.. even vietnam too when it invaded cambodia, all discovered the foolishness of fighting a half fuck war....
my idea is to move in fast.. very fast... so fast that malaysia has no time to react.. we will take over all potential war material and control its population... true it will stretch our resouces.. but only then can we ensure that:
1. we are in an umovable strong position when it comes to negotiation..
2. we would prevent a vietnam coming to fruition.
3. by preventing the other side from regrouping and attack us... we in fact help to reduce unneccessary casualty on both side... and limit the number of deaths to the bare minimum possible....
i believe that... the minute SAF step onto malaysian soil... we can more or less be sure that the muslim nations are gonna clamour for war against us... AND if we dont take out the entire malaysia fast enough... i would fear the day when muslim war materials and troops starts to land on penang or kedah... the consequences would be extremely severe....
Furthermore... as long as MAF still controls ports to the west of peninsula malaysia... indonesian reinforcement could land with impunity... that will be double bad news for us....
SAF is a NS force... much of its men are NSmen... we have no resources in singapore and we cannot go on a war footing indefinitely...
Malaysia knew that too damn well.. they know that time is on their side... and for everyday they drag singapore into a war... they draw closer to victory....
thus we cannot allow a drawn out war.... we need to move in fast... end it fast... dissect malaysia up and make sure the malaysian national anthem stays in the museum permanently... its a fight of survival... only one flag will continue to face the wind...the other one will be six feet underground.
[This message has been edited by tripwire (edited 29 April 2002).]
Your points are valids. It is a hopeless situation isnt it the aftermath of a war for the SAF..... full occupation and be damned...partial occupation and be damned. My question would be: what lies after full annexation of Malaysia?