What if...we do so much NS and Singapore never gets invaded?
-
wat u CANT DEFEND , u DONT OWN.... haha
-
Another way of saying this is..... because of NS that is why Spore didn't get invaded.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:2 years per human...
counting the opportunity cost of average yearly GDP of 38,000
if Singapore has 600,000 people who went through NS...
Then it would be almost 1,200,000 years x 76,000 of lost income for singapore.. -
Derfel thinks thinger ate too many MacDonalds and became Yankee sh!t and thinger belongs to part of the few more stupid and retarded than Derfel himself.Originally posted by thinger:thinger thinks Derfel is a stupid, uneducated freak that wants to be a Pommy because technically, "The Shits" can be spelt both diarrhoea as well as diarrhea, the latter being Yankee.
thinger, on having travelled to 3rd world countries as a UN peacekeeper in his dreams, can forgive Derfel for overlooking such a thing, as there are a few, but not many, people more stupid and retarded than Derfel himself.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
Honestly, why be a monkey & do what others do with respect to military trainning?Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Okay, let's take look at this:
Only Israel has a programme more intense than ours, 3 years for men and 2 for women, and the ever-present security concerns make it necessary. In Russia, where they have Cechnya it's also 2 years for men.
As more countries which do enjoy some of the peace we do, Germans do 10 months while Estonians do 6. Malaysians do about the same. They may have different objectives for NS but surely defence must also feature prominently. Yes, we don't have a big enough professional army, but do we actually need 2 years to train people for the job?
We do not have any conflicts at the moment. In fact, if anything, our relationships with other countries are on the up in general, save for the China and Tawan incidents. I know things can turn sour without warning but can we take a closer look at what other countries are doing?
2 years is a significant amount of time, lads here take 2 more years to settle down in their careers. Many probably choose to marry and have children after they make sure their careers are stable. Hence they might have fewer children...and it comes full circle and the pool of civilian soldiers/workers shrinks.
I don't believe we can attract enough PRs to make up for the shortfall and simultaneously, people will continue to leave the country for various reasons (cost of living, culture, work postings, etc) in spite of the ugly things that can happen overseas. I don't think we can do very much about this, thus we need to relook NS. We cannot do without it, but can we shorten it further?
Would you prefer the lads have to serve as monks as part of National service like the Thais do?
2years from the perspective of a non-military individual is a very significant amount of time but from a military trainer, its like given 2 days to train boys to become soldiers.
If you've been updating on the current situations in A'stan & Iraq, you'll know that there are many more lessons to learn on how to survive a conflict of different enviroment including terrorism.
Whether an individual is able to make a difference in the growth of the population depends soley on the individual himself as to how he handles his own life. What would you advice if the individual is impotant due to any significant reasons?
Its also rediculars to assosicate individuals migrating because of the length of national service. Are you saying that the Germans don't immigrate from Germany because they've got shorter national service?
To shortern your national service, might as well not serve & out-source your country's defence to some private military company like Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc.
-
Really what does eatting too many MacDonalds have to do with an individual becoming a Yankee shit?Originally posted by Derfel:Derfel thinks thinger ate too many MacDonalds and became Yankee sh!t and thinger belongs to part of the few more stupid and retarded than Derfel himself.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Isn't this threading on being racist? -
You said it.... two years from a civillian point of view is too much, while two years from a military point of view is too little.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Okay, let's take look at this:
Only Israel has a programme more intense than ours, 3 years for men and 2 for women, and the ever-present security concerns make it necessary. In Russia, where they have Cechnya it's also 2 years for men.
As more countries which do enjoy some of the peace we do, Germans do 10 months while Estonians do 6. Malaysians do about the same. They may have different objectives for NS but surely defence must also feature prominently. Yes, we don't have a big enough professional army, but do we actually need 2 years to train people for the job?
We do not have any conflicts at the moment. In fact, if anything, our relationships with other countries are on the up in general, save for the China and Tawan incidents. I know things can turn sour without warning but can we take a closer look at what other countries are doing?
2 years is a significant amount of time, lads here take 2 more years to settle down in their careers. Many probably choose to marry and have children after they make sure their careers are stable. Hence they might have fewer children...and it comes full circle and the pool of civilian soldiers/workers shrinks.
I don't believe we can attract enough PRs to make up for the shortfall and simultaneously, people will continue to leave the country for various reasons (cost of living, culture, work postings, etc) in spite of the ugly things that can happen overseas. I don't think we can do very much about this, thus we need to relook NS. We cannot do without it, but can we shorten it further?
The thing is, there has to be some sort of a compromise. There must be sufficient time allocated to make sure our NSmen are competent and lethal enough if and when the sh*t hits the fan and we are forced into war. At the same time, it has to be short enough such that the lives of the guys are not too disrupted.
FYI, I was the last batch who got 2 1/2 years of pure sh*t. And I was also an A Level student whose life and studies got extremely disrupted all thanks to NS. I forced myself to revise my A Level notes just before I ORD.... and even then, uni life is an uphill struggle all thanks to those two and a half years of learning how to kill and maim other young men.
I also see my female classmates from Sec 4/ JC all progressing very far in their lives. A couple of girls who went overseas have already gotten their Honours, while some are already engaged. Heck, one of them is already married. It breaks my heart to see how far ahead they are.
I know it stinks to have your life disrupted by something you don't really want to do, but see it this way: someone has to do it, and that person is you.
So don't complain so much about the length...... the government is already nice enough to shorten it by six months. -
the.raven dont care about your meaningless metaphors. nevermore!!Originally posted by thinger:Much thinger marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore
thinger thinks that the.raven should shut his pie hole and fly off to the Night's Plutonian shore.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
do we actually need 2 years to train people for the job?
I'm speaking based on my Arty experience, & noting that other Formations may have different timetables.
1stly, IMO it's myopic to think NS training only in terms of active time - what do you think reservists do during in-camp? FWIW The enlisted junior commanders only assume full-time control of the COY-level appointments & above after ORD, after playing 2nd fiddle to regulars & scholars during the conscript period. Believe me, the 1st 2 ICTs or so is as much of a collective growing process as when NSF, albeit with a different leadership (but still hierarchial) style.
2ndly, 2 base years of active time meant only 18 months of operational status for us, centered around the mono-intakers (after their 3 months each of BMT & vocational training) cuz they form the main body of the unit.
The NCOs were posted in as 9-month vets, following their own BMT-SAFINCO-SOAY courses, to oversee the mono-intakers' vocational training.
The officers were posted in as 12-month vets (same enlistment time as the NCOs), following their BMT-OCS-SOAY courses, after the mono-intakers have finished their vocational training.
The other "other ranks" - signallers, medics, etc. - were posted in as 6-month vets (same enlistment time as the mono-intakers), following their BMT-Training School courses.
Under this system, the whole unit got to ORD together at the same time, except for of course the Air Level other ranks (like me) who had to serve an extra half-year more.
Is 18 months excessive in unit training time? Without giving too much away, I can say we trained for 2 FATEPs at separate times (to gain REDCON status) & it was a BN-level proficiency test. That meant roughly 3-4 months of BTY- & then BN-level field exercises as a gradual build-up each time around. Of course, there's also standby duties & individual weapon trainings & attachments to provide live firing for infantry units, along with SAF parades & exhibitions, all of which must also be crammed into the active-time timetable.
Honestly, I thought the most we could cut back on NS then was by 3 months, which that would've called for the unit to ORD immediately after its 2nd FATEP. The unit could probably live with that scenario - 13-year reservist cycle to look forward to - but is that enough for NSF officers to get their LTA rank & regulars/scholars to chalk up adequate time spent with a frontline unit? Both for the latter: No. -
JC:Originally posted by John Ching:Honestly, why be a monkey & do what others do with respect to military trainning?
Would you prefer the lads have to serve as monks as part of National service like the Thais do?
2years from the perspective of a non-military individual is a very significant amount of time but from a military trainer, its like given 2 days to train boys to become soldiers.
If you've been updating on the current situations in A'stan & Iraq, you'll know that there are many more lessons to learn on how to survive a conflict of different enviroment including terrorism.
Whether an individual is able to make a difference in the growth of the population depends soley on the individual himself as to how he handles his own life. What would you advice if the individual is impotant due to any significant reasons?
Its also rediculars to assosicate individuals migrating because of the length of national service. Are you saying that the Germans don't immigrate from Germany because they've got shorter national service?
To shortern your national service, might as well not serve & out-source your country's defence to some private military company like Blackwater, Dyncorp, etc.
-I'm not advocating "monkey see, monkey do." I advocate taking a critical view of why people in some other countries don't need such intense NS. What works for them may not work for us if taken wholesale but can we pick up a few things here and there?
-I said people emmigrate for various reasons. I said we cannot rely on PRs to make up the numbers because of this. It was not an attempt to pinpoint a relationship between emigration and NS.
-Whether a person goes to uni, looks for work after NS with a diploma, etc, he would have done it 2 years earlier if not for NS. Libido and its lack thereof plays no part in this discourse.
This is not the place for you to vent your frustrations or be sarcastic. Please do it in one of the trolls' threads instead.
Fudge:Originally posted by Fudgester:You said it.... two years from a civillian point of view is too much, while two years from a military point of view is too little.
The thing is, there has to be some sort of a compromise. There must be sufficient time allocated to make sure our NSmen are competent and lethal enough if and when the sh*t hits the fan and we are forced into war. At the same time, it has to be short enough such that the lives of the guys are not too disrupted.
FYI, I was the last batch who got 2 1/2 years of pure sh*t. And I was also an A Level student whose life and studies got extremely disrupted all thanks to NS. I forced myself to revise my A Level notes just before I ORD.... and even then, uni life is an uphill struggle all thanks to those two and a half years of learning how to kill and maim other young men.
I also see my female classmates from Sec 4/ JC all progressing very far in their lives. A couple of girls who went overseas have already gotten their Honours, while some are already engaged. Heck, one of them is already married. It breaks my heart to see how far ahead they are.
I know it stinks to have your life disrupted by something you don't really want to do, but see it this way: someone has to do it, and that person is you.
So don't complain so much about the length...... the government is already nice enough to shorten it by six months.
Thanks for the frank opinion (sincerely
).
You and JC point out that 2 years is still very short from a military perspective (but perhaps enough for us to sleep soundly at night). So my question is: If the people in Germany, Estonia, Chile, et al for whatever reason need to fall back on their civilian soldiers, would they fare miserably or have they been trained adequately (objectively and from our perspective)? -
what if u buy accident insurance but u never kena accident? u gonna sue them ah?
-
If the people in Germany, Estonia, Chile, et al for whatever reason need to fall back on their civilian soldiers, would they fare miserably or have they been trained adequately (objectively and from our perspective)?
Not the ideal way to view at this issue; most experts would consider something like % of GNP spent on the military instead. I dunno about Chile, but Germany's active forces probably number all of ours (both active & reservist) & Estonia is still a relatively-new small country with a Big Brother for a neighbor & whom many share common Russian ethnicity.
S'pore's uniqueness is that we consider our NSmen frontline troops under the Total Defence umbrella; even Asian countries like South Korea & Taiwan don't have that emphasis. The SAF's even awarded high-command promotions based on that assumption (i.e. not battle-tested). Is that ultimately foolish? To the cynics, maybe. But from the training front, we're generally attained a proficiency level that's as good as it gets - cuz acquiring REDCON status isn't easy to come by. True individual courage is another matter, but in terms of conventional-warfare skills we can hold our own as any citizen army out there, certainly the most experienced within South-East Asia. -
better to have a national defence capability when u don't need it than having NONE when u need it right?
-
thinger thanks Derfel for letting the world that he cannot spell and has bad grammar.Originally posted by Derfel:Derfel thinks thinger ate too many MacDonalds and became Yankee sh!t and thinger belongs to part of the few more stupid and retarded than Derfel himself.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Firstly, thinger, and the dictionary, both agree that you cannot eat too MANY, but you can eat too MUCH.
Secondly, thinger is sure that Ronald would be pissed off with Derfel spelling his last name wrong.
Last, it's nice to know that Derfel just acknowledged the fact that he is both stupid and retarded.
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
thinger thinks the.raven finds edgar allan poe's metaphors meaningless because he lacks a brain.Originally posted by the.raven:the.raven dont care about your meaningless metaphors. nevermore!!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
Derfel is always right and so thinger is wrong.Originally posted by thinger:thinger thanks Derfel for letting the world that he cannot spell and has bad grammar.
Firstly, thinger, and the dictionary, both agree that you cannot eat too MANY, but you can eat too MUCH.
Secondly, thinger is sure that Ronald would be pissed off with Derfel spelling his last name wrong.
Last, it's nice to know that Derfel just acknowledged the fact that he is both stupid and retarded.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
KB, honestly whether Singapore 'boys' have to serve 2 years or more really doesn't affect me in anyway, so if I sounded like I was venting my anger, its likely a miss perception.Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Fudge:
Thanks for the frank opinion (sincerely).
You and JC point out that 2 years is still very short from a military perspective (but perhaps enough for us to sleep soundly at night). So my question is: If the people in Germany, Estonia, Chile, et al for whatever reason need to fall back on their civilian soldiers, would they fare miserably or have they been trained adequately (objectively and from our perspective)?
With regards to Germany & Estonia, they do have a permanent military force capable of defending Germany or Estonia as & when needed. However, Germany & Estonia choses to have conscription programe also. Chile do have a permanent military force. When you address them as civilian soldiers, it sounds like the militia that fought the U.S military in A'stan. Look at that result even though its not over.
For Germany, if they are ever needed on the frontline, their conscripts will be mixed among their more experience & better train comrades. To compare Germany to Singapore would be wrong as Singapore has no permanent soldiers to be mixed among the conscripts when needed.
My personal views is that if you're considering to have a shortern service in the military, you've got to be certain that the National security of the country is not compromised in anyway. It may seem selfish of your government asking 2 years of your youth to go through trainning that you'll probably never ever get to use but if you were to look at it from a wider perspective, you'll see that Singapore's defence relies solely on its citizerns. So if your civilian soldiers are not at least trained to a acceptable standard, who are you going to count on? The U.S or U.N? Hmm! -
think for this question instead
what happen is there is war and we dun have ns b4 that... -
The fact of the matter is that Derfel is obviously gay.Originally posted by Derfel:Derfel is always right and so thinger is wrong.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Ha! Ha! Ha! -
hmmm...here an i on my off day from the troubles of driving NS snipers around when i come across some thread that says national service is unnesscesary? (sorrie bad spelling)
sbsk....i seem to remember that name being flame for a rather long time some months ago for a comment suprisingly similar to the one u just wrote....maybe u should save everybodys time and go reread those treads?
it might jar your memory a little and hopefully help you become a better man?
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger right? haha...
anyhow something i remember from one of the flames (sorrie i cannot seem to remember who wrote it but this credit goes to u )
Quote
its because of people like us going thru shit and arrows in the army that those people can afford to sit at the coffee shops or infront of the computer such as yourself talking about if serving the nation is a waste of time
end quote
now back to watching Naruto episope 114 (again sorrie for the wrong spelling)
ps the quote might have been wrongly rememebered but its close enough to the original -
Haha... reading thru this thread can separate the boys from those who've done NS.
Myself at last year of active Reservise (Yr going 'sell by' date soon. My NSF was 2.5 years, went thru BMT, SAFINCOS (then), ITD instructor (2 years), 2PDF. 2 years is just enuff to get unit to redicon.
Once told a worried mother that the SAF's basic building block is the Inf battn. add three plus plus you get brigade, plus some more plus armor, arty, engineers, signals, MP etc ect you get combined arms div. Plus some more icing at Mindef level (i.e. cdo, air force and navy etc) you get SAF.
A any point in time you need time to get your battalions into shape, supporting arms and specialist skills taught. Imagine if you got a signaller who only knows basic RT (radio transmission), what about ESM or ECCM (electronic support management and Electronic counter countermeasures)?? We cannot operate beyond company level! 2 years is enuff to get your runner to pass the hand set to the CO but not the Signal NCO!!l -
so... u hope sg gets invade?
-
happen before oledi... WWII..Originally posted by kwlee:think for this question instead
what happen is there is war and we dun have ns b4 that...
San Nian Ling Ba Ge Yue.... -
lol, we ain't independent that time ...Originally posted by Shrapnel:happen before oledi... WWII.. San Nian Ling Ba Ge Yue....
-
opps... yah haha...Originally posted by kwlee:lol, we ain't independent that time ... but that is one painful lesson also... u gotta be strong urself instead of an ang mo nanny looking over ya -
There must be sufficient time allocated to make sure our NSmen are competent and lethal enough if and when the sh*t hits the fan and we are forced into war.
Amen to that. In fact, I think the NS timeable has become very delicately finetuned, esp. in the last decade. The standard 2-year liability is the latest reform - & I for one am looking forward to see how the frontline units adjust when it comes to inprocessing its personnel.
With the main body, there's still the same 18 months or so active-time status to look forward to - but how to reconcile with the junior commanders who'll be serving 6 months less (but are still slated for the same OCS & SISPEC schedule)?
OCS is, what, a combined 42 weeks for its 4 terms - correct? I know SISPEC is combined 21 weeks of BSLC & then either ASLC or Formation Training School. So, further subtract their BMT trainings, & it'll leave both groups spending much less time at the unit itself (which has to train for operational status) under the new NS system.
Can that timeline match the SAF organizational needs? It'll have to, cuz I'm expecting even more juggling acts when the 3G Army ambitions enters the local mainstream. But, back to the point, it's difficult to shorten NS further - unless the slashing away is done at the junior-commander courses (something which could compromise negatively on skills experience & leadership training).