Hitting targets as far as KL or Ipoh from singapore....
-
Wrong .. NS is 300km away from Singapore. If we conduct a first strike on a country who is having training manuevers far from the border, it is a sign that we are the aggressor. If they do the manuevers somewhere like Batu Pahat, than maybe.
Last time during national day they got hold excerise in JB....including para dropping troops together with Indonasia into a LZ a mere 10km from Singapore.All we did then was call up the PDF and open moblize 1 division
The MAF conducts their armour training at PD .. which is in NS .. so if our planners use NS as the trigger point, we would be at war by now. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
forgive the interruption but....
To lasergod
[b]why malaysian always dreaming and boasting one huh?
they cant match SAF lah
What makes you think that they are boasting to us?
They are just justfiying to their own population that they bought the equipment. Unlike Singapore, which 70% of the electorate can not vote, Malaysian government can lose seats to their opposition. Hence they need to tell their people why they are spending the money and what they are using to pay for it. Spend too much, and their people can protest (unlike Singapore, with 4.5% unemployment, no one complain about the FT)
They can not match SAF unless their % GDP they spend on their military match ours. And even then, we have decades, where the budget of the military exceed the rest of our ASEAN neighbours. So do you think they are boasting? Nope. I don't[/b]
you talking politic or military??
and since all nations are unique and have different perceptions and ideas on threats and how to deal with their concerns... it seems illogical to compare how different nations spends on their military...
% GDP is not a good measure to begin with as it is highly misleading... and in any case.. defense spendings can.... be covered up under various other ministries account and could thus exceed the declare amount... the amount spent could also be less then declared if there are corruption, redirection of funds or simply due to poor accounting practice... -
my questions:Originally posted by |-|05|:Last time during national day they got hold excerise in JB....including para dropping troops together with Indonasia into a LZ a mere 10km from Singapore.All we did then was call up the PDF and open moblize 1 division
does the indonesians generals or leaders back in java knew that their forces would be given a LZ a mere 10km from singapore on NDP? -
should be....but i think the indos were on the ground liao and only the malaysians dropped not too sure about that.I do know that it was a joint exceriseOriginally posted by tripwire:my questions:
does the indonesians generals or leaders back in java knew that their forces would be given a LZ a mere 10km from singapore on NDP? -
Originally posted by kenhor:
i wouldn't quite come to the same conclusion so readily... palm oil marketing is incidental... as mentioned before by yourself, buying stuff through barter is MUCH cheaper than paying hard currency... especially IF a country has surplus resources...
to CX
well, i'm quite certain they cannot support ANYTHING logistically don't wanna say anything too offensive, but really lah... their logistics cannot make it... and ESPECIALLY in modern wars fought with technology, logistical support is the most important thing next to hardware...
You are absolutely right, thats why I am saying that all their purchases are for defence and deterrence purporses (as well as selling palm oil)
it doesn't mean that they BUY weapons to SELL palm oil... thats illogical... it seems more to me like an "offset" so that they seemingly get more for less...
economic voodoo if u ask me... it remains to be seen if it is actually sustained by follow up orders for more palm oil on cash terms or more favourable barter terms. which would PROVE that they have captured the market.
if they're just hocking surplus palm oil at a lelong price, then i think it implies a rather inefficient use of resources since your supply outstrips your demand to the extent that it depresses your price...They got the weapons, but are they threatening anyone with it? Do they keep mentioning it in their media? Do they provoke anyone with it? So lets just keep a level head .. the arms salesmen all over the world has a job selling weapons. If we overreact everytime one of them sell a weapon to our neighbours, we will grow broke pretty soon.
i quite agree that all weapons procured in Sg or M'sia is for deterrent... they're not meant to be use. using them would mean that both sides have lost the war even before it starts since it would ruin BOTH economies.
but that does not mean that they are not being threatening or provocative. YES, they do flash it in the media, YES, the implied threat itself is already extremely provocative. like a game of chess, u don't say much. u just checkmate the other guy quietly.
the current balance of power in the region lies between Indonesia maintaining its unity, Singapore maintaining its economic and military edge and Malaysia possessing a credible deterrent insufficient to directly threaten any of its neighbours.
the rockets have already upset this balance on paper.
it is to OUR credit that we identify their poor logistics as a possible weakness. it is NOT their intention to not be able to use their weapons systems when they feel that they need to.
u seem to have mistook my perception of their weakness for a sign of their goodwill. thats simply not true. they will if they can. problem is, i think they can't. it doesn't mean that they don't want to...
strange how we draw rather different conclusions from almost the same points made
hope u don't think that i'm arguing for the sake of arguing... -
To foxtrout8
Every weapon of a peace loving country is for deterrent , even the nuclear warhead in USA is a deterrent.....so , wat are u susgesting?? I nv say that they are aggressive , but it is a threat......
With water as they upper hand card, they love using it once in a blue moon , can u ensure mi that they will not ask for more terms with their missiles and SU?? Aniway , their rocket is a threat......
If we consider their rockets a threat to our security, then maybe if we see their point of view, our concept of forward defence, our JSF, our airforce, our navy, our NS .. all are threats to their security. They have been living with it for many many years.
I have said time and again, our entire deterrence is through strength. i.e don't mess with us because we are stronger than you. Its time to change the message to deterrence through parity. .. i.e don't mess with us because you will lose as much as me (NATO vs Warsaw Pact) .. .and finallly, deterrence through weakness .. don't mess with me because you have more to lose than me. (N Korea vs S Korea) -
To tripwire,
forgive the interruption but....
you talking politic or military??
and since all nations are unique and have different perceptions and ideas on threats and how to deal with their concerns... it seems illogical to compare how different nations spends on their military...
% GDP is not a good measure to begin with as it is highly misleading... and in any case.. defense spendings can.... be covered up under various other ministries account and could thus exceed the declare amount... the amount spent could also be less then declared if there are corruption, redirection of funds or simply due to poor accounting practice...
You are right by stating that different nations have different ideas to deal with their military spending. However, I am stating the obvious that we are spending more on both % GDP as well as on a per DOLLAR basis for our military compared to anyone in ASEAN.
It has been that way for longer than I have been alive. And therefore we have a bigger arsenal and standing forces than any other ASEAN country. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
Her rocket is a threat and it very much spoil the balance because it have a stratigical edge over our tactical edge......., u understand??? It is like North Korea having nuclear weapons over South Korea.......The whole issue is not very much abt deterrence , military balance yada....but is that Missile a threat.... So now , that straight question is : Is that Missile a THREAT?? Its our interest to neutralize it.....
If we consider their rockets a threat to our security, then maybe if we see their point of view, our concept of forward defence, our JSF, our airforce, our navy, our NS .. all are threats to their security. They have been living with it for many many years.
I have said time and again, our entire deterrence is through strength. i.e don't mess with us because we are stronger than you. Its time to change the message to deterrence through parity. .. i.e don't mess with us because you will lose as much as me (NATO vs Warsaw Pact) .. .and finallly, deterrence through weakness .. don't mess with me because you have more to lose than me. (N Korea vs S Korea)[/b]
I dun understand wat make u and i make such discussion on this thread , but u must know that all weapon is a threat and a deterrence , but some will make things unbalance ( maybe in the name of protecting her land ), thus the other party will have to grow stronger ...and soon.....an ARM RACE !!! U get mi??
Im not here to say Malaysia is aggressive anot , im not here to say wack Malaysia tml ..... All that i voice is that , we should take measures to neutralize that threat , all that i voice is that the threat is drastic.........im i wrong??? And btw , having new capability to neuatralize that threat is DETERRENCE on our side , as we the smaller country cant let deterrence be form on their side.......ok?
No offence.... -
To CX
i wouldn't quite come to the same conclusion so readily... palm oil marketing is incidental... as mentioned before by yourself, buying stuff through barter is MUCH cheaper than paying hard currency... especially IF a country has surplus resources...
it doesn't mean that they BUY weapons to SELL palm oil... thats illogical... it seems more to me like an "offset" so that they seemingly get more for less...
economic voodoo if u ask me... it remains to be seen if it is actually sustained by follow up orders for more palm oil on cash terms or more favourable barter terms. which would PROVE that they have captured the market.
if they're just hocking surplus palm oil at a lelong price, then i think it implies a rather inefficient use of resources since your supply outstrips your demand to the extent that it depresses your price...
I have done a very long post somewhere in one of the threads about how Malaysia uses its military purchases to sell Palm Oil. If I ever find it, I will re-post it. But sufficient to say that the public there is happy with using the palm oil to finance the toys.
i quite agree that all weapons procured in Sg or M'sia is for deterrent... they're not meant to be use. using them would mean that both sides have lost the war even before it starts since it would ruin BOTH economies.
but that does not mean that they are not being threatening or provocative. YES, they do flash it in the media, YES, the implied threat itself is already extremely provocative. like a game of chess, u don't say much. u just checkmate the other guy quietly.
Yes, but we also flashed our weapons during each NDP, especially during 2001s NDP. So are we being provocative?
the current balance of power in the region lies between Indonesia maintaining its unity, Singapore maintaining its economic and military edge and Malaysia possessing a credible deterrent insufficient to directly threaten any of its neighbours.
the rockets have already upset this balance on paper.
Thats our opinion, they can say that by having the JSF, the subs, the apaches, the Isrealis advisors, the 5% GDP military budget, the NS, the AMERICAN base at Changi etc that we upset the balance. Its our percption vs theirs.
Also, our economic edge can not be indefinately maintained. So are you saying that the moment our economy goes below Malaysia, there is going to be instability? If that is true, then maybe the Malaysians are right in getting the weapons. After all, we might be the ones to spark off the next war.
And yes, to me, having a stealthy JSF is a damn lot more provocative than a bunch of rockets that have a range of 90km.
it is to OUR credit that we identify their poor logistics as a possible weakness. it is NOT their intention to not be able to use their weapons systems when they feel that they need to.
u seem to have mistook my perception of their weakness for a sign of their goodwill. thats simply not true. they will if they can. problem is, i think they can't. it doesn't mean that they don't want to...
strange how we draw rather different conclusions from almost the same points made hope u don't think that i'm arguing for the sake of arguing...
No worries, calm discussions are good for everyone. What you may see may be the general view of what they are doing up north, but I am offering another plausible one. -
To foxtrout8
Her rocket is a threat and it very much spoil the balance because it have a stratigical edge over our tactical edge......., u understand??? It is like North Korea having nuclear weapons over South Korea.......The whole issue is not very much abt deterrence , military balance yada....but is that Missile a threat.... So now , that straight question is : Is that Missile a THREAT?? Its our interest to neutralize it.....
I am saying that the JSF, with its stealthy rco, is definately also very provocative and spoiling the balance. After all, the range of the JSF is much longer than the ASTROS.
We are now facing a threat because we can not find a way to counter it. The reason why the balance is disturbed is because we can't find a cheap solution to the threat, hence it disturbs the balance. The Malaysians have been living with the threat of our SAF for close to 30 years already. They have gotten used to it. Its our time to get used to deterrence through parity.
I dun understand wat make u and i make such discussion on this thread , but u must know that all weapon is a threat and a deterrence , but some will make things unbalance ( maybe in the name of protecting her land ), thus the other party will have to grow stronger ...and soon.....an ARM RACE !!! U get mi??
Actually, the arms race is minute compared to the economic war being waged at the moment between Malaysia and Singapore. Despite all appearences, both countries are not going to spend too much on the weapons as there are much more interesting ways to upstage each other. We have the FTA with USA. Malaysia has the new FDI from Germany. We try to bring in India/China FT. Malaysia brings in China/India students and tourists. We invest in India/China. They invest in the 3rd world countries. We process all the crude oil going into China and Japan. They intend to be the world largest Natural Gas provider (thats why they bought AEL from NOL) If we track those actions, we have much more to worry than just our military.
Im not here to say Malaysia is aggressive anot , im not here to say wack Malaysia tml ..... All that i voice is that , we should take measures to neutralize that threat , all that i voice is that the threat is drastic.........im i wrong??? And btw , having new capability to neuatralize that threat is DETERRENCE on our side , as we the smaller country cant let deterrence be form on their side.......ok? No offence....
You are just saying that we need to neutralize the threat .. hence, its deterrence through strenght again. It can not last forever. Do you know that defending weapons cost more than offensive weapons? This has been the way since the stone age. Man gets sword to attack. But to defend, we need armour, shield and helmet. We get a missile to shoot down airplane, but to counter, the airplane gets flare, chaff, stealth rco, ecm etc.
So if we are to counter all of the opponents weapons (which both sides do not intend to use in war), the person playing defender will go broke first. Hence my suggestion in going for deterrence through parity or weakness. -
I am saying that the JSF, with its stealthy rco, is definately also very provocative and spoiling the balance. After all, the range of the JSF is much longer than the ASTROS.
LoL , we need the JSF to replace our F-16........it is a threat?? Then wat is with the Superhornet and the SU-30MKM when they have their MiGs and Hornets.....??? If both party goes tactical , it fine. But if one of them goes stratigical ........that unbalance...
Singapore and Malaysia have been always balance even though we have more weapons because they have larger stratigical depth, more resources and of course, more unstable. But since they goes stratigical , they give us a chance to openly purchase '' things that we cant get in the past ''. ( i dun think i need to be in depth on that )
Actually, the arms race is minute compared to the economic war being waged at the moment between Malaysia and Singapore. Despite all appearences, both countries are not going to spend too much on the weapons as there are much more interesting ways to upstage each other. We have the FTA with USA. Malaysia has the new FDI from Germany. We try to bring in India/China FT. Malaysia brings in China/India students and tourists. We invest in India/China. They invest in the 3rd world countries. We process all the crude oil going into China and Japan. They intend to be the world largest Natural Gas provider (thats why they bought AEL from NOL) If we track those actions, we have much more to worry than just our military.
Nv did i say that we onli have to worry abt the military , but since the thread is abt long range offensive weapon , i follow up suit with the discussion....u cant compare the two issues...
You are just saying that we need to neutralize the threat .. hence, its deterrence through strenght again. It can not last forever. Do you know that defending weapons cost more than offensive weapons? This has been the way since the stone age. Man gets sword to attack. But to defend, we need armour, shield and helmet. We get a missile to shoot down airplane, but to counter, the airplane gets flare, chaff, stealth rco, ecm etc.
We defend through offence , we cant possibility sit down and fight ....i think u know abt it.... How expensive it could be ,if it is within budget and regulations, we will get wat we want to ''have a chance for peace''.
So if we are to counter all of the opponents weapons (which both sides do not intend to use in war), the person playing defender will go broke first. Hence my suggestion in going for deterrence through parity or weakness.
Not to be offensive, but are u from earth?? Weakness to get peace....?? The reason y we invest so much onto the SAF is because we want peace u understand that right?? -
Originally posted by kenhor:
and the problem is?
To tripwire,
[b]
forgive the interruption but....
you talking politic or military??
and since all nations are unique and have different perceptions and ideas on threats and how to deal with their concerns... it seems illogical to compare how different nations spends on their military...
% GDP is not a good measure to begin with as it is highly misleading... and in any case.. defense spendings can.... be covered up under various other ministries account and could thus exceed the declare amount... the amount spent could also be less then declared if there are corruption, redirection of funds or simply due to poor accounting practice...
You are right by stating that different nations have different ideas to deal with their military spending. However, I am stating the obvious that we are spending more on both % GDP as well as on a per DOLLAR basis for our military compared to anyone in ASEAN.
It has been that way for longer than I have been alive. And therefore we have a bigger arsenal and standing forces than any other ASEAN country.[/b]
is it wrong to spend on defence based on singapore's threat perception or must all ASEAN nations spend a predetermined agreed amount?
is there any problem in having a bigger arsenal since afterall... we are the smallest nation around?
and technically... i dont think we have the largest standing forces compared to any other ASEAN country... though we do have a standing force bigger then brunei... -
To foxtrout8,
LoL , we need the JSF to replace our F-16........it is a threat?? Then wat is with the Superhornet and the SU-30MKM when they have their MiGs and Hornets.....??? If both party goes tactical , it fine. But if one of them goes stratigical ........that unbalance...
A weapon can be both strategic and tactical. The F16s are still very mission capable, and in the right hands are able to win over Migs29s, F18s and Su30s. The JSF is a stealthy aircraft which is able to launch (without detection) all sorts of WMD against the enemy. And it has a range far beyond 90km. That in my opinion, also can cause everyone to worry about.
Imagine if say the twin towers go crashing down. Noting was detected on radar. The terrorists can be blamed, but it could have been an attack by us. And there is no way they can prove that it was us. So that is a very destablilizing weapon.
Singapore and Malaysia have been always balance even though we have more weapons because they have larger stratigical depth, more resources and of course, more unstable. But since they goes stratigical , they give us a chance to openly purchase '' things that we cant get in the past ''. ( i dun think i need to be in depth on that )
Its up to our government to decide if that is the case or not. As I said, those weapons are for their deterrence. If they truly want to provoke us, they will have bought 30 scuds from North Korea. After all, the USA did not stop N Korea from sending the scuds to Yemen.
Nv did i say that we onli have to worry abt the military , but since the thread is abt long range offensive weapon , i follow up suit with the discussion....u cant compare the two issues...
I just want to tell you that no matter what they Malaysian's buy, it is controlled by their budget. They are not going to waste too much money on their toys when they need every cent to stay alive when China and India is coming. That why they buy the weapons with palm oil. They spend money and make money as well.
Not to be offensive, but are u from earth?? Weakness to get peace....?? The reason y we invest so much onto the SAF is because we want peace u understand that right??
Thats the current mindset. Peace through might. We made the SAF very strong and no one wants to mess with it.
But lets put another scenario. The Warsaw Pact was much stronger than Nato back in 1985. They could not invade for they know that that war may go 50-50. Until you are sure that you can win the war, you won't invade. So that is deterrence through parity. That you can deter the enemy even if your forces are roughly the same size.
The best way is deterrence through weakness, that is a concept that you can win a war against us anytime, but you won't be around to enjoy the victory as I will make it so painful for you to do so. The Swiss has that concept. The Nazis had huge numerical and weaponary superiority over the Swiss in WW2, yet they did not attack. Because they know the swiss will defend to the death and that it was not worth it. So I am saying that we have that kind of deterrence.
We defend through offence , we cant possibility sit down and fight ....i think u know abt it.... How expensive it could be ,if it is within budget and regulations, we will get wat we want to ''have a chance for peace''
You are right. But the Malaysians also are defending through offense. They can't sit down and let us march right into JB and KL. They will purchase whatever weapon system they think will make us think 10x before doing the pre-emptive strilke.
Our weapons purchases are not the same as the Malaysians. We buy the best, and pay cash. They NEVER bought the best equipment (although they claim to do so) and just make do with whatever they have. So if we overreact to their purchases, we will end up paying lots more cash while they sell more palm oil Its a scenario that benefits them.
Do I think that the Malaysians will invade with their current mix of weapons? Nope. Their NS is in its infancy. It may be 10-20 years before they get up to fighting shape. By then, all the weapons both sides have bought are obsolete. So, if they want to really invade, it won't be NOW. So why overreact NOW? -
To tripwire
and the problem is?
is it wrong to spend on defence based on singapore's threat perception or must all ASEAN nations spend a predetermined agreed amount?
We spend based on what the immediate perceived threats are. So we look around and see who is there to threaten us. The N Koreans are too far and so are the Iranians. So whatever threat is definately within the ASEAN arena. So we must compare based on the neighbouring countries. I have stated that we spend more than ASEAN because that is the theatre of operations and most likely combatants.
is there any problem in having a bigger arsenal since afterall... we are the smallest nation around?
It is if the smallest nation buys more than is neccessary to defend itself. We have the largest GDP and military budget per GDP. That means we are spending more. The thais, Malaysians and Indonesians have to spread out the budget to an area 500x the size of Singapore. They make do. We are so small, yet we have so much weaponary. To put it mildly, its excessive.
and technically... i dont think we have the largest standing forces compared to any other ASEAN country... though we do have a standing force bigger then brunei...
You are right. I should say we have the largest standing forces + active reserve army in ASEAN. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
To tripwire
[b]and the problem is?
is it wrong to spend on defence based on singapore's threat perception or must all ASEAN nations spend a predetermined agreed amount?
We spend based on what the immediate perceived threats are. So we look around and see who is there to threaten us. The N Koreans are too far and so are the Iranians. So whatever threat is definately within the ASEAN arena. So we must compare based on the neighbouring countries. I have stated that we spend more than ASEAN because that is the theatre of operations and most likely combatants.
i agreed on this point ... which is why i have problem understanding your following point...
is there any problem in having a bigger arsenal since afterall... we are the smallest nation around?
It is if the smallest nation buys more than is neccessary to defend itself. We have the largest GDP and military budget per GDP. That means we are spending more. The thais, Malaysians and Indonesians have to spread out the budget to an area 500x the size of Singapore. They make do. We are so small, yet we have so much weaponary. To put it mildly, its excessive. if as you said "We spend based on what the immediate perceived threats are" then how could we then be considered excessive in our defence spendings if our spendings on defence is based on immediate threat perceptions rather then the size of our land or the size of our GDP? wat value is there towards national defence or deterrence value of SAF if by toeing the spending pattern of our neighbour, we end up with a force that could neither deter nor defend the country?
and technically... i dont think we have the largest standing forces compared to any other ASEAN country... though we do have a standing force bigger then brunei...
You are right. I should say we have the largest standing forces + active reserve army in ASEAN. [/b] i must point out that... standing forces + reserves included... we are only bigger then brunei and marginally bigger then malaysian as can be seen from the estimates below....
1... vietnam est. 3,000,000 (including many veterans, many have return to farm so to speak)
2... indonesia est. 1,000,000 (including 700,000 paramilitary)
3... burma est... 800,000 (including forced conscripts)
4.... thailand est... 750,000 (they have NS too)
5.... phillipine est... 700,000 (admittedly, they are not well equipped)
6... singapore est... 350,000
7... malaysia est ... 160,000
8... cambodia est... 100,000 (really not sure... just pure guess)
9.... brunei... 7,500 (including gurkhas)
10 ... laos (no idea...
)
in fact... as can be seen... a war with some of our neighbour would effectively promote your position, I quote
"The best way is deterrence through weakness, that is a concept that you can win a war against us anytime, but you won't be around to enjoy the victory as I will make it so painful for you to do so. The Swiss has that concept. The Nazis had huge numerical and weaponary superiority over the Swiss in WW2, yet they did not attack. Because they know the swiss will defend to the death and that it was not worth it. So I am saying that we have that kind of deterrence"
in fact... for a time, SAF has been the poisoned shrimp, as LSL said in the past.... even now... we may still be using this strategy against larger adversaries....
but... a war where we are sure to loose is not appealing to many soldiers... many would prefer a chance for a win... even if the chance is low... and thus i personnaly like the new position where SAF would attack, win the day and be around to pick up the pieces...
in fact... such a change in ideology also helps to reinforce our deterence value.. afterall... an ability to kill the enemy would definitely make the enemy to think twice before provoking us... compared to a poisoned shrimp... which some nations might believe(true or not) it can withstand the poison... because they are big enough... or the poison shrimp... aint poison enough to destroy their nation.... -
however i need to add the fact that a poisoned shrimp is only able to deter its enemy if it can take down its enemy with its death...
there is no point being a poisoned shrimp if your predator is immune to your poison or able to withstand your poison...
so... in order to be an effective poisoned shrimp... you gotta be really really poisonous (well armed)
lastly... i dont think the swiss example is useful as a comparison for singapore...
during WW2... the swiss was already isolated and surrounded by german forces... the germans didnt attack swiss because.. the swiss are as good as in their bags... since they now practically controll all entrance and exits to swizterland... economically, diplomatically and politically...
the swiss... are no threat to the German army and as far as the germans are concerned... they got bigger fish to fry... russia and england, both requireing large numbers of their troops....
had the german war gone well... they will probably come around and demand the swiss to either surrender or risk fighting the german behemoth army unsupported....from any allies... the outcome of such a conflict is pretty much pre-determined.... -
To tripwire,
if as you said "We spend based on what the immediate perceived threats are" then how could we then be considered excessive in our defence spendings if our spendings on defence is based on immediate threat perceptions rather then the size of our land or the size of our GDP?
Because based on our GDP and % per GDP on military budget, we are spending more money than our supposed adversary. How can we take an aggressor seriously when they spend less than us. If they really want combat, they will have to spend more than us. So as I said, we spend excessive amounts on our military.
To put it bluntly, their budget say is $1000, and ours is $2000 .. and has been that way for 30 years. Do I consider them a credible threat? NO. And expecially when our size is 500x smaller than theirs.
wat value is there towards national defence or deterrence value of SAF if by toeing the spending pattern of our neighbour, we end up with a force that could neither deter nor defend the country?
The opinion is that we have more than enough to defend the country, but am now trying for a force capable beyond defence, but also aggressive operations. That is the part that I disagree with.
i must point out that... standing forces + reserves included... we are only bigger then brunei and marginally bigger then malaysian as can be seen from the estimates below....
6... singapore est... 350,000
7... malaysia est ... 160,000
2x is not marginally .. 2x is definately overkill, especially if the 160k troops up north has to defend an area 500x larger than Singapore.
in fact... for a time, SAF has been the poisoned shrimp, as LSL said in the past.... even now... we may still be using this strategy against larger adversaries....
but... a war where we are sure to loose is not appealing to many soldiers... many would prefer a chance for a win... even if the chance is low... and thus i personnaly like the new position where SAF would attack, win the day and be around to pick up the pieces...
in fact... such a change in ideology also helps to reinforce our deterence value.. afterall... an ability to kill the enemy would definitely make the enemy to think twice before provoking us... compared to a poisoned shrimp... which some nations might believe(true or not) it can withstand the poison... because they are big enough... or the poison shrimp... aint poison enough to destroy their nation....
So you are now saying that we are not poisonous enough to kill the enemy, and hence justify the deterrence through strength position. To me, that can not last indefinately, as we can never be sure that Singapore will forever remain economically better off than Malaysia. In fact, already HK has fallen with China's ascendancy. If we are not flexible in our military doctrine, we are as doomed as the USSR, who tried to keep up with the west. They looked good in the 80s, but their economy floundered and all that hardware was wasted. -
A weapon can be both strategic and tactical. The F16s are still very mission capable, and in the right hands are able to win over Migs29s, F18s and Su30s. The JSF is a stealthy aircraft which is able to launch (without detection) all sorts of WMD against the enemy. And it has a range far beyond 90km. That in my opinion, also can cause everyone to worry about.
JSF isnt as stealthy as wat u think ok?? It is not another F-117 with radar adsorbing materials (RAM) on the plane. If malaysia isnt happy with it , they can join the JSF team .
Are u kidding ??? No military amathur will support the fact of using F-16s to fight the SUs. And wat WMD are u toking abt???
Its up to our government to decide if that is the case or not. As I said, those weapons are for their deterrence. If they truly want to provoke us, they will have bought 30 scuds from North Korea. After all, the USA did not stop N Korea from sending the scuds to Yemen.
U think 30 scuds is the only way to be threatening ar??? US will step in to stop the transactions , boycott them and most of the world will spit at '' truely asia''.......... Deterrence or wat , my main question to u now is : Is it a threat????? My answer is yes , dun tell mi that ur ans is no...
I just want to tell you that no matter what they Malaysian's buy, it is controlled by their budget. They are not going to waste too much money on their toys when they need every cent to stay alive when China and India is coming. That why they buy the weapons with palm oil. They spend money and make money as well.
Wat does this got to do with the thread????
Thats the current mindset. Peace through might. We made the SAF very strong and no one wants to mess with it.
U can try changing the two prong policy of Mindef.......
But lets put another scenario. The Warsaw Pact was much stronger than Nato back in 1985. They could not invade for they know that that war may go 50-50. Until you are sure that you can win the war, you won't invade. So that is deterrence through parity. That you can deter the enemy even if your forces are roughly the same size.
KaoZ , deterrence is deterrencce but still warsaw is a threat to NATO!!! Im toking abt threat , u understand. They bought the toys for detterence in order for us to feel the threat........ All deterrence contain levels of threat...and it is the threat that the other party must neutralize.
The best way is deterrence through weakness, that is a concept that you can win a war against us anytime, but you won't be around to enjoy the victory as I will make it so painful for you to do so. The Swiss has that concept. The Nazis had huge numerical and weaponary superiority over the Swiss in WW2, yet they did not attack. Because they know the swiss will defend to the death and that it was not worth it. So I am saying that we have that kind of deterrence.
U contridict urself!!!! Weakness can cost pain in an enemy??? U think the swiss is weak because they can fight to their death???
Our weapons purchases are not the same as the Malaysians. We buy the best, and pay cash. They NEVER bought the best equipment (although they claim to do so) and just make do with whatever they have. So if we overreact to their purchases, we will end up paying lots more cash while they sell more palm oil Its a scenario that benefits them.
Lets take that the Astros isnt the best...... One rocket from the Astros can damage Singapore significantly ok?? Astros2 in this discussion isnt as worthless as u think..... 72 rockets flying into Singapore with cluster munition can destroy our surface asset in one concentration area....thus we must find ways to prevent the rockets from leaving the ground.....
Do I think that the Malaysians will invade with their current mix of weapons? Nope. Their NS is in its infancy. It may be 10-20 years before they get up to fighting shape. By then, all the weapons both sides have bought are obsolete. So, if they want to really invade, it won't be NOW. So why overreact NOW?
No one is overing reacting . They move a level , we counter a level . Y tok abt the NS when it is not the topic here...u cant compare or link two issues together.... U cant wait for their NS to mature than we take actions also.
Ur thinking is as good as the one in Kuwait before the invasion of the Iraqis. Showing weakness , lots of diplomacy , dun over react on some issues >>>>>>>> A fallen kingdom. -
however i need to add the fact that a poisoned shrimp is only able to deter its enemy if it can take down its enemy with its death...
there is no point being a poisoned shrimp if your predator is immune to your poison or able to withstand your poison...
so... in order to be an effective poisoned shrimp... you gotta be really really poisonous (well armed)
There is no doubt in anyones mind over here in Singapore that we are already well armed. We have enough firepower to even take out you know who. We just need an excuse.
Hence my thinking that for every $1 they spend mordenizing, we have to keep spending $2 to counter their weapons. That is not sustainable long term.
lastly... i dont think the swiss example is useful as a comparison for singapore...
during WW2... the swiss was already isolated and surrounded by german forces... the germans didnt attack swiss because.. the swiss are as good as in their bags... since they now practically controll all entrance and exits to swizterland... economically, diplomatically and politically...
the swiss... are no threat to the German army and as far as the germans are concerned... they got bigger fish to fry... russia and england, both requireing large numbers of their troops....
had the german war gone well... they will probably come around and demand the swiss to either surrender or risk fighting the german behemoth army unsupported....from any allies... the outcome of such a conflict is pretty much pre-determined....
Why would Germany want to waste troops when they have already managed to economically and politically isolate Switzerland? The poison shrimp theory still holds. There is still no point in hitting an enemy if it will kill you ... especially if you already won.
The purpose of the SAF is to deter a military action against our land. NOT in the realm of economics and politics. That is they job of the EDB and foreign ministry. If we are isolated economically and politically, its because that we did not spend enough money on those parts to compete globally (possible due to diversion of funds to other budget areas ..
).
So if Malaysia becomes the permanent UN security council member, what can our military do? Suppose Malaysia manages to be a developed country by 2020 and we suffer like HK, what can our military do? We invade them? Hah! If we are economically and politically isolated in the future, having a strong SAF will not change matters.
So your statement that the Swiss were economically isolated is very apt .. but in the 1930s and 1940s, the world relied on land transport. In the 21st century, money and goods are sent by air and electrons. As long as the SAF can keep the waterways open, the rest is up to the economic wizards and political spin doctors to manage. -
Raptors not exactly that very stealthy lor... And what WMD u referring to? Nukes? Biological Weapons?
-
To foxtrout8
JSF isnt as stealthy as wat u think ok?? It is not another F-117 with radar adsorbing materials (RAM) on the plane. If malaysia isnt happy with it , they can join the JSF team . Are u kidding ??? No military amathur will support the fact of using F-16s to fight the SUs. And wat WMD are u toking abt???
In other threads, its the quality of the pilot and the maintenance that will win the war, and from what I have been reading, no one is confident (except for one innocent person
) that their airforce is a threat.
A WMD can be as simple as a FAE bomb. One released into heart of KL will topple many buildings. Its just as destructive as anything they put into the ASTROS.
U think 30 scuds is the only way to be threatening ar??? US will step in to stop the transactions , boycott them and most of the world will spit at '' truely asia''.......... Deterrence or wat , my main question to u now is : Is it a threat????? My answer is yes , dun tell mi that ur ans is no...
My answer is the ASTROS are NOT a threat. As I said earlier, the USA did not stop the shipment of Scuds from N Korea to Yemen.
Wat does this got to do with the thread????
Money my dear, allows both sides to purchase the weapons. No money, no weapons. So money is more important than the weapons.
U can try changing the two prong policy of Mindef.......
I don't have to .. I leave it to the Malaysians to do that for us.
KaoZ , deterrence is deterrencce but still warsaw is a threat to NATO!!!] Im toking abt threat , u understand. They bought the toys for detterence in order for us to feel the threat........ All deterrence contain levels of threat...and it is the threat that the other party must neutralize.
Yes, but did you see how either side responded to the threats? The Warsaw Pact spent more militarily, while the west spent more on their economy. My way of neutralizing the threats is the same way as NATOs, spend more on economy.
In the end, the threat went away when the enemy went bankrupt. Thats they way you solve your threats .. not by a arms war, but by letting your enemy spend his way bankrupt.
U contridict urself!!!! Weakness can cost pain in an enemy??? U think the swiss is weak because they can fight to their death???
Read my post carefully, Switzerland was weaker than Nazi Germany. Yet they managed to stay uninvaded.
Lets take that the Astros isnt the best...... One rocket from the Astros can damage Singapore significantly ok?? Astros2 in this discussion isnt as worthless as u think..... 72 rockets flying into Singapore with cluster munition can destroy our surface asset in one concentration area....thus we must find ways to prevent the rockets from leaving the ground.....
Why bother? The moment they use it, it will be a full fledge war. Hence deterrence failed. We will hit them with EVERYTHING we got. So why just counter one weapon platform? Its all out war.
No one is overing reacting . They move a level , we counter a level . Y tok abt the NS when it is not the topic here...u cant compare or link two issues together.... U cant wait for their NS to mature than we take actions also.
If we follow the chess move thingie, we will banrupt ourselves. They are not paying for their purchases in cash. We are. They are selling palm oil .. We are not. They more they buy, the more palm oil they sell. The more we buy, the more cash is sent out of the Singapore economy.
Ur thinking is as good as the one in Kuwait before the invasion of the Iraqis. Showing weakness , lots of diplomacy , dun over react on some issues >>>>>>>> A fallen kingdom.
Iraq has 10x more military than Kuwait, while Singapore is 2x more military than Malaysia .. do your math before comparing it apples to apples. -
In other threads, its the quality of the pilot and the maintenance that will win the war, and from what I have been reading, no one is confident (except for one innocent person ) that their airforce is a threat.
Quality of the pilot and maintenance is one factor , but dun tell mi a quality pilot with maintained Spitfire will wanna fight pilots with skyhawks....... They might win , but u wanna take the risk??
A WMD can be as simple as a FAE bomb. One released into heart of KL will topple many buildings. Its just as destructive as anything they put into the ASTROS.
FAE are known as conventional weapons and are seldom know as WMD , if so , alot of countries in the world might easily have WMD , including NK , Libya .....
My answer is the ASTROS are NOT a threat. As I said earlier, the USA did not stop the shipment of Scuds from N Korea to Yemen.
USA didnt stop the shipment to Yemen is with reasons of threat anaylst in the region to Yemen......... Astros are not a threat....I THINK U ARE A JOKE.
Money my dear, allows both sides to purchase the weapons. No money, no weapons. So money is more important than the weapons.
My dear , Malaysia is not as broke as u think. They had bought the Scorpene , Astros , Pts , SU-30MKM........they might be poorer , but they had bought those toys...u think Malaysia is Indonesia???
They have the money to purchase....y cant we use our money to counter purchase. We dun have to spent 100% on it , but a sum to show that we are aware of our situation....
I don't have to .. I leave it to the Malaysians to do that for us.
Dun be ridiculous lah pls....
Yes, but did you see how either side responded to the threats? The Warsaw Pact spent more militarily, while the west spent more on their economy. My way of neutralizing the threats is the same way as NATOs, spend more on economy.
Pls ...... Nato is richer now because of their open door policy where Warsaw sufffer from their close door policy. Do u know y Britain , France and USs are unrivaled superpowers now??? Because they spent tones of time developing weapons as they do with their economy........There are alot of factors to it , not on who spent more on the army anot...
Read my post carefully, Switzerland was weaker than Nazi Germany. Yet they managed to stay uninvaded.
So wat are u susgesting??? LoLx. German did try invading the Swiss , but dues to the Swis strong resistance and because of the Alps as their natural barrier , the german cant afford to fight swiss with the defeating front at Russia.......
Why bother? The moment they use it, it will be a full fledge war. Hence deterrence failed. We will hit them with EVERYTHING we got. So why just counter one weapon platform? Its all out war.
The moment they use it........ u know how much lives will be loss.?? Wat do u think the Mersing line are for.....wat do u think pre emptive strikes are for....wat do u think HUMINT are for.....?
If we follow the chess move thingie, we will banrupt ourselves. They are not paying for their purchases in cash. We are. They are selling palm oil .. We are not. They more they buy, the more palm oil they sell. The more we buy, the more cash is sent out of the Singapore economy.
LoLX , even ur replies are following the chess move .....wat make u think civilisation do move in the chess way??? Warsaw vs Nato , Taiwan vs China , Iraq vs Iran are all more or less following the chess way...... But the problem is ,how much reasources u wanna put on the chess move.......
Iraq has 10x more military than Kuwait, while Singapore is 2x more military than Malaysia .. do your math before comparing it apples to apples.
Hello , my point is not abt the strenght .....its abt the attitude of the leaders , it is because of the ''weakness'' and diplomacy theory that Kuwait didnt prepare itself for the 10x army..... Malaysia armed force is growing , no one can be use abt how well can they grow....for now , the thread toks abt long range weapon for singapore. Long range weapon for us will be a deterence as good as the Astros2 from their side.....u understand?? -
JSF isnt as stealthy as wat u think ok?? It is not another F-117 with radar adsorbing materials (RAM) on the plane. If malaysia isnt happy with it , they can join the JSF team . Are u kidding ??? No military amathur will support the fact of using F-16s to fight the SUs. And wat WMD are u toking abt???
The JSF is stealthy in shape and it's composite materials.The RAM paint well the US wont be releasing that anytime soon.
A spitfire winning a skyhawk is far fetched but a P51 would as it turns better handles at slower speeds and it's engine is just as powerful.But that is in a dog fight.In a BVR well no $$ who guessing who wins.
Kenhor for every $1 they spend we do not have to spend $2.It's more like in race.They buy sandals we buy shoes they buy shoes we buy sport shoes and so on so forth.It's about staying ahead not spending more.All we gotta do is place the finish line at infinity. -
Quality of the pilot and maintenance is one factor , but dun tell mi a quality pilot with maintained Spitfire will wanna fight pilots with skyhawks....... They might win , but u wanna take the risk??
Since when is a F16 taking on a Su30 considered like a Spitfire vs Skyhawk?
FAE are known as conventional weapons and are seldom know as WMD , if so , alot of countries in the world might easily have WMD , including NK , Libya .....
A FAE is known as a poor mans nuke. A nuke is a WMD, hence my linking the 2. Whatever they put into the ASTROS, we can put into a JSF and send it north. So the balance is there.
USA didnt stop the shipment to Yemen is with reasons of threat anaylst in the region to Yemen......... Astros are not a threat....I THINK U ARE A JOKE.
No need to get personal. Its my opinion vs yours. We can agree to disagree. If you continue to behave irrationally, there can be no discussion.
My dear , Malaysia is not as broke as u think. They had bought the Scorpene , Astros , Pts , SU-30MKM........they might be poorer , but they had bought those toys...u think Malaysia is Indonesia???
As I said so many times, Malaysia is buying the weapons to modernize their armed forces, and also to sell palm oil
They have the money to purchase....y cant we use our money to counter purchase. We dun have to spent 100% on it , but a sum to show that we are aware of our situation....
No one is stopping our military planners to buy more equipment, but bear in mind that they can get cheaper offensive weapons from
third world countries like Poland, India, Russia and Brazil. We have to get state of the art weapons from USA. They pay in palm oil, we pay in cash.
Dun be ridiculous lah pls....
Don't get so worked up lah .. its just a discussion.
Pls ...... Nato is richer now because of their open door policy where Warsaw sufffer from their close door policy. Do u know y Britain , France and USs are unrivaled superpowers now??? Because they spent tones of time developing weapons as they do with their economy........There are alot of factors to it , not on who spent more on the army anot...
The reason why warsaw pact lost is that they concentrated too much on the military side and ignored totally all economic side. While we are not doing that, I believe that money has to be better spent on economic actions as our military has sufficient funds for deterrence and defence.
So wat are u susgesting??? LoLx. German did try invading the Swiss , but dues to the Swis strong resistance and because of the Alps as their natural barrier , the german cant afford to fight swiss with the defeating front at Russia.......
Please let me know how you got any information about the Germans trying to invade the swiss during ww2.
The moment they use it........ u know how much lives will be loss.?? Wat do u think the Mersing line are for.....wat do u think pre emptive strikes are for....wat do u think HUMINT are for.....?
Even without the ASTROS, the moment there is war, there will be huge numbers of loss of life. The mersing line and preemptive strikes are the psychological warfare that the military tell the civilians on how they will achieve their targets. In reality, if a shooting match happens, it wont stop until we reach Perlis and they wont stop until they reach sentosa.
LoLX , even ur replies are following the chess move .....wat make u think civilisation do move in the chess way??? Warsaw vs Nato , Taiwan vs China , Iraq vs Iran are all more or less following the chess way...... But the problem is ,how much reasources u wanna put on the chess move.......
Precisely my point. I think we have enough pieces on the board without spending more money putting another piece in the board. They can put a few more pieces, but our current armada is sufficient to counteract anything that they have.
Hello , my point is not abt the strenght .....its abt the attitude of the leaders , it is because of the ''weakness'' and diplomacy theory that Kuwait didnt prepare itself for the 10x army..... Malaysia armed force is growing , no one can be use abt how well can they grow....for now , the thread toks abt long range weapon for singapore. Long range weapon for us will be a deterence as good as the Astros2 from their side.....u understand??
Ah now its about the leaders, not the weapons. Well, in my opinion then, in 2004, they have a new leader (Badawi) and we have a new on in 2007 (LHL) .. so everything is unknown.
As for deterrence, how long a weapon you want? 500km?1000km? They have a short range weapon 90km. How much you want to pay to have weapons to hit KL? And why KL? Do you think by reducing KL to rubble that they will stop the invasion? They can rebuild any building. Its the economy and subsequent capital flight that will doom the country. If we destroy JB, and cripple their economy enough that there is starvation on the streets, then we win. Its the same for them. They don't have to reduce Orchard Road to rubble. They just need to sap our will to fight.
By having weapons that have operational range of 90km, they can be taken out easier than if they have scuds. -
To 05
Kenhor for every $1 they spend we do not have to spend $2.It's more like in race.They buy sandals we buy shoes they buy shoes we buy sport shoes and so on so forth.It's about staying ahead not spending more.All we gotta do is place the finish line at infinity.
Correct. All I said was that previously they have no shoes. They just bought the shoes. Our current shoes is good enough for me, but some of Our people in the forum now panic because now Malaysia has shoes, and want Singapore to drop our current shoes for a better pair. And want to pay more for it.
I don't think that just because Malaysia has their new shoes now, we should get rid of our workable shoes. Indeed, the economy is too bad for us to look at new shoes.
So what if the Malaysians have some new shoes now and can win some races? Must we win every race we have at all cost?
There is no finishing line. This race is about the journey, not the destination.