RMAF shopping for AEW&C
-
To tripwire,
If you ever been to Lumut or Sitiawan 10 years ago, it was a dead town. Then they decided to build the naval base there. Now, the entire place is developing faster than any other town in Perak .. putting 10k soldiers anywhere generates lots of income.
By doing the same to Sabah .. the same economic activity is generated. As well as additional focus, security and reduction in cross border instability. Hence Sabah will be made more integrated into the Federation.
That plus the fact that BN is once again the ruling party of Sabah will ensure that it won't go the way of Singapore. -
err....nope....having 3 up at the same time would be a big mistake as there will be no way of plugging the hole when all 3 of the planes need a refuel or even if either 1 will need to land.Originally posted by tripwire:come on lah... in reality... if you dont keep standby and reserve... they will have 3 awacs in the sky instead of 1... afterall... wartime ops is much different from peacetime ops... in wartime... u gotta get as many planes in the sky as technically feasible... even if it means you gotta sacrifice maintainance occasionally....
With 4 planes in war time the best they can have is 2 up with 1 standby but that is still risky.you would need at least 1 reserve and 1 standby so that in case of emergency 1 plane can be luanched to have at least 2 planes in the air during the emergency.You might ask what happened to the other 2?Well one would be in the shop and the other 1 would still be on the ground resupplying. -
to kanzer,
the container ships and LNGs are only attractive terrorists targets...... for piracy wise, not feasible..... most ships targeted are smaller freighters because they have a lower gunwhale.... it is easier to board......a bigger ships takes more people to overcome the crew and takeover....so the pirates prefer something smaller and more easier disposable cargo......
Yes you are right .. i am looking at the worst case scenario.
and as for US needing msia AWACS platform to monitor the chinese....hahahaha...... US will only sell them the export version.... so this is less capable than what they have. with the spy satellites and EP-3s in Japan, 7th fleet......they basically can cover the whole south china sea, east sea, sea of japan etc by themselves..... the msians have no role to play here..... they would not have one now nor will them have any in the future.....
You will never know for sure .. it depends on what kind of deal the Malaysians can strike with the Americans quietly. The yanks may not be able to put the AEWs near China for fear of collision, but no one said the Americans never fought by proxy before .. and there is lots more USA-Malaysia joint activity that we know about ....
as for a thaw in relations, after the GWII, he literally defined how diplomacy is being conducted...... more like the carrot or the cane here.....a barter with them is a non-starter. you have mentioned that US is the bigger competitor of palm oil so will the americans do something that is against their interest right?
Normally, barter with USA is a no-go right from the start. The thing is IF (a BIG IF) a barter trade with USA is announced .. that signals that there is a thaw. We can all wait till the cows come home for it to happen, but IF that REALLY does happen, that shifts the equation somewhat to their favour.
GWB will usually weigh the most credible threat against minor irritants .. if the threat is big enough (like North Korea or Iran), he may have to let some small NAM country win a round. After all, thats what politics are all about.
As for barter .. Malaysia is also still a textile and electonics producer. They can work something out. -
I do not wish to carry on this debate about our Lantirn pods specs. To do so we might get into trouble with OSA. Perhaps if it's possible we continue via email?Originally posted by Viper52:We're not using Pathfinder/Sharpshooter. The pods we got with the initial F-16C/D purchase in 1994 are full-spec LANTIRNs.
The Pathfinder/Sharpshooter looks quite different from the LANTIRN. I've seen those mounted on Taiwanese F-16s -
Originally posted by kenhor:I actually think that if the Malaysians are serious about the AWACS, they will get the 737 version. That way, they have lots of experience and spare parts .. they have plenty of 737s in MAS .
Another dimwitted arguement from you again.
Are u saying that the all RMAF needs to know is to borrow the MAS
737 experience to run the AWACS system ? What a joker, even the RSAF isn't interested in the 40-yr-old E2C's turbine engines. The key are the electronics, its software and operational competency. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
apparently you do not know how the amercians think. they are running a big risk if they run a proxy war..... can the msians be trusted? when it comes to security issues, you think the americans will just trust anyone? you seem to think that AWACs is a tool to fly close to the international border..... you think that is the way the americans use their AWACS.....?
You will never know for sure .. it depends on what kind of deal the Malaysians can strike with the Americans quietly. The yanks may not be able to put the AEWs near China for fear of collision, but no one said the Americans never fought by proxy before .. and there is lots more USA-Malaysia joint activity that we know about ....
Normally, barter with USA is a no-go right from the start. The thing is IF (a BIG IF) a barter trade with USA is announced .. that signals that there is a thaw. We can all wait till the cows come home for it to happen, but IF that REALLY does happen, that shifts the equation somewhat to their favour.
GWB will usually weigh the most credible threat against minor irritants .. if the threat is big enough (like North Korea or Iran), he may have to let some small NAM country win a round. After all, thats what politics are all about.
As for barter .. Malaysia is also still a textile and electonics producer. They can work something out. [/b]
as for barter trade, the americans have and will always prefer a straight cash deal here. unless you have some strategic commodity like uranium, oil, etc.... if not they are more interested in bottom line.... electronics? textile? you are talking about the world no 1 importer here....... if msians can do electronics, we would have done it 10 years ago! come on get real.... -
it doesnt work that way... having military base in a state does not and has not prevented singapore from leaving the federation... and its certainly questionable how well a Naval base or in this case.. a sub base can prevent sabah from seceeding the federation when army camps in singapore back in 65 failed to hold singapore back.... thus i think its merely an excuse.. the real purpose is still as i stated in my previous post...Originally posted by kenhor:To tripwire,
If you ever been to Lumut or Sitiawan 10 years ago, it was a dead town. Then they decided to build the naval base there. Now, the entire place is developing faster than any other town in Perak .. putting 10k soldiers anywhere generates lots of income.
By doing the same to Sabah .. the same economic activity is generated. As well as additional focus, security and reduction in cross border instability. Hence Sabah will be made more integrated into the Federation.
That plus the fact that BN is once again the ruling party of Sabah will ensure that it won't go the way of Singapore.
secondly... if malaysia is really interested in the economic benefit of the people of sabah... they malaysian govt has far easier and better means of improving sabah's economy through infrastructure construction... the truth is.. malaysia fear that a well off sabah would be the trigger that will see sabah seceed from the federation like singapore...
thus malaysia doesnt want to see a sucessful sabah as it believe that a weak sabah would be continuously dependent and thus obedient to the federal govt... which is wat inignited the anti-federation sentiments in sabah...
lastly... having a sub base in east malaysia does not limits its sub movement to only east malaysia and south china sea... they could afterall return to peninsula for special ops as peninsula also got naval base.. though not a sub base... but it will do.... -
To gun,
Maintenance of aircraft movable parts is the most "wear & tear" part of maintaining an aircraft compared to electronics components.
If they have plenty of 737 spare parts and the experience to fix it, it makes their job easier than on some other platform which they have absolutely no experience. -
To kanzer
apparently you do not know how the amercians think. they are running a big risk if they run a proxy war..... can the msians be trusted? when it comes to security issues, you think the americans will just trust anyone? you seem to think that AWACs is a tool to fly close to the international border..... you think that is the way the americans use their AWACS.....?
There is lots more than what meets the eye .. you do know that there is an international anti-terrorist task force based in Malaysia going to be set up as a JV between FBI and Polis Malaysia right?
You also do know that there is the Asia Anti Piracy (arr me hearties)
HQ in KL also right?
And don't forget, during Sep 11, the Malaysian authorities passed info to the FBI regardiing some of the terrorist BEFORE the incident .. the fact is that there are OFFICIAL working level contacts between the Malaysians and the Americans ..
Malaysia actually has good relationship with all 3 rogue states (Iraq, Iran, N Korea) .. not to mention Myanmar, Cuba etc .. The USA knows that Malaysia can help keep tabs on all these undesirable countries for them quietly.
The americans don't have to trust the Malaysians .. they just have to use them .. but to use them, they need to let the Malaysians have the proper tools.
as for barter trade, the americans have and will always prefer a straight cash deal here. unless you have some strategic commodity like uranium, oil, etc.... if not they are more interested in bottom line.... electronics? textile? you are talking about the world no 1 importer here....... if msians can do electronics, we would have done it 10 years ago! come on get real....
Actually, Malaysia exports more electronics components than you know it. Its because they export small components into Singapore and Taiwan and they are assembled into bigger parts that you are not aware of.
And it is very easy for USA to accept barter trade with Malaysia .. take for example textiles .. all they have to do is to increase the quota for Malaysian made textiles and ta da .. Malaysia can benefit. -
To Tripwire
it doesnt work that way... having military base in a state does not and has not prevented singapore from leaving the federation... and its certainly questionable how well a Naval base or in this case.. a sub base can prevent sabah from seceeding the federation when army camps in singapore back in 65 failed to hold singapore back.... thus i think its merely an excuse.. the real purpose is still as i stated in my previous post...
Its economic benefit and the security that the submarine base (plus other military attachments) offers that will keep Sabah in the federation. At this moment, SABAH has to depend on Malaysia for its security .. it is infested with Philippinos. So much needed security forces are need to keep all the undesirables away. Add that to the economic benefits of a huge military presence, they have no cause for complain.
Of course, the Philippinos are doing Malaysia a big favour actually, with all that noise they are making and the chaos, Sabah will prefer to be safe.
secondly... if malaysia is really interested in the economic benefit of the people of sabah... they malaysian govt has far easier and better means of improving sabah's economy through infrastructure construction... the truth is.. malaysia fear that a well off sabah would be the trigger that will see sabah seceed from the federation like singapore...
If Malaysia is the best show in town, the Sabahans will be very happy to remain in the federation. After all, which other country is doing better and will do a better job running Sabah? Brunei? Singapore .. don't make me laugh.
thus malaysia doesnt want to see a sucessful sabah as it believe that a weak sabah would be continuously dependent and thus obedient to the federal govt... which is wat inignited the anti-federation sentiments in sabah...
Very interesting scenario .. but you left out the political dimension. Politics is what keeps sabah in the federation. Unfortunately, with Singapore's one party rule, there is little example the Sabahans can gain from us to make them want to leave .. most wil fear the repression that we have to undergo.
In Ipoh, the local town council just did an experiment .. they started acting like us .. imposing fines, clampdown on vice, shaming criminals in public etc .. the people there are already complaining .. so if our way of life is unable to be stomached by the city folk of Ipoh, don't expect it to go down better with the Sabahans.
lastly... having a sub base in east malaysia does not limits its sub movement to only east malaysia and south china sea... they could afterall return to peninsula for special ops as peninsula also got naval base.. though not a sub base... but it will do....
Of course .. it makes sense to have 2 bases .. just in case one kaput. -
Kenhor
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
The point of deterrence is not to win the war but to prevent one from happening. Hence the deterrence by NATO works .. as they knew the WP was planning to survive a nuclear war .. so all NATO had to do was to ensure that was not possible. Once they had enough, they can divert resources to their economy. We have to do the same .. ensure that we have enough deterrence and to heck with anything else they buy .. we want them to go bankrupt .. not the other way around.
Of course deterrence is about preventing war. But how do you prevent war if your potential enemy has a fair crack at winning? The point of deterrence has to be that you must show your enemy that he WILL not win. Then he will be DETERRED from attacking.
You yourself have said NATO succeeded at deterrence because the WP knew its plans to survive a nuclear exchange will not succeed. Our objective for deterrence is prevent the enemy from occupying and/or destroying Singapore isn't it? So we must make it clear that we have a clear plan from stopping that from happening, otherwise what deterrence is it when the enemy thinks he can succeed
Let me reiterate here, the plan is not just aimed at your beloved Malaysia, it is to counter any moves to invade Singapore via Malaysia(which due to surrounding geography is the only realistic way of successfully invading Singapore). If you have taken time off from studying palm oil economics to read "Defending the Lion City", you would have read that Singapore's strategy is to move into the Mersing Line should it feel that its threatened "with or without Malaysias acquisience". That last part has always been conveniently ignored by critics of the strategy in Malaysia and makes it clear that unlike them(and you) we do not see everything in a Singapore vs Malaysia context
Sigh...I've said it before, there has been no introduction of new capabilities other than the Apaches for long long time other than those to counter newer regional capabilities(eg ASW frigates to counter submarines). The others have been to replace existing capabilities which are obsolete. Or would you prefer that if the worst case scenario occurs and deterrence fails, you would like to fight with obsolete 30-year old weapons
In fact, I disagree totally with forward defense as it will spare our infrastrucutre but bleed our citizens. If we intend to invade an enemy, we need to outnumber them .. hence we probably need to mobilize our entire male population if we are serious about defeating them in a scenario where we go it alone. Each death of a soldier is equivalent to the death of a civillian. So I prefer to wait in a defendable position rather then go into a hostile environment where terrain suits the defender.
You really don't get it do you? Foward defence IS us moving into a defensible position. That position is the so-called Mersing Line and it is a lot more defensible position that holding out in Singapore simply because we're so small
If forward defense is so disagreeable for you, then I ask you again, to propose an alternative on this forum. Like I've said, I'm sure a lot of us here would like to hear of it. -
Sure, send me a PM with your email address, or simply send me a PM with what you want to say...thanksOriginally posted by SlowPoke:I do not wish to carry on this debate about our Lantirn pods specs. To do so we might get into trouble with OSA. Perhaps if it's possible we continue via email? -
Double post deleted
-
Originally posted by kenhor:
To Tripwire
[b]it doesnt work that way... having military base in a state does not and has not prevented singapore from leaving the federation... and its certainly questionable how well a Naval base or in this case.. a sub base can prevent sabah from seceeding the federation when army camps in singapore back in 65 failed to hold singapore back.... thus i think its merely an excuse.. the real purpose is still as i stated in my previous post...
Its economic benefit and the security that the submarine base (plus other military attachments) offers that will keep Sabah in the federation. At this moment, SABAH has to depend on Malaysia for its security .. it is infested with Philippinos. So much needed security forces are need to keep all the undesirables away. Add that to the economic benefits of a huge military presence, they have no cause for complain.
you are very idealistic leh... first off.. malaysia already have division in east malaysia, couple with dozens of other units from the navy and airforce and watever local homeguard... how much economic difference would a sub-base add to the local economy??? secondly... SABAH dont need to depend on malaysia for its security as malaysia MAF sucks bottom when it come to defending east malaysia security as you have also noted... the presence of large number of pino in sabah... lastly... how much more addition to the security of sabah can be increased by the mere addition of 2 subs when an entire malaysian division and other units are already there??
Of course, the Philippinos are doing Malaysia a big favour actually, with all that noise they are making and the chaos, Sabah will prefer to be safe. the truth is... sabah dont even want to be in the federation... if not because of historical reason, thanks to the brits and LKY.. sabah would have become an independent state... and it is a fact.. that sabahans have no acceptance of federal authority...
secondly... if malaysia is really interested in the economic benefit of the people of sabah... they malaysian govt has far easier and better means of improving sabah's economy through infrastructure construction... the truth is.. malaysia fear that a well off sabah would be the trigger that will see sabah seceed from the federation like singapore...
If Malaysia is the best show in town, the Sabahans will be very happy to remain in the federation. After all, which other country is doing better and will do a better job running Sabah? Brunei? Singapore .. don't make me laugh. dont make me crack.... there is no love between sabah and the federal... singapore and brunei are not even in the picture... and as far as i sees the progess of singapore and malaysia... i wont be the least surprised if sabah would be better managed by its own people...
thus malaysia doesnt want to see a sucessful sabah as it believe that a weak sabah would be continuously dependent and thus obedient to the federal govt... which is wat inignited the anti-federation sentiments in sabah...
Very interesting scenario .. but you left out the political dimension. Politics is what keeps sabah in the federation. Unfortunately, with Singapore's one party rule, there is little example the Sabahans can gain from us to make them want to leave .. most wil fear the repression that we have to undergo. dont make me laugh... you know shit about sabah people and their aspiration... you just wanna take cheap shots at achievements made by singapore..
In Ipoh, the local town council just did an experiment .. they started acting like us .. imposing fines, clampdown on vice, shaming criminals in public etc .. the people there are already complaining .. so if our way of life is unable to be stomached by the city folk of Ipoh, don't expect it to go down better with the Sabahans. typical malaysian moronic belief.... thinking that what works in singapore would work in ipoh or anywhere else... your PM has been copying singapore so often, it makes one wonder... if malays lack leadership and creatitivity abilities...
lastly... having a sub base in east malaysia does not limits its sub movement to only east malaysia and south china sea... they could afterall return to peninsula for special ops as peninsula also got naval base.. though not a sub base... but it will do....
Of course .. it makes sense to have 2 bases .. just in case one kaput.[/b] against singapore... your base wont go kaput... your subs will.... 
-
you now saying those grease monkeys has more maintainence job than their electronics counterpart ?Originally posted by kenhor:Maintenance of aircraft movable parts is the most "wear & tear" part of maintaining an aircraft compared to electronics components. .
ken, aren't u aware of the speed of changes in today's military electronics system ? Didn't u know that even the RSAF's E2C are constantly upgraded to meet the demands of today's warfare for the last 1 decade of operation ?
Your over simplistic reason for depending on the knowhow of a existing unclassified civilian engine system isn't enough to keep an AWACS sqn operational effectively.
Having to maintain a whole variaties of aircrafts from UK, US, Russia and France is no small matter, let alone making all work as an integrated defence mechanism. It is like digging its own grave for their stretched and skill-staved ground logistics and limited crew competency, while choosing the easier way out.
Just look at the frequency of accident loss in RMAF's former A-4PTM Skyhawk. Their A4 had good engines, but was poorly maintain due to corrupt and incompetency. KL abandone A4 and bought the Hawk as replacement. Now we have at least 1 Hawk crash.
See this report:
ex-RMAF officers selling unsuitable and obsolete equipment
[color=darkblue]"The Cabinet must take a very serious view of the reported speech by the Royal Malaysian Air Force chief Lt Jen Datuk Seri Abdul Ghani Aziz last Thursday - a day before his optional retirement - where he castigated ex-RMAF officers turned defence equipment suppliers for selling unsuitable and obsolete equipment at the expense of the safety of their former colleagues and “the operational readiness of the RMAF”.
Even more mockery on RMAF record when the KL gov choosed to spent RM152 million to get a brand-new M4801 executive Jet "it valued the safety and life of the leaders in view of the high accident rate of RMAF planes..."
Read that big ho-ha over the exec jet purchase in 2000
Note also RMAF had lost 29 pilots in the last 10 years. That average about 3 pilots life per yr for a decade.
IT also reflects how Malaysia's defence procurement are driven more by the KL politicians than the military themselves! Instead of enhancing existing systems and retaining the experience gained over the years, KL took the easier way out and let the poor uniformed guys to be re-trained, re educated and re-learn another completely new system which KL deems worth every cents it paid by palm oil !
Buying a military system is not like getting a new car. Unless an organisation has the human resource , skill and the technological powess to enhance its existing inventory, buying a brand new weapon system is easiest way out with wasted $$$ , wasted resource & wasted experience.
Ken, Please grow up .[/color] -
To viper
potential enemy has a fair crack at winning? The point of deterrence has to be that you must show your enemy that he WILL not win. Then he will be DETERRED from attacking.
Thats your version of deterrence .. my version is that if he does win, he won't be around to enjoy the fruits of victory, either because he is no longer around or the thing which he wants is no longer there.
My idea of deterrence is the story of a samurai who wants to cross the bridge the same time as a peasant. The samurai being more higher in ranked wants to challenge the peasant to a fight. So the peasant knows that he will die if he fights, yet he wants to cross the bridge .. so he learns a fighting stance that will lose the fight, but will guarantee that samurai dies as well. Once the samurai knows that the peasant is willing to die, the samurai, who has more to live for, backs off.
That is my idea of deterrence.
You yourself have said NATO succeeded at deterrence because the WP knew its plans to survive a nuclear exchange will not succeed. Our objective for deterrence is prevent the enemy from occupying and/or destroying Singapore isn't it? So we must make it clear that we have a clear plan from stopping that from happening, otherwise what deterrence is it when the enemy thinks he can succeed
Actually, my idea is for SINGAPOREAN PEOPLE to survive .. I care nothing for infrastructure .. so forward defense is not my preference as a good strategy as it involves sending lots of soldiers (aka Singapore citizens) to die in a foreign land.
Let me reiterate here, the plan is not just aimed at your beloved Malaysia, it is to counter any moves to invade Singapore via Malaysia(which due to surrounding geography is the only realistic way of successfully invading Singapore). If you have taken time off from studying palm oil economics to read "Defending the Lion City", you would have read that Singapore's strategy is to move into the Mersing Line should it feel that its threatened "with or without Malaysias acquisience". That last part has always been conveniently ignored by critics of the strategy in Malaysia and makes it clear that unlike them(and you) we do not see everything in a Singapore vs Malaysia context
If there was a third party who wish to invade Singapore via Malaysia, our first policy will be to make peace with the Malaysians and integrate our forces to something like NATO , not invade them just fo the sake of our security. Thats like using someone elses body to block a bullet. That person will not be very happy. .. However, I don't see that we have noble intentions towards the north anyway. .. and from all the posts, we have plenty of people who are antagonistic towards Malays, Malaysians, etc .. so no point trying to convince me that the potential enemy is a third party.
In fact, during the last war, it was the defenders of Malaya who fought a rear guard action from the north all the way to the south. If there is a third party, we definately need the Malaysians to fight a rear guard action or to divert the enemy partially towards KL .. friendship is definately more important than a forward defence. And I can truly say that I am definately more friendly towards the north than many of the members here.
Sigh...I've said it before, there has been no introduction of new capabilities other than the Apaches for long long time other than those to counter newer regional capabilities(eg ASW frigates to counter submarines). The others have been to replace existing capabilities which are obsolete. Or would you prefer that if the worst case scenario occurs and deterrence fails, you would like to fight with obsolete 30-year old weapons
If you turn your statement around, that justifies the entire Malaysian arms purchases. They have been sucking hind tit for last 30 years. Its now time for them to modernize.
You really don't get it do you? Foward defence IS us moving into a defensible position. That position is the so-called Mersing Line and it is a lot more defensible position that holding out in Singapore simply because we're so small
And you don't get how porus the mersing line is do you .. if you can tell me how we can defend the mersing line which strecthes from Mersing, along highway 50 down to Batu Pahat and keep infiltrators from attacking our rear areas. That is 100km in a straight line. That line divides Johore into 2 .. that southern portion has MOST of the johore population. And you can tell me that whoever we send up north to defend that line will not face attacks in front, behind and at the flanks?
If forward defense is so disagreeable for you, then I ask you again, to propose an alternative on this forum. Like I've said, I'm sure a lot of us here would like to hear of it.
My idea of deterrence is like the samurai story above. -
To Tripwire
you are very idealistic leh... first off.. malaysia already have division in east malaysia, couple with dozens of other units from the navy and airforce and watever local homeguard... how much economic difference would a sub-base add to the local economy???
Judging from the benefits of Lumut over the last 10 years, it will do wonders to the town supplying the base.
secondly... SABAH dont need to depend on malaysia for its security as malaysia MAF sucks bottom when it come to defending east malaysia security as you have also noted... the presence of large number of pino in sabah...
As Sabah does not have a private army, it depends on the MAF. Of course, the MAF can comprise of Sabahan soldiers.
lastly... how much more addition to the security of sabah can be increased by the mere addition of 2 subs when an entire malaysian division and other units are already there??
2 subs is just the beginning .. once you have a base, additional units are posted there right?
the truth is... sabah dont even want to be in the federation... if not because of historical reason, thanks to the brits and LKY.. sabah would have become an independent state...
Thats your opinion .. and we will never know will we?
and it is a fact.. that sabahans have no acceptance of federal authority...
Opinions are like an asshole, everyone has one ..
dont make me crack.... there is no love between sabah and the federal... singapore and brunei are not even in the picture... and as far as i sees the progess of singapore and malaysia... i wont be the least surprised if sabah would be better managed by its own people...
Of course, but again, thats your opnion, so only what the Sabahans think is relevant, not 2 singaporean people anonymously posting on a forum.
dont make me laugh... you know ^%!* about sabah people and their aspiration... you just wanna take cheap shots at achievements made by singapore..
I know as much as any singaporean about sabah. Why would you know more?
typical malaysian moronic belief.... thinking that what works in singapore would work in ipoh or anywhere else... your PM has been copying singapore so often, it makes one wonder... if malays lack leadership and creatitivity abilities...
Correct .. thats why the Sabahans won't want independance, they don't see how it will benefit them -
To gun,
How many crashes did MAS 737 have? I can remember only 1 .. and that was due to a terrorist attack back in 1973.
As some one the forum posted earlier, they can get outsource companies (run by chinese) to manage the equipment.
So getting the 737 version of a AWACS make better sense to them than getting the E2C Hawkeye. -
Wow. What an ingenious defence doctrine !Originally posted by kenhor:To viper
[quote][b]My idea of deterrence is the story of a samurai who... knows that the peasant is willing to die, the samurai, who has more to live for, backs off. That is my idea of deterrence.[/u]
But wait ! What kind of "samuari" are u talking here ? Another fake one ? Sorry man, u got your facts wrong again (surprise surprise)
Traditional Samurai were essentially body guards for the rich who operated to a strict code of honour. A SamuraiÂ’s work was his life - for example, if the noble he protected was killed, he became a Ronin, who roamed the land until he could avenge that death, promptly commiting Sipuku, or ritual suicide.
Get your facts right 1st before commiting another Kamakazi on your own half-baked "idea of deterrence". -
To gun,
Sure .. in your opinion, all samurai are noble and pure and will die for their master .. and don't oppress the peasants..
Opinons are like assholes .. everyone has one.
-
Originally posted by kenhor:
Not challenging the fact about RMAF crash records ?Why avoid the real issue & hid behind an airline opereational ? OMG, now u making a accident records comparison between the RMAFand MAS ? ken, your idea is getting evermore screwy in each new reply.
How many crashes did MAS 737 have? I can remember only 1 .. and that was due to a terrorist attack back in 1973.As some one the forum posted earlier, they can get outsource companies (run by chinese) to manage the equipment.
Ah, this is new....Malaysian military has preferential treatment for certain creed. .So getting the 737 version of a AWACS make better sense to them than getting the E2C Hawkeye.
Sorry to burst your bubble again. KL has a slightly less-expensive version in mind. Don't know ? Then go read Bernama report in my 1st post. -
Sorry dude, going to burst another of your kiddy bubble againOriginally posted by kenhor:To gun,
Sure .. in your opinion, all samurai are noble and pure and will die for their master .. and don't oppress the peasants..
Opinons are like assholes .. everyone has one.
Those "opinions" are from the practioners themselves, not from me
Source: Affiliated to the Irish Aikido Federation (Ireland Aikikai)
Like I've advised u earlier ...pls readup some facts prior to setting out your "samurai deterrance theory"
So who is the A**holes now, u say ? -
To Gun,
Like I said, if the Malaysian government were serious about the AWACS, they should get the 737 version. They will have less headaches with that place compared to a pure military one like E2C ..
The RMAF can outsourse maintenance to the MAS or AIROD .. may be cheaper and better to do it.
But maybe they can't afford it .. but that's another story. -
To gun,
Of course .. I am sure that some of the forum members here will believe that the opinons of you and the IRISH akido association will reflect very accurately on how the samurai in medieval japan actually behaved, compared to what they were supposed to behave.
Unfortunately, I don't. -
Thats your version of deterrence .. my version is that if he does win, he won't be around to enjoy the fruits of victory, either because he is no longer around or the thing which he wants is no longer there.
My idea of deterrence is the story of a samurai who wants to cross the bridge the same time as a peasant. The samurai being more higher in ranked wants to challenge the peasant to a fight. So the peasant knows that he will die if he fights, yet he wants to cross the bridge .. so he learns a fighting stance that will lose the fight, but will guarantee that samurai dies as well. Once the samurai knows that the peasant is willing to die, the samurai, who has more to live for, backs off.
That is my idea of deterrence.
And thank goodness its not our defence planners idea of deterrence as well, because your idea of deterrence would not only ensure Singapore's defenders will die defending Singapore, all our family members as well what we have worked so hard to create will end up in one huge wasteland SHOULD THAT DETERRENCE FAIL.
You seem to be happy to accept that if deterrence fails, you'll happily see Singapore laid waste to, and everyone dies. I'm sorry, but if deterrence fails, I'd rather give it a crack to try to keep my family alive.
Actually, my idea is for SINGAPOREAN PEOPLE to survive .. I care nothing for infrastructure .. so forward defense is not my preference as a good strategy as it involves sending lots of soldiers (aka Singapore citizens) to die in a foreign land.
Rubbish...if we sit in here and wait for the enemy to come like you suggest, the likely result will be a siege where we will be pounded into the dirt or we'll have a deathmatch in the streets. Either way, A LOT of Singaporeans will die and the country laid waste to
If there was a third party who wish to invade Singapore via Malaysia, our first policy will be to make peace with the Malaysians and integrate our forces to something like NATO , not invade them just fo the sake of our security. Thats like using someone elses body to block a bullet. That person will not be very happy. .. However, I don't see that we have noble intentions towards the north anyway. .. and from all the posts, we have plenty of people who are antagonistic towards Malays, Malaysians, etc .. so no point trying to convince me that the potential enemy is a third party.
In fact, during the last war, it was the defenders of Malaya who fought a rear guard action from the north all the way to the south. If there is a third party, we definately need the Malaysians to fight a rear guard action or to divert the enemy partially towards KL .. friendship is definately more important than a forward defence. And I can truly say that I am definately more friendly towards the north than many of the members here.
By that same token, you are a lot friendlier to Malaysians than a lot of Malaysians are towards Singaporeans in general. Theres an anti-Malaysian undercurrent here, but the feeling is not one-sided, and worse still, a lot of the same kind of opinions expressed here are expressed by politicians and the mainstream press over there? So why pick on the forummers here alone for such sentiments?
While we're on the topic of the last war, it does show the folly of attempting to make a last stand in Singapore proper
If you turn your statement around, that justifies the entire Malaysian arms purchases. They have been sucking hind tit for last 30 years. Its now time for them to modernize.
Sure, and most here accept that fact, what we're picking on is their assertions that it is to counter "pre-emptive" strikes, which are comments obviously directed southwards towards us(especially) and Australia.
And you don't get how porus the mersing line is do you .. if you can tell me how we can defend the mersing line which strecthes from Mersing, along highway 50 down to Batu Pahat and keep infiltrators from attacking our rear areas. That is 100km in a straight line. That line divides Johore into 2 .. that southern portion has MOST of the johore population. And you can tell me that whoever we send up north to defend that line will not face attacks in front, behind and at the flanks?
I have spoken out against the Mersing Line strategy in this forum before, but I also feel that its the best strategy in the circumstances in the absence of a better one and a certainly whole lot better than your "Singapore Deathmatch" option
My idea of deterrence is like the samurai story above.
And as Gun said, its half-baked