Possible emergence of Singaporean warrior culture?
-
Yo gedanken-thanks for all the points u have you have raised in your post as well as laurence82.
I want to remind everyone that pls don't raise irrelevant pts and pls dun quarrel with each other or i will ask moderator to ban u from this thread.
tripwire,pls dun quarrel with gedanken.just discuss only leh.dun need to quarrel like gedanken is your gf/bf.if u want to quarrel with him,u arrange street fight in geylang k.or u take out frustrations at OT or geylang
.jus joking,anyway u still need human soldiers to man all those weapons.sure,scientist play important role but u need a human to use it.without human soldiers,any force will kena. -
PUI! PUI! PUI!Originally posted by Sardaukar:dun need to quarrel like gedanken is your gf/bf.
A Geylang girl like tripwire is definitely not my type - my girlfriend's Scottish in origin!
-
you may need man behind the machine for the present time...
but in time... weapons would become more and more autonomous and less dependent on the human software.
then ... where will your warrior be... -
Paiseh, but I gotta to disagree. Not siding anyone, just want to put things in perspectiveOriginally posted by tripwire:agreed...
no point argueing with someone who thinks like a farmer...
US troops might be in iraq... but are they warriors like the samurais or knights of the past or merely armed peasants of present day?
its the weapons and technologies that is developed by engineers, biologist as well as computer experts who won the war with fighter planes, tanks, missiles, satellites, biological agents, radio, radar, EW, bombs, CVN, CG, DDG, SSN, SSBN and tons of others stuff that won the war...
iraq didnt lost because they had less soldiers... but technologically they were beaten.
soon... UAVs, UCAV, RAVs and other remote weapons controlled by AI would eventually dominate the battlefield... as human body limits are reached.
you could either look forward and accept the facts or go back to your mountain and dreamed of warriors of the past...
Let me quote James F.Dunnigan - How To Make War, A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare for the Post Cold War Era.
'What were the lessons of the Gulf War? The principal lessons was that training pays large dividends. American troops underwent unprecedented training during the 1980s. Moreover, the troops were all volunteers and carefully selected. This has been the traditional method of creating a high effective armed forces. The Iraqis were largely an army of ill trained, ill led and ill motivated conscripts. These training and troop quality factors, not superior equipments, were the real reasons why Americans did so well'
and
'Gulf War is a medium sized short war..'
a) The Americans were always superior in technology since World War 2. But did they win a single war before then? Korean War and Vietnam War? Grenada and Panama was a relatively short scuffle so as to speak. One must realise the immense change in training, troops selection, leaderships, strategies and doctrines US Armed Forces underwent in the 80s. As I emphasise before, all things being equal or remain constant, sending a highly equipped lousy attitude soldier is akin to shooting oneself in the foot.
b) Gulf War is is just another short war after 'Nam. The true assessment most military watchers were waiting for was actually a Soviet-Nato confrontations, where both can compete on the same level playing field. Only difference is that Nato relies more on technology, lean and mean strategy, while Soviet focus on low cost mass attack doctrine. Only when both titans clash then we were able to comfortably state what factor seems better. In many ways, Iraq pales beside US in many many areas.
b) Iraq lost in the conventional war due to also factors not only due to technology, but lousy doctrines, strategies and poor training. We shouldnt ignore these facts. St reported few days ago on what misconsceptions Saddam and his military leader have on the strategies of the US. This is one factor which turn out to be costly to them.
Actually I would like to expand each of these points out, because I feel we shouldnt link military to technologies or human factors alone. This author wrote on every aspect of the military, devoted many chapters to leaderships and human factors alone. Sciences like economics, phsychology and sociology were exhausted in order to explain the implicit factors in military victories. But space constraint wont allow me to write so much, this book is good read for many military enthusiast, who wants exhaustive info.
My thoughts are this; it is very fascinating how technology works for us, it is possible one day robots replace us. But computer relies a lot on data, statistics, numbers and figures, experience to able to duplicate human thinking...to certain extent. Military victories in history are won also base on the generals emotions, instinct, gut feelings, and so on. They gotta have technology which match humans in this. Given superior technology, its no use if the human factors are not up to task.
Reading this books, if I am a general, I would focus on every area, letting no stone unturned. -
actually there is no disagreedment here...
as i sees it.. the scientist and engineers could make really powerful weapons...
BUT in the end... YOU NEED a SMART BRAIN at the top to bring out the full potentials of those weapons that your scientist or engineers has developed.
the chinese ancients once noted that its easier to get a thoudsand soldier then to get a good general. that is still true in present time.
a warrior... be they on the field, in the lab or behind a desk... needs a good leader to bring out their potential and let their diverse skills shine through...
sun zi.. said... know thyself.. know thy enemy.. and you will be victories in a hundred battle.
to know thyself... its not simply to know thy strength.. but more importantly.. one must know thy weakness. for it is your weakness who would eventually hand your victory to the enemy.
Engineers and scientist too need good leaders... leaders who can understand them, motivate them, point them in the right direction, give them support and lead them. -
yup!Originally posted by tripwire:actually there is no disagreedment here...
as i sees it.. the scientist and engineers could make really powerful weapons...
BUT in the end... YOU NEED a SMART BRAIN at the top to bring out the full potentials of those weapons that your scientist or engineers has developed.
the chinese ancients once noted that its easier to get a thoudsand soldier then to get a good general. that is still true in present time.
a warrior... be they on the field, in the lab or behind a desk... needs a good leader to bring out their potential and let their diverse skills shine through...
sun zi.. said... know thyself.. know thy enemy.. and you will be victories in a hundred battle.
to know thyself... its not simply to know thy strength.. but more importantly.. one must know thy weakness. for it is your weakness who would eventually hand your victory to the enemy.
Engineers and scientist too need good leaders... leaders who can understand them, motivate them, point them in the right direction, give them support and lead them. -
Fine, once things develop to the point where the basic requirement for the troops to be on the ground no longer applies, post this again.Originally posted by tripwire:you may need man behind the machine for the present time...
but in time... weapons would become more and more autonomous and less dependent on the human software.
then ... where will your warrior be...
Until then, see you in the funny papers. -
Completely off Sardaukar's point in his original post. Try again.Originally posted by tripwire:actually there is no disagreedment here...
as i sees it.. the scientist and engineers could make really powerful weapons...
BUT in the end... YOU NEED a SMART BRAIN at the top to bring out the full potentials of those weapons that your scientist or engineers has developed.
the chinese ancients once noted that its easier to get a thoudsand soldier then to get a good general. that is still true in present time.
a warrior... be they on the field, in the lab or behind a desk... needs a good leader to bring out their potential and let their diverse skills shine through...
sun zi.. said... know thyself.. know thy enemy.. and you will be victories in a hundred battle.
to know thyself... its not simply to know thy strength.. but more importantly.. one must know thy weakness. for it is your weakness who would eventually hand your victory to the enemy.
Engineers and scientist too need good leaders... leaders who can understand them, motivate them, point them in the right direction, give them support and lead them. -
then let saudarkaur speak for himself... you what? his parasite?
-
Nope, if anything, you're the parasite for taking a perfectly sensible topic and turning it into your anime-fantasy bandwagon.Originally posted by tripwire:then let saudarkaur speak for himself... you what? his parasite? -
An interesting topic made extra spicy by a little lover's tiff playing itself out in the postings.
Just a few thoughts, only my humble opinion of course.
Lets first ignore the question of the necessity of a warrior culture but the possibility of a warrior culture in singapore.
First of all, i believe the gurkhas and the sikh(though my knowledge on the sikhs are superficial) are not true warrior cultures but rather sub-cultures within the society. the societies from which these sub-cultures originated from are neither warlike more excessively aggressive but they do possess a cadre of warriors acting as the depository and also the teachers of a warrior ethos to a group of followers and disciples. They are neither mainstream nor is this ethos a common strain that runs throughout the society.
Cultures truer to the form of a martial society would be the pre-Theban hegemony Sparta of ancient greece and the institution of samurai class which emerged in the post-heian period.
These two societies mobilized their economy and efforts towards the maintenance of a warrior class and the people produced from this class were also the social and political elite.
We know sure as sure that such an occurance would not be possible in singapore, for such a phenomenon would require the very ideologies and societal norms of the country to be martial in nature and singapore's version of a democracy coupled with capitalism and our education system but prevent such an occurance. Can you imagine that a singaporean kid separated from his family at an early age to live in communes where he was to live and breathe the subtle and not so subtle arts of warring. Where any failure to graduate as a trained warrior would condemm him to be cast down into another class of citizenry inferior in rights and status to the warrior class.
Thus in the definative aspect, a warrior culture is impossible,
But of course there is a likelyhood of breeding a sub culture of men and women to be warlike in aspect and behaviour is there. The closest we have to a martial-subculture is perhaps the SOF. No, the commandos are not even close(no disrespect to them), at the end of the day, they are still boys want only want to get drunk on the weekends.
The SOF, i dare say have the training and expertise in soldiery, but not the culture. This culture is as you and i understand it, their lifestyles have to be martially orientated in almost totality. Every waking moment in training and sweating, and the quieter moments in contemplating the perfection of their drills and gunnery. That meals and living conditions are geared towards toughing the body and provides for no distraction. Also these men should feel the need to pass this culture on to their children and when their bodies can no longer take the outdoor rigours they would still remain within the community and serve in any position as required. That there is to exist honour between combatants and there is glory in victory or sacrifice.
Thus for the creation of such a sub culture would require conscious effort from the government to promote and secure the lifestyle of such a subculture and protect it against the temptations of a normal capitalist consumer lifestyle and also to safeguard the norms and ways of this subculture.
Of course what i just spelt out is the ideal in my mind. Presently the existance of such a culture could be considered vulgar to mostwho are now attuned to diplomacy and democracy.
i hope i had been coherent.
Also the posts regarding the relevance of a warrior in the future age of high tech warring has its degree of relevancy to this thread but in essence what it answer is whether there should be a need for a warrior culture but not the original posters question of the possibility of a warrior culture. -
my approach was to note that the future of a warrior class is bleak and of little value in days of advance technology..
thus warriors of the past ... are no longer deemed very neccessary in the future...
with such a bleak future... there would be little incentives to be among the warrior (fighting) class in present time. much less even consider the possibility of creating a warrior culture.
my belief is that future warriors who be the engineers or scientist in the lab... while they may not have the physical attributes of warriors in the past... they could be inculcated with the ideological part of a warrior in their mind.
such ideology would include pride in their skill and work, the sense of responsibility place on their shoulder and the determination to find a solution. (to beat the enemy's latest weapon)
these and other ideology like honor, loyalty and compassion could be strong motivators.
the japanese i believe has infused the ideological part of a warrior into their buisnessmen...
the chinese too.. believe that war is waged across the buisness world... and some even look to sun zi art of war.. and turn it into art of buisness. -
All very valid views and in some way related to my original question,the possibility of an emergent warrior class in Singapore.
Thank you all for contributing your views and providing new information.I didn't really think about our SOF guys there.And I totally forgot the Spartans of old Greece and the samurai.I was also misinformed about the Sikhs and Gurkhas,thinking them cultures,not subcultures.
Anyway,to address it all,you already know my views on warriors.now my question is,should our dear govt nurture and promote such a lifestyle,to create such a subculture?
ok now,tripwire I don't appreciate somebody being called my parasite.I find that insulting.to him and me.what have I done to you to deserve having somebody being called my parasite?just take this lovers tiff out of this thread ok
.meet up in a hotel room or something.I suggest Hotel 81 with their hourly rates and mirrored celings. .
Oh yah.I'm doing my NS next year and I want to get into an elite combat unit like Guards or Commandoes.What are the requirements? -
You've got some very good points there, redrooster. The nature of the overall culture is something that needs to be considered. We are living in an environment where war is not seen as a necessity, and things like the Iraq invasion have not helped things any. With pointless wars like Iraq and Vietnam, the public opinion has been turned away from seeing the military as being valuable. That being the case, one might have to consider if the current environment is conducive to the development of a warrior culture.
I don't know if I would agree with you about the warrior mentality being something that doesn't switch off, though, at least not in the sense that you described it. The underlying mentality of the warrior is always there, but it is manifested according to the situation. The Art of War, as you would probably know, is not used strictly in a military context - the working principles have been applied to businesses regularly and to good effect. The SOF guys that I know aren't overtly militaristic - chances are that if you met one of them on the street, you wouldn't pick them out. However, they apply their working principles in all situations accordingly, and I would not for a moment doubt that they could switch modes immediately if the situation called for it.
Sarkaudar, I'm not sure if there is anything you can do to influence your posting beyond keeping yourself in shape. I got dragged kicking and screaming into Commandos, although it got to be a lot of fun once I was there. -
Decided to resurrect this thread.anywayz all,your opinions.
in the future,is it entirely possible?nothing is impossible,and we can't predict the future,but we sure as hell can try.
for instance,what would the reaction be if the SAF were to institute an acceptable casualty rate of say 6% per batch,and then had the balls to tell opponents to their idea to go fly a kite?
accidents will happen,even with precautions.How about increasing physical training standards to match that of the israeli's and koreans?and hir gurkhas as PTI's to train our batches? -
Possible for such a culture to emerge. YES.
When Singapore is involved in a conflict, where or soldiers have to fight and defeat the enemy, the culture will develop.
I don't really care about what ghurka, singhs or malay or wadever warrior traditions and culture. Almost every race has a history of conflict, even Chinese are apt and cunning soldiers on the field of battle. The Chinese military history began really much earlier than most of the above mentioned.
Let the ghurkas or singhs have their traditional weapons, the Malays their kris, Chinese longswords, and japanese Katanas. As Singaporeans, we do not need to have a single Singaporean Identity of A Warrior. The fact is that a Singaporean warrior tradition will be mix pot of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Ghurka, Singh, Japanese, or wadever race in Singapore. Our traditions will most likely merge n rojak to become our diverse Singaporea warrior culture. We don't need a Singaporean traditional weapon (Toto/4D-Slip?) to identify as a Warrior from Singapore.
We just need to demonstrate the will to fight for SG. That will spark off our "warrior" cultures.
If such conflict ever comes, and we emerge victorious, (or not wiped off the face of the earth), I can already see some of those "LAU CHIAUS" telling story to their grandchildren about the conflict they fought in. "During my time.... we fought the Maldolaysians and we never ever surrendered or ........................." -
IMHO, there will be no local warrior culture; the most important reason of all being we're not at all militant society and we're not threatened by any obvious military threat. Ask yourselves, what do the majority of Singaporeans value most and what do they aspire to? The best answer I can come up with is economic/financial success. Most Singaporeans don't see soldiering as a means to getting to that sort of success and most would say "Oh yah, that guy couldn't make it in the private sector, so he joined Army lor".
There are exceptions to the rule such as (the perrenial glamourboys) fighter pilots who end up as (more or less) lucrative commercial pilots and also the various technicians out there who end up valued for their technical expertise in the private sector (with a little luck). Also officers with the aptitude for organisational skills are pretty much valued but when going out to the private sector, they have a mountain to climb since the environment is so much different.
The Singapore warrior culture will (i believe) only live as a small sub-culture within the military (as evidence by an admiration for our SOF peeps)
By the way, soldiering for most people doesn't end up anywhere successful in later life. My friend's dad was a private in the Malayan/British army, did patrols in Borneo during the Konfrontasi and even had his friend shot in the eye beside him during an engagement. What's he doing now? He's a driver for a towkay. -
the only warrior culture singapore has, and is likely to have for a long time are ah bengs, ah lians and samsengs...
-
What is the purpose of a warrior culture?
Will it make SAF a better war machine?
Maybe SAF can offer a way for 're-structured' NS men to feed their family and make a contribution to world peace?