Silver Bullets
-
Other than researching on advanced electronic systems, Singapore is known for her research on 'Sliver Bullets'. In any case of war which a swift and desperate victory is much needed, we will not hesitate to use our 'Sliver Bullets' to decapitate our opponent. Till now, no one is quite sure on what weapon systems we are refering as ''Sliver Bullets''.
An analogous example: If Israel have her 500 Nukes, Singapore have our 'Sliver Bullets'.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1083383862&lp=1083463587
I quated this from another wetsite. What is 'Silver Bullets'?
Rumours that it was SS21 with nuke warhead with a 1000 km range. Is it possiable that Sg possess such platform.
Do not tell me craps about classified, soverignity........ If other wetsite can discuss this topic and view by the entire world, I do not see the reason why tini Sg ban from discussion -
If I remembered, silver bullets were effectivly used against werewolves.
-
oooiii watever bullets they are holding its alll non of our business... in d end everi1 goonana DIE.. no 1 bother anithing..
-
Siao! Missiles with nuke. If we use the nike ,it means the hell gate will be open for other countres to nuke or destroy us!Originally posted by cutebug:Other than researching on advanced electronic systems, Singapore is known for her research on 'Sliver Bullets'. In any case of war which a swift and desperate victory is much needed, we will not hesitate to use our 'Sliver Bullets' to decapitate our opponent. Till now, no one is quite sure on what weapon systems we are refering as ''Sliver Bullets''.
An analogous example: If Israel have her 500 Nukes, Singapore have our 'Sliver Bullets'.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1083383862&lp=1083463587
I quated this from another wetsite. What is 'Silver Bullets'?
Rumours that it was SS21 with nuke warhead with a 1000 km range. Is it possiable that Sg possess such platform.
Do not tell me craps about classified, soverignity........ If other wetsite can discuss this topic and view by the entire world, I do not see the reason why tini Sg ban from discussion
I think the silver bullet they mean is 'SAF' -
This is way it was hinted by Tony that will be use only when it is the only last resort.Originally posted by zenden9:Siao! Missiles with nuke. If we use the nike ,it means the hell gate will be open for other countres to nuke or destroy us!
I think the silver bullet they mean is 'SAF' -
This is way it was hinted by Tony that will be use only when it is the only last resort. Anyone has picture or information of SS21?Originally posted by zenden9:Siao! Missiles with nuke. If we use the nike ,it means the hell gate will be open for other countres to nuke or destroy us!
I think the silver bullet they mean is 'SAF' -
hahhahaaOriginally posted by ditzy:If I remembered, silver bullets were effectivly used against werewolves. 
would be good if we are attacked by werewolves...
______________________
I am Croco, Croco am I
Croco Movie -
I doubt we have ,by the way,we r so small,smaller than nagasaki.Cannot afford to take one hit unlike other countries which can sustain some nuke.We will be at disadvantage if we use them!Originally posted by cutebug:This is way it was hinted by Tony that will be use only when it is the only last resort. Anyone has picture or information of SS21? -
Maybe its underground with the silos opening up at Code Red
-
Next thing we know, sg has nuke subs with nuke warheads under the artic ice caps awaiting deployment.
-
ASEAN haf signed an agreement making SEA a nuclear free zone.
-
How abt nuke in a brief case! I watch a documentary abt cold war which suspect the soviet make atomic bomb small enough to fit in a briefcase and secretly shipped into US by KGB.When necessary,they will ignite it in major city to launch attack! It is believe that they recalled all of them after the collapse of soviet union.
-
except for nuclear medicine purposeOriginally posted by wuming78:ASEAN haf signed an agreement making SEA a nuclear free zone.
_______________________
Reporter Croco, aka Good Boi
Simply Bo Chup News Network (SBC)
Croco Corner
Croco Movie -
suitcase nuclear bomb...last time also got shoe bombOriginally posted by zenden9:How abt nuke in a brief case! I watch a documentary abt cold war which suspect the soviet make atomic bomb small enough to fit in a briefcase and secretly shipped into US by KGB.When necessary,they will ignite it in major city to launch attack! It is believe that they recalled all of them after the collapse of soviet union.
_______________________
Reporter Croco, aka Good Boi
Simply Bo Chup News Network (SBC)
Croco Corner
Croco Movie -
Shoe nuke bomb?Originally posted by sgboy2004:suitcase nuclear bomb...last time also got shoe bomb
_______________________
Reporter Croco, aka Good Boi
Simply Bo Chup News Network (SBC)
Croco Corner
Croco Movie -
Long time nv post in here liao..Originally posted by zenden9:I doubt we have ,by the way,we r so small,smaller than nagasaki.Cannot afford to take one hit unlike other countries which can sustain some nuke.We will be at disadvantage if we use them!
Anyway on wat Zenden9 had said and if we talk a little less on humanity, i believe Singapore will still at advantage if we will to obtain a large number of nuclear weapons.
No country will wanna be involve in a nuclear exchange with Singapore. In any nuclear exchange, Singapore will at most lost 4 million men while multiple shots from us will devastate up to 10 fold the 4million, which is the population of our enemy. Talking abt 'worthing it', of course in the shoe of our enemy, it aint worth a bit.
Speaking on protection, i believe Singapore with a smaller land mass will have a more wholesome coverage in term of TBMD compare to anyone in the world (perhaps the exception of the Israelis and American counterpart). Moscow (a strategically important center) is protected by 2 to 4 batteries of S-400, cant Singapore afford 4 to 6 batteries to if calculations realli call for an extremely extremely tight protection envelope?
I believe in the future, somehow nuclear weapons for Singapore is the onli way to counter-balance overwhemming tactical/strategical threats posed by our neighbours. *i dun wanna to go into detail abt this because it will be extremely sensitive. PM me if u wan mi to explain.
When facing such situations, the question is ''Do we realli have any thing to lose?''. -
'In a speech in October 1999, Minister of State for Defence David Lim revealed that the SAF has developed secret capabilities, which he called 'sliver bullets', for use only in 'extreme conditions'. This apparently confirmed the long-rumoured existence of MINDEF's 'black programmes', based on clandestine local defence R&D. Uncorroborated reports suggest that Singapore may have experimented with binary artillery shells and air-delivered bombs suitable for use with chemical agents, and in the mid-1990s allegedly showed interest in 120 km-range Russian SS-21 surface-to-surface missiles. However, bearing in mind Singapore's close relations with western powers and its signatory status in relation to international agreements such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Biological Warfare Convention and Convention on Chemical Weapons, it is highly unlikely that the republic has either developed or acquired weapons of mass destruction.'
--- Tim Huxley, Defending the Lion City (254)
Singapore definitely has the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons since the technologies for doing so are essentialy dual-use i.e. for both military and civilian purposes and we do currently possess vibrant chemicals and pharmaceutical industries. The only question is political will to do so. The usage of such weapons will invoke widespead outrage but note that WMDs are a weapon of last resort, intended for defensive/deterrent rather than offensive/compellent purposes.
Nukes are a separate question since their technologies are closely guarded and the scale of operations is such that it is impossible to hide their existence. Furthermore, acquiring nukes will prompt our neigbours to balance against us. This can already be seen in Malaysia's arms acquisitions which are aimed at us. Indeed, Pakistan acquired its nuclear capability following India's lead and there are now speculations that Japan'll acquire them too following N Korea. What's more, the blast from nuclear explosions may be limited but the radioactive fallout is over a wide area. Given the proximity of S'pore to our neighbours, winds'll carry the radioactive dust to our shores, affect our food supply from Malaysia etc.. Not feasible. The damage from nukes are long-term and given the interdependence between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, we will be practically committing suicide. -
If u are toking abt nuclear fallout and thus nuclear weapons aint feasible, i shall remind u that chemical weapons have closely similar effect and biological weapons, worst.Originally posted by Langley:Nukes are a separate question since their technologies are closely guarded and the scale of operations is such that it is impossible to hide their existence. Furthermore, acquiring nukes will prompt our neigbours to balance against us. This can already be seen in Malaysia's arms acquisitions which are aimed at us. What's more, the blast from nuclear explosions may be limited but the radioactive fallout is over a wide area. Given the proximity of S'pore to our neighbours, winds'll carry the radioactive dust to our shores, affect our food supply from Malaysia etc.. Not feasible.
Why nuclear weapon is a good option is because it possess a close-to total destruction capability. As compared to chemical weapons, enemy with ample chemical warfare protection can still strike back a devastating blow with surviving units.
And i had said even if our opponents can match us with nuclear capabilities, Singaporeis still at advantage. If u are a malaysian leader, will u pre-empt Singapore with nuclear weapons to destroy our 4million population and risk an anhilation of ur 22million pple? If both sides are detered from total anhilation of each other, aint that a successful deterent?
The reason why WMD (and that includes nuclear) is a feasible choice for Singapore as a deterent is because at a point when we are overwhemmed by opponent's tactical/strategical weapons, we dun really have very much of a choice. We can either seek other options (or do nothing) which contributes to weak deterence or seek WMDs which provide a strong ground for deterence but risk WMDs-aftermath if used.
Any interested forumners here might wanna read up on why Israel chosed to go nuclear despite the fact that her opponents are in close proximity to Israel. -
maybe our silver bullets are genetically modified were wolves or were buayas for this matter.Originally posted by ditzy:If I remembered, silver bullets were effectivly used against werewolves. -
Israel has more strategic depth than Singapore for it is a bigger country, protected from Syria by mountains i.e. the Golan Heights and Egypt by the Negev desert. Population centers are relatively protected in the heart of Israel. But I agree with your point. Israel's acquisition of nuclear capability despite its conventional superiority demonstrates the importance of nuclear deterrence. Still, however much we try to portary Singapore as the Israel of Southeast Asia, this analogy is not very helpful. Israel and her Arab neighbours as well as India and Pakistan fought 3 all-out wars since their independence. In every one of those wars, the very existence of Israel and Pakistan was at stake. This explains why they wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. But how many wars have Singapore fought with our neigbours? ( Confrontation is not a proper war for it involves only the limited use of force) Israelis dun go shopping in southern Lebanon but we do in JB. Singapore and Malaysia are each other's main trading partners (if not first then second I believe). Furthermore, we are not only integrated economically but also politically and socially. Destroying our neighbours with a nuclear strike is tantamount to destroying ourselves. You want a military capability capable of hurting but not destroying your potential regional adversaries.
A nuclear balance of power, any balance of power for that matter, is never stable. The US and the Soviets almost started WWIII over the Cuban Missile Crisis. Indian and Pakistan narrowly averted a nuclear exchange over Kargil. Mutually Assured Destruction is just that, MAD. Furthemore, note that MAD doctrine is not very effective in the case of close regional neighbours. The proximity between these countries is such that any missile will only take seconds to arrive, as compared to the several minutes the US and USSR had. Since the margin for error is very low, missile units in both countries will want to fire first for they do not want to be annihilated in a first strike. Any misunderstanding will be catastrophic. The temptation for a first strike can be reduced by a second strike capability. But I do not see Singapore acquring SSBNs in the future. No country will sell and to make one will be crazy. The other option is to keep F-16s armed with nuclear gravity bombs in the air at all times (Think Clancy's Sum of All Fears). But then, there is a reason why the US developed the B-2 bomber. Strong air defences can readily take bombers out of the sky, especially since high-value targets e.g. KL will be well-protected. At the end of the day, acquiring a nuclear deterrent does not mean conflict will magically disappear. Miscalculations and misunderstandings can still prompt nuclear states towards a nuclear exchange. -
-
Yes we have everything to lose. I dunno about you but we can't survive beyond the first exchange, and if we do get nukes, you can be sure other nations will do so as well.
So who uses it first? If we use it on them, they will have no qualms about doing so and we all die. And will they use it on us? I don't think so because they know that we will not resort to a nuclear exhange unless we have nothing more to lose so we our nuclear weapons are nullified as long as they engage in conventional warfare with us.
In the end, our nukes won't stop agressors from trying to invade us, if they also have nukes. They know that as long as they are willing to keep things to a conventional level, they can wage all the war they can want and we wun push the button.
I've heard of dumber ideas like getting nukes and abolishing NS, that's a worse idea. A aggressor can just stroll into our nation, who has no credible armed forces to resist them because they know that the moment we press the button, we're dead and everything we've worked for is gone. So we have no choice but to hand our nation, nukes and all to them.
Nuclear weapons are generally quite useless to us. Their power is appealing but they are way too powerful for any good, especially in an ASEAN context. Israel? They hardly have a choice, they need all the firepower they can get against an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill them. -
Israel has more strategic depth than Singapore for it is a bigger country, protected from Syria by mountains i.e. the Golan Heights and Egypt by the Negev desert. Population centers are relatively protected in the heart of Israel.
I agree with u on the fact that Israel have more strategic depth, however u must understand that the dreadful aftermath on Israel of any nuclear retaliation is still real just that the effect might not be as drastic as what Singapore might encounter.
Eventhough of close proximity, that doesnt deter India and Pakistan to go nuclear. It is the mutual understanding of MAD that actually prevent them from going to war with each other. Imagine India is the supreme player here, they would have invaded Pakistan long ago. To counter that balance, Pakistan go nuclear. To counter the strategic threat, Singapore might go nuclear in the future.
When we plan for nuclear, we dun directly plan to use it, but plan how can we intimidate our enemy with it and hopefully we wont have to use that extremely measure.Israelis dun go shopping in southern Lebanon but we do in JB. Singapore and Malaysia are each other's main trading partners (if not first then second I believe). Furthermore, we are not only integrated economically but also politically and socially. Destroying our neighbours with a nuclear strike is tantamount to destroying ourselves. You want a military capability capable of hurting but not destroying your potential regional adversaries.
I think u are missing the arguement over here. We are to an assumption that our neighbours are not in good term with Singapore and how are we going to retalitate with a strategic attack when we are strategically attack.
In a war between Singapore and our neighbours, we cant just merely hurt our neighbours. We must destroy them brutally and totally inorder to assure no subsequence retaliation. Singapore cant afford to gain standpoint victory but it is total victory that we must achieve.
Quoted from BG Lee:
''The SAF is an armed force , not a civilian corporation. Its mission is to defeat its enemies, ruthlessly and completely. Its an instrument of controlled fury, designed to visit death and destruction of its foes...soldiers must have steel in their souls .....must learn in war to kill and not to flinch, to destroy and not to feel pity, to be a flaming sword in the righteous cause of national survival.''
Do u really think BG Lee said those statement for shiok, or as a consideration to our vulnerability?
Singapore and Malaysia are currently in reliance of each other, but this does not stop us from over-arming ourselve inorder for us to be at supreme side in case of a conflict. Why do we borther to over arm overselve now? It is because we want to destroy our enemy totally inorder to achieve total victory in war, giving them no chance of fighting back.
So u arguement about our reliance on malaysia and thus we can onli afford to hurt them .... is invalid.At the end of the day, acquiring a nuclear deterrent does not mean conflict will magically disappear. Miscalculations and misunderstandings can still prompt nuclear states towards a nuclear exchange.
I didnt say that conflict will magically disappear.
Look at Singapore now. Eventhough our deterence is strong, the possibility of conflict never disappear. Did any general or minister said that because of deterence is strong, conflict magically disappear?
In any case which Singapore have to choice but to opt for WMD, it is to strengthen our deterent level but not to totally erase off the possibility of war.
Thus ur statement is again invalid. -
Brother, lets imagine with these simple senarios.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Yes we have everything to lose. I dunno about you but we can't survive beyond the first exchange, and if we do get nukes, you can be sure other nations will do so as well.
Malaysia have 100 units of Astros which can neutralise every inch of Singapore's soil.
1)We counter-balance that threat by employing 200 units of Astros (assuming that we can employ so much) or 2) by arming ourselve with 10 nuclear warheads?
Solution 1: Malaysia can destroy Singapore with 100 units of Astros, Singapore can onli destroy entire Johor state with 200 units of Astros. If u are toking abt destroying a nation to losing a state, Malaysia is at advantage. There is a off set in equilibrium here.
Solution 2: Malaysia can destroy Singapore with 100 units of Astros, Singapore can destroy entire Malaysia with 10 Nuclear warheads. There is a balance of losing ur country and destroying another country. An equilibrium is fixed, there is a balance in power.
When Singapore obtain 10 nukes, Malaysia follow up suit with 20 nukes.
Senario: It is obvious that all it take is one nuke to destroy Singapore. Thus in our situation, 1 nuke or 10 nuke landing onto Singapore dun realli make a difference except for depth of cavity.
In this senario, Malaysia have the capability to totally anhilate Singapore. Singapore have the capability to totally anhilate Malaysia. Equilibrium is set, there is a balance in power.
It is always the balance of power which contribute to more stability. It is the understanding of MAD that prevent both nations from actually using such weapons. -
But I do not see Singapore acquring SSBNs in the future. No country will sell and to make one will be crazy.
No need of SSBN, nuclear cruisemissile armed Sjoormens will do.The other option is to keep F-16s armed with nuclear gravity bombs in the air at all times (Think Clancy's Sum of All Fears). But then, there is a reason why the US developed the B-2 bomber.
The US developed the B-2 to enable them to strike conventionally or unconventionally anywhere on this globe. If we will to tok abt nuclear mission, the B-2 was designed to penetrate deep into Russia and release the load.
In Singapore case, we dun realli have to penetrate deep into our neigbours to reach their main pulse. Currently our F-16Ds are designated as RSAF's deep strike fighter/bombers. In USAF, the F-16 is jus a light fighter/bomber.
What i mean is that u cant always fit US's requirement to that of Singapore's shoe. Thus i see no purpose for u to bring up the B-2.