It spore manage to nuke our neighbour,we will not survive either!Originally posted by foxtrout8: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.
Do u understand wat it mean by MAD and MAD as a deterent?Originally posted by zenden9:It spore manage to nuke our neighbour,we will not survive either!
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.Yes, you are right. Nuclear weapons serve as a very effective strategic deterrent, especially for small and vulnerable countries like Israel, Pakistan and Singapore. What I want to point out is this: it is quite easy to acquire nuclear weapons but very hard to have a stable balance of nuclear terror. You'll need second-strike and advanced detection capabilities. In other words, you must not be deaf and blind to nuclear missile launch and you must be able to retailate after most of your nuclear forces have been wiped out in a first strike.
No need of SSBN, nuclear cruisemissile armed Sjoormens will do. 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.Perhaps AEW aircraft can provide early warning, given again that we are quite close to each other. However, there is still one problem. Second-strike wise, can the Sjoormen be modified to carry cruise missiles? You'll have to shoot it out through the torpedo tubes right? Anyway, I see your point. Perhaps we could modify our frigates and subs to carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. And since Malaysia is long rather than wide, our F-16s can first fly along the Straits of Malacca then turn inward to attack KL. No need for deep penetration. Still, once you enter Malaysian airspace, it would be hot. A closely coordinated air defence with fighters and SAMs would be hard to penetrate in any case. And nuclear bombs are high-value assests. How many do you think we can afford to lose? China only has around two dozen warheads, and Israel, India and Pakistan probably around the same. Hence, I brought up the B2.
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.
I didnt say that conflict will magically disappear.Yes, you are right. There is deterrent value in nukes. I'm juz saying that this is a very unstable system which is not easy to manage and that could turn out to be counter-productive as well. If both sides release their nukes in a moment of panic and destroy 20 million lives, then what's the point?
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.
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 wartime, I think there is a need to draw a distinction between destroying the enemy's military and the enemy's entire country. I'm not saying you should not destroy the enemy's military. This we must do. However, there is a need to avoid destroying his entire country using nukes. If Malaysia disintegrates, we kena also since we are so closely linked. Hence, my point is that we should aim to hurt the MAF jialat jialat but not turn the whole of Malaysia into another Hiroshima or Dresden. My argument for interdependence is simply that in the event of war, cooler heads are likely to prevail on both sides of the Causeway since we would have everything to lose and not much to gain by fighting. Indeed, why do you think we still have not fought a single war by now despite all the tensions we are having with Malaysia? Of course, this is due to military deterrence but also the realization that war would destroy our economies.
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.
Psycho!Originally posted by Sardaukar:Perhaps we can stockpile biological/chemical weapons.Its well within our means given our industrial base.We can use it for area "cleansing" to depopulate hostile territories.
Useful ones would sarin,anthrax or VX gas.Or we could design one ourselves.
Of course,it there was a containment failure,perhaps harsh containment protocols would limit the spread of such weapons,up to and including execution of victims.
Tests of these weapons could be performed on pirates captued by the navy or murdereds caught by police and these tests on live subjects classified under "black diamond" projects.It is well within our means,and cheaper than the nuclear option,though there are ethical dilemma's and the political fallout if discovered.
Honestyly,Bio/Chemical weapons are cheaper and more practical for a nation like us.they could be produced in Jurong Island,and if containment failed,expendable manpower cheaply available in the form of reserves and conscripts could be activated to stem the outbreak and perhaps see how live tests in simulated combat conditions would affect living subjects,instead of using more valuable regulars.
The reason why i bring up nuclear weaponary is because i find that it will be a good tool to balance the overwhemming strategic power of our neighbours in the future.Originally posted by Langley:Hence, my point is that we should aim to hurt the MAF jialat jialat but not turn the whole of Malaysia into another Hiroshima or Dresden.
I believe ur stand on using Chemical/Biological weapons is very much similar with my proposal on nuclear arsenal.Originally posted by Sardaukar:Perhaps we can stockpile biological/chemical weapons.Its well within our means given our industrial base.We can use it for area "cleansing" to depopulate hostile territories.
Useful ones would sarin,anthrax or VX gas.Or we could design one ourselves.
Honestyly,Bio/Chemical weapons are cheaper and more practical for a nation like us.they could be produced in Jurong Island,and if containment failed,expendable manpower cheaply available in the form of reserves and conscripts could be activated to stem the outbreak and perhaps see how live tests in simulated combat conditions would affect living subjects,instead of using more valuable regulars.
And let's not forget that Mutually Assured Destruction dosen't work as we'll all hope it would. Even with a very stable balance-of-power, there is still one thing we must look out for, and that is the potential opponent's leadership and how rational he is. A suicidal political (possibly North Korea's Kim) or military leadership, or the inability of the government to totally control it's military forces could mean disasterous no matter how stable the nuclear balance is. Say for example, in the distant future, Malaysia and Indonesia (over many years), the people vote islamic fundermentalists into power, noting thier suicidal nature, do you think they care or are rational enough to think?Originally posted by Langley:A deterrent is useless if it cannot be used. And once it is used, we will be doomed, yes unless we develop TMD. That's why its called MAD. Also, MAD doctrine only applies when both sides have developed a feasible second-strike capability i.e. SSBNs and strategic bombers. Only when you know your enemies are capable of retailation after a first strike will you be deterred from striking first for such an act would indeed be suicide. Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction. Otherwise, the order of the day would be preemption---destroying your enemies' nuclear forces in a first strike so that retailation would either be impossible or limited. And since no country would want to be the target of a first strike, they would try to preempt the other as well. This is the stage India and Pakistan are in right now. A very precarious balance.
True true, if Malaysia has 100 Astros I would root also for nukes. Need to balance against them mah. Who knows, maybe we have nukes alreadyOriginally posted by foxtrout8:The reason why i bring up nuclear weaponary is because i find that it will be a good tool to balance the overwhemming strategic power of our neighbours in the future.
I understand ur point on hurting MAF jialat jialat, but wont u understand that if one day the MAF have overwhemming strategic power ( in my previous example, perhaps 50-100 Astros ), it will not onli make SAF jialat..., it will sink Singapore. If our neighbours have weapons that can sink Singapore, isnt it right for us to have weapons that can sink them as a balance?
My proposal of a nuclear arsenal is onli when Singapore find ourselve in a position that no conventional weaponary can counter-balance the increasing threat from our neighbours.
Originally posted by Jazzswing:And let's not forget that Mutually Assured Destruction dosen't work as we'll all hope it would. Even with a very stable balance-of-power, there is still one thing we must look out for, and that is the potential opponent's leadership and how rational he is. A suicidal political (possibly North Korea's Kim) or military leadership, or the inability of the government to totally control it's military forces could mean disasterous no matter how stable the nuclear balance is. Say for example, in the distant future, Malaysia and Indonesia (over many years), the people vote islamic fundermentalists into power, noting thier suicidal nature, do you think they care or are rational enough to think?
And in a case of nuclear brinkmanship, each side will be obssessed with trying to make impotent the other's strategic forces like what Langley said. Each fearing surprise attack.
Like what a previous post stated..i think only when Singapore has totally lost the strategic depth (Malaysia or Indonesia in the distant future, becoming 1st class economies and rich enough to buy hgh-tech weapons) then we can consider going nuclear to counter-balance.
Sadly, ASEAN is not going to turn into another EU. Economy wise, we are more competitive than complementary (Malaysia's Proton vs. Nissan in Thailand etc.) and intra-ASEAN trade is low coz every ASEAN state trades more with G7 countries than among themselves. That's why the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement is grounding to a halt. Security wise, because all ASEAN countries view each other as potential advesaries as well as partners (esp. among Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia) there has been no defence pact like NATO and no plans for it in the coming future. 911 resulted in limited security cooperation only after the Bali bombing and only in counter-terrorism. ASEAN's purpose is not regional integration like EU but more of managing regional conflicts so that they dun get out of hand. The limits of ASEAN can be seen in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis where not only ASEAN economies but also their relations with each other got into a really bad state. So a strong SAF is going to be necessary for a very long time to come.Originally posted by ferret69:I just hope that our own enthusiastic, jingoistic young men would understand that working together with our neighbours as a large economic collective with joint defence(a la European Community + NATO) is the only way we can survive the coming DIFFICULT few decades ahead.