Silver Bullets
-
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!
If we will to obtain Nukes, we certainly wont pre-empt our neighbours with nukes. The Nukes are for deterence and onli be use if we know that we are under heavy strategic attack.
I doubt u understand the MAD theory. -
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.
Detection-wise, the US and USSR depend on satellites to provide early warning of missile launch. This advanced detection capability is something that non-superpowers would not have. From what I know, India and Pakistan almost came to nuclear war in 1999 till the US intervened and provided early warning capability to both sides to curb the temptation for 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.
In sum, the possession of nuclear weapons by 2 close enemies is a recipe for disaster unless, like the US and USSR, they can manage this through advanced technology. Such an effort is very difficult and costly. Hence, it is impractical in SEA's case.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. -
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.
-
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.
[PLAYING DEVIL"S ADVOCATE]
As I said above,i played the devil's advocate.Regarding my point,getting such weapons would be easier and more practical due to our industrial base,but a containment failure on our island would be catastrophic,causing large depopulation.
Also,it is banned under international law and would invite sanctions globally.Our economy would be affected as well as our reputation as a nation.
Furthermore,it would be expensive to maintain them and the area of effect of such weapons is not that good,often depending on an unreliable factor,weather.What cannot be denied is the psychological effect on neighbouring populations and militaries,who would be hard pressed to counter such a threat.
And for what I said about conscripts being inferior to regulars,I believe that holds true.In this case,I refer to combat specialists only,to avoid flames.It is my personal opinion that regular combat specialists are more highly trained and skilld than conscripts,as they have the motivation as well to do the job,having signed on.
Conscripts are forcibly drafted into the combat units and will not be as dedicated,though this may change in wartime when self-preservation takes over.They will slack more and will not be as driven. -
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.
-
And that's why foxtrout8, nuclear weapons are irrevelant for us, unless of course, somebody else gets them. And it's a real can of worms nobody wants to touch. The last thing we need here is a couple of nukes, not to mention Mr. Sam's reaction.
-
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 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. -
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.
It is evident that u guys are concern abt the aftermath of using the nuke. Well, i can say that the aftermath of using biological weapons.....is 10 time worst.
On Chemical weapons, we must weight out the possibility of our neighbours to equipped themselve with superb chemical defense capability. Even if our chemical weapons might anhilate most of their soldiers, crucial units ( protected by chemical defense ) can still strike back a devastating blow. My concern is, wat if those crucial units are those units that operate our opponent's strategic weapons? Isit it so that they can still strike us back? Isit it that nuclear weapons are a better wipe-out solution compare to chemical?
Anyway, if i am a tactician, i will go for either nuclear or chemical but never biological. I had reasoned out with myself the entire day but jus unfortunately (perhaps) that i find that nuclear weapons is still the best balancing tool if we are force to a point to use such deterent measure.
Cheers. -
cutebug,
Wow lau !!! "Silver Bullets" is the classified code name for the secret operation for shooting all the wild dogs in tuas worksite, then bring back to cook dog meat .
SS21, 120km range is too near to singapore, for nuclear fallout or chemical. Especially any one notice how fast the weather changes in this region, which make nuclear or chemical very unfavourable to use. Anyway, there is a higher change of using F16s to carry them, as more accurate like what France is doing. -
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.
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. -
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.
But still, Malaysia should not be stupid enuff to force Singapore to the wall. But then again, who knows? -
Double post
-
Simple, have an armed forces that can make a new Singapore out of them if they every try to destroy this one. Heh.
Of course, there are political factors, other then sheer firepower that will decide a future conflict. Redland and whatever colour can't just loose ASTROs after ASTROs anyhow to wipe out Singapore without raising some kind of global response, especially when many nations have a vested interest in Singapore.
And of course, it takes a heck load of ASTROs to reduce Singapore to wasteland. While they can saturate the whole of Singapore with explosives, they simply can't main enough explosives per area to level Singapore. And of course, that is under the assumption that the SAF is going to sit by and idly watch while they fire away, or not do anything to counter them. -
(do take note that all commentary here is me playing the devil's advocate and thinking of the worse case scenario in terms of probable future economic situation)
If and when Malaysia or Indonesia becomes a "1st world economy" what good would be to them in risking a military adventure against a small speck of an island with no natural resource and going down the road of mediocrity?
Our only resource is people (and even this advantage will be steadily chipped away once our neighbours gain "software" for their people) and location (mainly port and air transport hub) but that can be easily circumvented once Malaysia and/or Indonesia comes up economically.
In a counter argument, let's say our economy turns crappy and our neighbours do good economically, faith in the ruling party melts away, replaced by a jingoistic party faction (akin to fascism of sorts) who can bring false pride. What makes us so sure that we won't elect a government of that nature? Hitler was lawfully voted into office anyhow.
The use of nukes or WMDs will just make us a world pariah and I'm convinced NOBODY in the world community woukd lend us assistance in any form if it comes to that (except maybe for other pariahs like North Korea). Not even China would help us (what with all the hype about China this, China that).
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.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. -
SS21 is a submarine luanch ICBM. The range of 120km is in correct and is far too chort distance. Anyone has anyinformation about SS21 ?
-
SS21 is a submarine luanch ICBM. The range of 120km is incorrect and is far too chort distance. Anyone has anyinformation about SS21 ?
-
funny thing is... everyone's talking abt Malaysia VS Singapore.... How about a different scenario? Like erm... Australia vs singapore etc ?
Our friends up north will not try to bombard us cuz of civilian saturation in the country.
If they do, Mr.Sam will ask M'sia PM for a cup of coffee whilst sending extra carrier forces to the region for 'security purposes'
How about international companies who have branches in both Singapore and Malaysia? If conflict comes, both are fighting a lose-lose battle (Econimically). -
Australia Vs Singapore cannot be compare because both country has no ablity to conquer each other.
Both strengh are about the same. Plus and minus here and there or both side.
Sg got a bigger army strengh 350 000 vs 50 000.
Airforce around the same intems of technology and number.
Naval, Australia got an uper hand.
Inconclusion, Saf main weakness is unable to sustain a long term conflicts while ADF land mass are way too big for defence. -
We are allies with Australia. Both Australia and Singapore are long-time darlings of the US and sent troops to Iraq. Furthermore, Australia's only threat perception comes from Indonesia, which is near and aggressive enough to threaten it.
-
big MAD type nukes are useless in today's context... even the USA is developing a new class of "sub-yield" warheads that can neutralise hard-targets like bunkers.
there are also new bomb designs that minimises fallout. the radiation will dissipate within a relatively short time, compared to the tens of thousands of years for old-type warheads.
we don't need to get one of those 100kton warheads to have a deterrent.
if even al qaeda was rumoured to have acquired "briefcase nukes", then hypothetically, a nuke that sized, placed either on an f16 or a missile dropped on putrajaya would very well prove the point already.
and under the UN charter, a country CAN legally drop a nuke on a bellgerent aggressor if it believes that its existence is in peril. that is what keeps israel's deterrent alive.