Singaporean Amphibous capability
-
I think I have also said enough. If they start talking about Indonesia then we may have to start training jedi and prepare for star wars.Originally posted by paperchicken:I am joining you.
Good night.
-
I see what you're trying to get at but I disagree.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Brother, in the sake of national survival, treaties doesnt stand much at all as seen in history. Look at Israel with her nuclear weapons, America with her NMD dream, Russia infringing treaties before the end of cold war for the sake of national survival.
I dun think you get my point of being overwhemmed conventionally while you cant match up symmetrically. There is nothing i can do if you fail to see my point despite giving you examples of how smaller countries try to match up with a bigger country whom have everytime more capable to outfight her. It is also my point to bring forward that two nations with nuclear standoff capability having the capability to destroy each other, ceteris paribus have equal standing despite the difference in size and conventional numerical strength, however two nations with differences in size and con.numerical strength have different standing, this lead to instability.
1) Israel does not have many diplomatic ties with her neighbours.
2) India has always maintained a hostile relationship with Pakistan since the split, as with China and Taiwan.
3) Japan earned the other countries' distrust by being an invader.
Our region has no hostile conflicts since the Konfrontasi and the formation of ASEAN. These situations you've describe do not equate. Moreover, it is proven that smaller countries do not require nukes or WMDs as a deterrent against bigger nations.
I have no wish to continue this debate here. Last post. -
It is not if we can afford, it is whether we need to. We are sticking to our howitzers.
we cant stick to our howitzer if they overwhem us with Astros, their Astros outgun our 52cal.What is strategic weapons to you?
It clearly shows that you dont understand what is a strategic weapon, a strategic weapon do not have to be those that you are familar of, not the Trident , DFs or the Polaris this time round.
Astros are vehicle-mount, need to be deployed, which then required them to move in convoy. There are not submarine launched or can launch directly from underground silo. If they have 50 batteries which means there are at least 50x15 vehicles excluding vehicles for personnels.
The Astro2 is a strategic weapon because it can have a coverage capability of the whole of Singapore from a stand off distance. A large number of Astro2 can bring our defense capability to a halt if it is not stop.
However 50+ Astros from Singapore to malaysia is a tactical weapon because it could not cover the whole of malaysia strategically from a stand of distance, definately not bringing it's army to a halt.The limit is not limited to the population and the land mass. The limits also include political, financial, personnels, training.....there are limits to us, there are limits to them as well. So what is the limit, over which Singapore will have to have nuclear weapon as deterrence?
Many countries are in the grey region of having nuclear weapons. Japan is 6 months away from having nuclear weapons at any point of notice. If the PM wants a nuke warhead at his backyard, he can get it through nuclear analyst within 6 months time. Japan is so close to getting nuclear weapons and when the threat is near, she will certainly not give a miss, now do you see any real political opposition?
I do not see why it is limited politically, financially and by human factors when we do not have any alternatives. Im talking about alternatives now, and in my opinion when we cant match our opponent symmetrically, there is no alternative.The question is: are you going to risk 4 million singaporean, in order to destroy 22 millions malaysia? Put it another way, IF, SAF were defeated, will you launch nuke at them, knowing that they will retaliate with nuke, whether you will kill 22 million of them or not is not important, what is certain is the 4 million singaporean will perish!! Will you??
America jolly know that 500 Million of their souls will burn in inferno if engaged in a nuclear exchange so do the russians, so do the Indians and the Pakistani. It is the deterrence of a MAD that realli bring out stability. When we are overwhemmed conventional, i see the probability of us perishing is much higher than having a nuclear capability.I have no doubt Isreal is in possession of nuke, but further wars in the middle east were not averted by these nuke!! I doubt they have 500 warheads.
You are right with the history, i have no doubt about that. But do share with many analyst that the Israeli nuclear deterrent have great responsibility in maintaining the peace (i mean away from conventional war) now. Read the 'Critical Mass' for more information to know that majority of the Israeli population support the existence of a nuclear deterrent, the number of support raised after the night raiding by Iraqis in the Gulf war.North Korea's nuclear arsenal is a threat to Japan and south korea and it is not a deterrence. Do you think US is afraid of the nuke from North Korea?
US is not afraid of the nukes in NK? Then why the fish US is bargaining for humanitarian contribution for the halt of nuclear expoitation? Tell US, if she is not afraid, then go enter the peninsula tml. Naive thinking.
Search the net, read the papers to see how serious US is looking at NK's nuclear and missile capability. US is not afraid......? LOLX.When a bomb damage a nuclear plant, ppl died from radiation. Make the comparison yourself.
How many people die from terrorist bombing bus then an actual one on a nuclear station before. Tell mi so.... -
The situation i gave equates because you are comparing Singapore current situation to those countries while i am comparing Singapore circumstance if our neighbours are insensitive (=hostile) with their armed procuement, tilting the balance.Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:These situations you've describe do not equate. Moreover, it is proven that smaller countries do not require nukes or WMDs as a deterrent against bigger nations.
Ok couse you dont see the link because you try to equate it with our current situation. In our current situation, i think onli a mad man will wanna push for nukes. -
You conclude wrongly about the japanese houses, that is your problem, alway assume things from wrong lead. Think if 66,000 are kill and 69,000 injuried, that would have give you a clue that it is a huge city, with lots of concrete building, this is a major city. Do check out the old pictures.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:October 1976 to be correct.
i got a A2 for history and the textbook i read said that Japanese houses during that time were made of wooden stuffs , therefore i can conclude that the chief cause of death during that time was poorly constructed houses,
Just ask you , which 1 is tougher and which 1 is stronger?
go to howstuffworks.com , and below there's a link on whether can survive a nuclear bomb , certain nuclear bomb clear everything within 5 to 10 km radius
Within a few mile radius of the blast, there will be a complete wipeout ,
after about 4 or 5 miles away , there will be some people remaining ,
aiyah i show u all the link myself
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb10.htm
The hypocenter is the middle radius ,
http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=nuclear-bomb.htm&url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/blastmap.html
HIROSHIMA CLEARLY did not have reinforced , poured concrete.
So therefore if a nuclear blast were to occur in SG , although possibility is low,
most of the building will survive
You refer to http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb10.htm !! this is as kid webpage, you cannot expect them to tell you about the horror of death ..... find a adult page not kid page. -
Radiation cause perament damage, cannot be repair. You are really beyond hope if you believe that they have develop antidope to counter the effect of nuclear bomb.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Don't worry US has the ability to heal some kinds radiation sickness
*hint*
They just don't say niah...
Just imagine , how irony it would be for the world's strongest country, having
survived a COLD WAR , which almost everyday lives in FEAR of the nuclear bomb and not developing stuffs to counter the effects of nuclear explosion?
Furthermore developer of the Nuclear bomb itself in 1945, the creator don't have the so called "antidote"?
LoL -
Guess most of you pple dunno that Japan has a 77 billion dollar "defense budget against missiles" in the straits times yesterday..
In Fact, MAD Theory is the best .
Do you think china will dare to attack taiwan if taiwan has nukes?
China will NEVER attack taiwan.
Not in my lifetime.
If taiwan has nukes and warn about using it.
MAD in fact, is MAD. Why?
By having Mutually assured destruction for both places.
it actually creates PEACE...
i don't see any wrong with TW equipping with nukes since 600 missiles or the equivalent of a few nukes is pointed at them.
Every nation has the right to arm themself.
Nope, the pictures i saw,
they drew up a artwork of hiroshima before 1945 and hiroshima after 1945
and u can't deny the fact that alot of pple died in the tokyo bombings due to lack of bomb shelter..etc..
http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/photo-1/p1.jpg
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/Data/graph01.gif
This shows that we should be more concerned about bomb blasts in comparison to radiation.
HIROSHIMA DID NOT HAVE CONCRETE HOUSES AT 1945 But they do have some concrete buildings, i say it once and i'll say it again , with PICTURES to prove!
http://core.ecu.edu/hist/tuckerjo/hiroshima2.htm
Note the remaining concrete structure which survived
Most websites mentioned concrete structures...
i believe concrete structures is the best as it shields from gamma and neutron rays , not only to mention it also protects quite well against blast..
"The central portions of the cities underneath the explosions suffered almost complete destruction. The only surviving objects were the frames of a small number of strong reinforced concrete buildings which were not collapsed by the blast"
Taken from a historical website, it shows that reinforced concrete AGAIN
is resistant against tough nuke blasts.
HDB flats are made of reinforced concrete, im sure -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we cant stick to our howitzer if they overwhem us with Astros, their Astros outgun our 52cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean by their Astros "outgun" our 52 cal.?? do you know what you are talking about?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It clearly shows that you dont understand what is a strategic weapon, a strategic weapon do not have to be those that you are familar of, not the Trident , DFs or the Polaris this time round.
The Astro2 is a strategic weapon because it can have a coverage capability of the whole of Singapore from a stand off distance. A large number of Astro2 can bring our defense capability to a halt if it is not stop.
However 50+ Astros from Singapore to malaysia is a tactical weapon because it could not cover the whole of malaysia strategically from a stand of distance, definately not bringing it's army to a halt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper general no 2, care to enlighten how a large number of Astro2 can bring our defense capability to a halt??
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many countries are in the grey region of having nuclear weapons. Japan is 6 months away from having nuclear weapons at any point of notice. If the PM wants a nuke warhead at his backyard, he can get it through nuclear analyst within 6 months time. Japan is so close to getting nuclear weapons and when the threat is near, she will certainly not give a miss, now do you see any real political opposition?
I do not see why it is limited politically, financially and by human factors when we do not have any alternatives. Im talking about alternatives now, and in my opinion when we cant match our opponent symmetrically, there is no alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is again preassumption that Japan will want to have a nuclear weapon, why are they not having it now, if there is no political opposition?
It is because you do not look at the aspects of politic, finance.....that is why you do not see other alternatives. Usually this is how war hungary generals justify their actions. Fortunately we only have paper generals.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right with the history, i have no doubt about that. But do share with many analyst that the Israeli nuclear deterrent have great responsibility in maintaining the peace (i mean away from conventional war) now. Read the 'Critical Mass' for more information to know that majority of the Israeli population support the existence of a nuclear deterrent, the number of support raised after the night raiding by Iraqis in the Gulf war.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don see many analysts who conclude that Isreal nuclear weapon is a deterrence that is maintaining peace. It is people like you who use this to advocate the development of nuke. Fortunately there are not many like you. We see only 2.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US is not afraid of the nukes in NK? Then why the fish US is bargaining for humanitarian contribution for the halt of nuclear expoitation? Tell US, if she is not afraid, then go enter the peninsula tml. Naive thinking.
Search the net, read the papers to see how serious US is looking at NK's nuclear and missile capability. US is not afraid......? LOLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course US is afraid of North Korea owning nuke, US is afraid of Osama, Iran ....owning nuke. If Nuke can maintain peace as you suggest, US should be happy that more people own nuke, more peace...talking about naive thinking. US will not go into north korea tomorrow because China will not allow. simple as that. Nuke only blinds the eyes of its worshippers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many people die from terrorist bombing bus then an actual one on a nuclear station before. Tell mi so....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need one leak like that in chernonbyl is enough to wipe out the whole population. We need to debate even if we should use nuclear power generation and not depend on oil and gas.
I am glad at least in singapore it is the civilian government that control the military, we are doomed if a real general think like you. -
Conventional war thru death, devastations and destruction to physical properties used to be the default when one state tries to dominate another.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Conventional Wars between states are still being fought in Iraq, and could erupt in the korean peninsula or the Taiwan straits. It has not faded any further.
CLOB, water supplies.... those were disputes, not war, there was not even a skirmish. But events as such if not handled properly can lead to wars. We have not gone to war with Malaysia and lets hope we will never have to.
There are many other ways one country can do to dominate another, but it is war that bring deaths, devastations and destruction to physical properties.
Cross border economic co-operation, like the Singapore/Johore/Batam economic triangle???
Now it seems the military attack is the less preferred means. I think one major reason is that the politicians realise it's just one of diminishing returns for the effort.
Iraq is one example of what started out as a conventional military conflict has now turned into a guerrilla type Low Intensity Conflict. OIF has failed to dominate the will of these tribal diehards or religious fanatics. In fact, I feel the opposite effect has occurred because they have nothing to loose.
China does not have to go into a full blown attack on Taiwan. It doesn't make sense to do so when Taiwan has lost it's political voice in international community. Economically it's been dwarfed by China helped no less by Taiwanese entrepreneurs. Why bring up the military means now when so much is at stake for both sides? They already dominate most aspects of Taiwan's future.
At most a naval blockade with it's submarine forces.......which in my mind don't quite qualify as conventional.
South Korea is in the same position with it's Northern brother....... in fact, economically, South Korea is probably more relevant to China than the North.
Korean conflict if it happens (imho has a higher chance of happening because North Korea is in a vacuum and really has not much to loose) is in a different class altogether because I think it will be a nuclear one and I don't understand that.
Just my simple views to share. -
Just to add another point as to how use of military force is receding.....
I don't think India would prefer to liberalise it's own domestic markets if it has a choice.
Their politicians are compelled to do so because they know that if they don't, all the military gear they have won't have much play(unless they use it and then both sides loose), when China market becomes the giant it will be in 20 years time.
That's not too far away actually. And so the games go on....... -
What do you mean by their Astros "outgun" our 52 cal.?? do you know what you are talking about?
young boy, their Astros have a much longer range than our 52 Cal. 50+ Astros2 can cover more areas at better stand off range that our 52 cal. You think our 52 cal is cruisemissile?Paper general no 2, care to enlighten how a large number of Astro2 can bring our defense capability to a halt??
A large number of Astros2 can cover Singapore over and over again. It could devastate our surface infrastructure, our naval fleets, our surface assets. Although we have a number of underground facilities, all these facilities with their assets will be useless without surface infrastructure of runways, radars and even dual role civilian sites. Unless the launch of the Astros2 can be stop, a large number of it can certainly bring our SAF to a halt. Go the the army open house tml and ask them how vulnerable Singapore is to artillery strike.
of course they can blanket Singapore and receive tons of political stabbings, however dun let nationalism blind you that a large number of Astros cant halt our capability.It is again preassumption that Japan will want to have a nuclear weapon, why are they not having it now, if there is no political opposition?
It is not my assumption. As i said again, read 'The critical Mass' for more information.It is because you do not look at the aspects of politic, finance.....that is why you do not see other alternatives.
Tell mi what alternative we have if our neighbours shift the balance over a point where we cant match up conventionally.Usually this is how war hungary generals justify their actions. Fortunately we only have paper generals.
[/quote]
So disappointed with you. You have to resort in calling names.I don see many analysts who conclude that Isreal nuclear weapon is a deterrence that is maintaining peace. It is people like you who use this to advocate the development of nuke. Fortunately there are not many like you. We see only 2.
You seem to be innocent from alot of things in this real world.You need one leak like that in chernonbyl is enough to wipe out the whole population. We need to debate even if we should use nuclear power generation and not depend on oil and gas.
How many chernonbyl examples are there in the world?
I am glad at least in singapore it is the civilian government that control the military, we are doomed if a real general think like you.
Because of the 911, must we tear Westin Stamford down?
Because of the birdflu, must we kill all the birds in Birdpark?
Because of the crash in Arizona, must we halt all flights in Singapore?
Because of the threat of Terrorism, must we not support what we find that it is best for our interest?
It is people like you whom will not advance in this world. Because of a mishap somewhere, you hide your head. If Chernonbyl is such a good example for the world to avoid radioactive power, then many countries in this world wont have rely on it.
I had gave so many examples about the future in which we could be at total disadvantage in a conventional arm race. My solution to the problem is to obtain WMD as a counterbalance. I expect objections however i never met anyone whom object so violently without giving me any alternative.
1) You fail to give alternative.
2) You fail to see that there any many classic examples of small states unable to race in the long run conventionally and thus have to go nuclear.
3) You fail to see that although radioactive material are hazardous, it can be controlled like in many countries.
4) You fail to see the usefulness of nuclear arms as peacemaker in India/Pakistan, US/Russia, US/Nk and to some extent Isreal and ME.
What more can i say?
[/quote] -
Israeli nuclear deterrent by Colonel Warner D
As Quote:
One list of current reasons for an Israeli nuclear capability is:
To deter a large conventional attack,
To deter all levels of unconventional (chemical, biological, nuclear) attacks,
To preempt enemy nuclear attacks,
To support conventional preemption against enemy nuclear assets,
To support conventional preemption against enemy non-nuclear (conventional, chemical, biological) assets,
For nuclear warfighting,
The “Samson Option” (last resort destruction).111
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To deter a large conventional attack = to counterbalance opponent's overwhemming conventional power. -
Sharon Hints at Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal
"PA"
Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has made a veiled reference to his countryÂ’s secret nuclear arms, saying Israel has US backing for its deterrent weapons.
He also claimed American support for key elements of IsraelÂ’s policy toward the Palestinians.
Speaking at a political party gathering in Tel Aviv yesterday, Sharon said the United States backed Israel in keeping control of main West Bank settlements, drawing secure borders that include parts of the West Bank in Israel and banning Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel.
And hinting at nuclear weapons, Sharon said the United States recognised that “Israel faces an existential threat, and it must be able to defend itself by itself by preserving its deterrent capability”.
Sharon noted that Iran was under US pressure to stop its nuclear weapons programme, and Libya took steps to halt its nuclear arms development, but “we have received here a clear American position that says in other words that Israel must not be touched when it comes to its deterrent capability”.
Israel has never admitted possessing nuclear weapons, maintaining a policy of ambiguity. However, based on pictures and information given to the Sunday Times in 1987 by nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, experts have determined that Israel has dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear bombs.
Sharon said the United States backed “Israel’s right to defend itself by itself against threats at any place and to preserve Israel’s deterrent power against all threats”.
In Washington, a US State Department official would say only that the United States supported IsraelÂ’s right of self defence. -
Pakistani nuclear deterrent as a case study on how Singapore is unable to match up conventionally in the future if our neighbours go aggressive. If Singapore want to match up conventionally, it could be financially more expensive and demographically impossible for us.
Pakistan's Nuclear Future: How to Maintain Stability in an Unstable Region?
As quoted:
1) Nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against aggression; 2) Pakistan will maintain the minimum deterrence necessary and forego an escalating arms race; 3) Pakistan will neither use nor threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states; 4) Pakistan will not transfer nuclear technology to any other country or entity; and 5) Command and control of nuclear forces are vested in the highest political authority.
According to Brigadier Khan, Pakistan's central challenge and goal within the next twenty years is to "maintain a credible nuclear deterrent force without engaging in an economically debilitating arms race."
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/capp/events/ferozkhan.html -
Naturally i support a WMD in SG, provided these situations be satisfied.
1) Neighbouring countries become more hostile.
2) Unable to keep up with arms race.
3) Ability to store nuke without any signs of information leakage , or radiation
leakage
4) Safety of SG is threatened
5) Military balance is overturned.
6) A safe place to store it is found in the southern islands.
7) No other options available , if our army cannot make up with them in the
future
Our survivability of our nation is at a threat.
9) If all ways have been seeked, our SAF lost all form of battles ,
enemy proceeding in ,almost reaching the key SAF hq to capture SG, USA
not helping us out
9) All the above mentioned 9 points is satisfied.
Only then i will give my approval.
Most Singaporeans would do by that time, Or will it be too late?
If we got nuke bomb, we can afford to cut down our military conscription down by another 6 months , and spend towards the military stuff,
instead of keep on buying those stuff.
We need not keep 1 super huge 15 megaton under orchard road or any of those underground bunkers.(would be damn stupid to do so.)
What im suggesting is tactical nukes mounted on 1 of the israeli supplied rockets *ahem* .
We can always buy or loan some from them in a conflict.
say we got $100 billion usd, just use a few bn to buy 1 or 2..
Since our neighbours and them are enemies with each other as well.
Again..singapore has VERY good relationship with Israel who has over a few hundred nukes..wonder what is going on behind there..
=X , PLEASE don't arrest me!
Store 10 tactical nukes(smaller dosage) on the further offshore and use the submarines to the underwater launch base.
i know its a dream..den use the satellite which we co-launch with ofeq to monitor the launch..
lets say 12,500 tons like the 1 used to flatten hiroshima and the nuke be kept at a very far place? -
The reason why Singapore maintains relatively good internation relationships with other countries is because of our "don't interfere policy". We don't tell other people what to do, in return we ask (and subsequently ignore) what others tell us to do. We generally support the UN, do not overtly offend any country, and avoid committing internation boo-boos.
Making/buying/possessing WMD will be an international boo-boo.
It would turn all our international relationships to hell, not to mention it's a high possibility it could make half the UN more unfriendly and reluctant to cooperate with us. While countries might not be able to stop us, they WOULD turn unfriendly. In all of Singapore's trade agreements with external powers there probably are clauses that concern WMD. Once we possess WMD, they might be able to break off the treaty. eg. US might impose restrictions on trade. Furthermore which company would dare to invest in Singapore if it purchased WMD ? They would, either take it as a sign that we are gearing up for war; or not take the chance of a nuclear accident and pull all their resources out of the country.
Trade with Pakistan anyone ?
Remember Singapore is a small country with no natural resources; trade, research & development, technology is our only way to maintain 1 step head in the region. We are NOT self sufficient, ie we cannot survive on our own like those other superpowers. All these things depend on external factors and investments. If we don't get money/resources from external investments, we lose this edge. And in peace time now, we CANNOT afford to fall behind other countries if we are to maintain all our present lifestyles.
Governing a country is not just about the military, nor the people. It consists of so many other factors that we (ie trade commerce), the common people are just not aware of. That's why we have all the scholars (whom so many people hate) in the military, their level of thinking is 1 or even 2 levels higher than us. They might not be able to "chiong suah", but they've considered factors that all of us have never even dreamt of before making their desicion(s), and all the while we are complaining on the ground w/o knowing the whole truth.
IMO, politics has won more wars than military strength. It's all depends on who you manage to get on your side of the war.
So far all of the pro-WMD arguments are all one-dimensional and concern ONLY the Singaporean military viewpoint. Of course, if i'm looking at purely our OWN military concerns, it could be a plus point if Singapore could get WMD as a form of deterrance through MAD. But there are so many other international factors not considered.
**********
btw, SSK, how old are you exactly? From what i've seen you haven't even enlisted yet. Not that there's anything wrong with that but you have to understand that reading up about something, is a hell lot different from experiencing/doing it.
In reference to your "reseach" on Singapore surviving a direct nuclear hit, even assuming all that you've said is true (which i highly doubt), have you considered the aftermath ? Given Singapore's small size, a nuclear incident would hurt a lot. Imagine an land area the size of AMK + Bishan + Toa Payoh totally gone. The nuclear fallout ? The wind (remember Singapore is an ISLAND surrounded by seas) which will blow the radioactive particles everywhere affecting thousands more ? The psychological state of our people even if they survive ? This isn't SARs that took away hundreds of lives and in the process bonded our people. This is a nuke falling on our heads which will cause casualties in numbering in the tens (maybe even hundreds) of thousands. And that's not adding the number of people suffering from after effects. Our entire social and medical system and country can collapse under this strain. The people might survive the initial blast, but can they ever recover from the aftermath ? Can we afford to take this risk ? -
Originally posted by meander:
Refreshing to read your post.
Remember Singapore is a small country with no natural resources; trade, research & development, technology is our only way to maintain 1 step head in the region. We are NOT self sufficient, ie we cannot survive on our own like those other superpowers. All these things depend on external factors and investments. If we don't get money/resources from external investments, we lose this edge. And in peace time now, we CANNOT afford to fall behind other countries if we are to maintain all our present lifestyles.
However, I would like just to add (and I guess you probably agree) that for Singapore's next level of development we need to know How best to harness these modern technologies (Marketing or what I call software skills) to milk them for highest returns.
R&D alone and assimilating technologies is only one answer and it's not enough.
Scholars may know more and therefore have better helicopter views of issues........BUT that doesn't mean they HAVE THE ANSWERS. Well, at least not all the time.
Governing a country is not just about the military, nor the people. It consists of so many other factors that we (ie trade commerce), the common people are just not aware of. That's why we have all the scholars (whom so many people hate) in the military, their level of thinking is 1 or even 2 levels higher than us. They might not be able to "chiong suah", but they've considered factors that all of us have never even dreamt of before making their desicion(s), and all the while we are complaining on the ground w/o knowing the whole truth. -
Astros is a area weapon.Our artillery system is geared not for area devastation , although we could if we wanted to.It's geared for precision strikes and is more effective than blanket bombardment.No doubt, if they do bombard, the damage will be substantial, therefore we cannot allow that situation to happen.We have a doctrine of pre-emptive defense.And I believe we will act accordingly.
-
Astros is a very effective weapon. The Russian have a similar tried system called the Katusha, which the Isreali fear.
When employed in a shoot and scoot tactic, our counter battery and air force will have a hard time catching them.
The only way is have pre-emptive strike which our neighbours already know, called
"Forward Defence" -
Actually one thing that I feel is that having weapons are well and good but it is the personnel manning it that is truly important... While Astros if properly deployed will prove devastating to Singapore if used against it, given our small size, what guarantee is there that there are no cockups in terms of maintenance or deployment. Furthermore, I am quite sure that given Singaore's access to satellite photography and topography of the surrounding areas, areas where Astros can be used to best effect could be plotted long before they are actually trundled out and appropriate countermeasures taken beforehand... even info like which camps are they based in with these camps receiving special attention from our airforce and artillery or even a commando insertion?
-
I agree. Info for the Astros can be easily gathered off the web, since it's a buy-off-the-shelf type of MLRSOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Astros is a area weapon.Our artillery system is geared not for area devastation , although we could if we wanted to.It's geared for precision strikes and is more effective than blanket bombardment.No doubt, if they do bombard, the damage will be substantial, therefore we cannot allow that situation to happen.We have a doctrine of pre-emptive defense.And I believe we will act accordingly.
And yea, it's good for dealing with area targets, and easily it's range outguns our howitzers. But would it destroy us? well....u gotta see... -
[quote]Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:
[b]Finally someone who agrees partially with me
The Both perceived Northern and Southern neighbours, both is going to develop well in the next 50 years to come after weathering through the
1997 economic crisis.
Indo and M'sia has 220 million people, + we must not forget the rise of
religious fundamentalists in the country ; therefore we will definitely must be aware of them
220/5million in the future = 21 times.
that means our current GDP PCI of 38,000 , they just need 38,000/21
to match our current Economy , and they will development much more
lets say it becomes 10,000 PCI in the future , take 10,000 x 220million and you get 1 heck of a extremely strong region.
Sooner or later, SAF's unique edge will be overtaken .
Israel managed to have it's unique edge in 1973, Yom kippur war and Six-day war because very simply-speaking , it received latest delivery of F-15 aircraft to counter the poor MiG-23s and MiG-21 which Syria and Egypt was using.
But now , Most country in M.E has latest aerial and ground technology...
So now neither does israel has numerical or technological edge.
Can israel survive a joint strike now? Most likely No
Similar stuff will happen to SG , SG will not have any technological edge as the region progresses as a whole. Can Singapore survive a joint strike ?
Yes (due to indonesia having 4 latest SU-30 and poorly maintained F-16 jets
and M'sia having 8 F/A-18 , lesser den 30 MIG-29s and lesser then 30 SU-30)
Can Singapore survive a joint strike in the future? When technology is at par
and the human factor comes in? and numerical advantage nevetheless.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a serving NCC CLT.I must say that not only do u lack common sense,u do not even bother to get ur facts rite.The 1st F-15 was only delivered to the USAF in 1974,way after the Yom Kippur and Six-Day wars have ended.No way Israel could have gotten them as u have said.Your babbling is embarrassment enough to the Corp;not bothering to check your fact juz shows how irresponsible u are. -
we will send in a squad of Predators cloaked, use the plasmacasters to wipe out the base defences then bomb up the astros.Originally posted by bot_in_shop:Actually one thing that I feel is that having weapons are well and good but it is the personnel manning it that is truly important... While Astros if properly deployed will prove devastating to Singapore if used against it, given our small size, what guarantee is there that there are no cockups in terms of maintenance or deployment. Furthermore, I am quite sure that given Singaore's access to satellite photography and topography of the surrounding areas, areas where Astros can be used to best effect could be plotted long before they are actually trundled out and appropriate countermeasures taken beforehand... even info like which camps are they based in with these camps receiving special attention from our airforce and artillery or even a commando insertion? -
Yo, I was a AFV driver, done "alot" of water ops myself. Getting sick of it. 10 of it.
-
Wow, i didn't know an NCC kay-det had higher authority than the following:Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:3) Ability to store nuke without any signs of information leakage , or radiation
leakage
enemy proceeding in ,almost reaching the key SAF hq to capture SG, USA
not helping us out
9) All the above mentioned 9 points is satisfied.
Only then i will give my approval.
CDF
Minister of Defense
President
And so on, and so on.
I wonder does he even know where the key SAF HQ is.
"only then i will give my approval".
