Can We Depend on U.S.A To Defend Singapore for the Next 50yr
-
Well If they can pledge to protect Taiwan.. well =/
and since they can form the mainstay of the force in kuwait 1990
and protect it and defended it from Iraq..
During the Both wars israels encountered , US did help by supplying them with weapons , US did not help in terms of fighting itself..
But US has been known to help countries fight ..for example in korea..
vietnam.. -
You like to fight so much you go there and fight yourself.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Well If they can pledge to protect Taiwan.. well =/
and since they can form the mainstay of the force in kuwait 1990
and protect it and defended it from Iraq..
During the Both wars israels encountered , US did help by supplying them with weapons , US did not help in terms of fighting itself..
But US has been known to help countries fight ..for example in korea..
vietnam..
-
Sibeisuaykia is right, US will fight directly or indirect prove support in the wars he mentioned. But all this is because of national interest.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Well If they can pledge to protect Taiwan.. well =/
and since they can form the mainstay of the force in kuwait 1990
and protect it and defended it from Iraq..
During the Both wars israels encountered , US did help by supplying them with weapons , US did not help in terms of fighting itself..
But US has been known to help countries fight ..for example in korea..
vietnam..
For singapore case, not just US national interest is here, a lot of countries.
1) Singapore lies in the key to the strait, which can control the critical trade route.
2) Money ! Singapore have the reserves, like kuwait which will help pay for the support effort, direct troops or indirect support of weapons.
3) Singapore rank top in oil refinineries ! one of the top, even if you have crude oil, it is useless unless processed. If singapore refinineries is down, world will have very serious oil shortage. You think factories in China, Japan and Korea will not be affected too ?
4) financial center. Imagine who much money can be wipe out overnight is wars happen, who money ? Not just Singapore, other rich countries ....
Be realistic, in war, we need replacement weapons, materials and food to fight any battles and SAF will not be enough, we will need to depend on others nations. Other nations will help in war, but bear in mind, it is of their own national interest. It is after the war, that Singapore will face the negative impact of the help. -
Sometimes when you want things done, you have to do it yourself. Unless you're incapable of doing it yourself.
Same to war. -
I have NEVER said that USA would not support us in a war. What I have argued all along is that they will NOT FIGHT FOR US. They will give support diplomatically, and maybe with war supplies, BUT DO NO EXPECT THEM TO BOMB OUR ENEMIES.... jeez, its hard to make you guys understand....Originally posted by storywolf:Sibeisuaykia is right, US will fight directly or indirect prove support in the wars he mentioned. But all this is because of national interest.
For singapore case, not just US national interest is here, a lot of countries.
1) Singapore lies in the key to the strait, which can control the critical trade route.
2) Money ! Singapore have the reserves, like kuwait which will help pay for the support effort, direct troops or indirect support of weapons.
3) Singapore rank top in oil refinineries ! one of the top, even if you have crude oil, it is useless unless processed. If singapore refinineries is down, world will have very serious oil shortage. You think factories in China, Japan and Korea will not be affected too ?
4) financial center. Imagine who much money can be wipe out overnight is wars happen, who money ? Not just Singapore, other rich countries ....
Be realistic, in war, we need replacement weapons, materials and food to fight any battles and SAF will not be enough, we will need to depend on others nations. Other nations will help in war, but bear in mind, it is of their own national interest. It is after the war, that Singapore will face the negative impact of the help. -
The reasons for doing so is different. For Korea and Vietnam, it was the ideological battle. That was during the Cold War period, when the threat of Communism was enough for them to draw arms. That's the same reason for their pledge to protect Taiwan, at first. However, now the reason for protecting Taiwan has evolved to that of containing China instead of protecting Democracy. And there's nobody that says America will DEFINITELY come to the aid of Taiwan should cross-strait tensions break out into war.... And Kuwait is about OIL. We do not produce oil, and the oil we have here is not critical to them the way Kuwait's oil is.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:Well If they can pledge to protect Taiwan.. well =/
and since they can form the mainstay of the force in kuwait 1990
and protect it and defended it from Iraq..
During the Both wars israels encountered , US did help by supplying them with weapons , US did not help in terms of fighting itself..
But US has been known to help countries fight ..for example in korea..
vietnam.. -
to quote from a recent army recruitment poster which i think is very relevent:
what we cannot defend, we don't own. -
Nations have no friends, but only interests..
That means as long as you serve the interests of the another state, you will be protected.
For example, USA protected South Vietnam because it serve as an alternative against Communist North, and the need to stop the spread of Communism.
However ,US left S.Vietnam due to unfavourable circumstances.
This show that Singapore should be trained to protect the country from invaders on its own.
I remembered JBJ words in Parliament, he said there is no need to have strong defence force because we can depend on UN when there is trouble. He is speaking from Kuwaiti's experience.
I think JBJ is stupid, because war can devastate the country. -
He say that before Kuwait was invaded. Guess he was proven wrong by the facts.Originally posted by fkh:Nations have no friends, but only interests..
That means as long as you serve the interests of the another state, you will be protected.
For example, USA protected South Vietnam because it serve as an alternative against Communist North, and the need to stop the spread of Communism.
However ,US left S.Vietnam due to unfavourable circumstances.
This show that Singapore should be trained to protect the country from invaders on its own.
I remembered JBJ words in Parliament, he said there is no need to have strong defence force because we can depend on UN when there is trouble. He is speaking from Kuwaiti's experience.
I think JBJ is stupid, because war can devastate the country.
-
I'd much rather depend on my own fellow countrymen and comrades to help me defend this bloody piece of rock which is my bloody home,than some ang mog having to defend it for me.
We trusted the British to defend us when we were a part of their empire.They FAILED.We have no oil,so we're not worth fighting for.We have a strategic location,easily overcome by building the Kra Canal which would become a reality if we were ever occupied by an anti-US presence.Easily remedied there.
They could instead use the Sunda Straits of Indonesia to transport the oil.Longer and pirate-infested,but for them,obviously worth it if we were to become anti-American.
We can rely on no one but ourselves,because we have everything,our homes,our loved ones,our culture, to lose if we don't fight.The Americans have no reason and no will to fight for us.
We can only rely on ourselves in this matter. -
Agree, rubbish topic.
The USA has no military security treaty with us. It has, or had, signed some with certain Asia-Pacific nations, namely Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, ANZAC & Taiwan, back in the '50s that allowed it to form allies &/or station troops to check Communist influence. The closest involvement with Singapore was as part of SEATO , but that grouping was disbanded upon IndoChina falling to the commies in the late '70s. -
Yes, we depend on ourselves.
They will only "protect" us only when their interests are threatened. -
You guys seem to foget that WTC was not distroyed by a nation of zealots, but 12 determined men and the mighty US of A could stop them then, can they do so now? You do not need an occupying army to start a war. No need to win it by ocupy the soil, just disrupt enuff to make trade impossible and Singapore is lost.Originally posted by Moxie:Agree, rubbish topic.
The USA has no military security treaty with us. It has, or had, signed some with certain Asia-Pacific nations, namely Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, ANZAC & Taiwan, back in the '50s that allowed it to form allies &/or station troops to check Communist influence. The closest involvement with Singapore was as part of SEATO , but that grouping was disbanded upon IndoChina falling to the commies in the late '70s.
Singapore is vunerable, more than some are willing to admit. A partly sucessful tanker attack in the Straits in Malacca (no need to sink it) will send everyone scrabling to divert the ultra large crude carriers to totally avoid the region.
That why I've start a separate thread "TAKEDOWN" at http://military.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=90598 to see if we can wargame the worst case for our planners to think about the unthinkable.
If we can imagine it, the enemy may already have, but have our ppl on the hill (Bt Gombak) done it yet? -
If singapore refineries are down, there will only be a disruption of efficient supplies of finished refined products, for a while only. If our enemy confines the war to land battles and allow free passages through the malaycca straits, then all the refineries in the middle east can continue to supply refined cargo to japan....supplementing refineries in china, japan, korea, bypassing singapore. Besides there is also supplies coming from the US west coast. Singapore refineries are not supplying the world, so it is not likely that the "world will have very serious oil shortage."Originally posted by storywolf:Sibeisuaykia is right, US will fight directly or indirect prove support in the wars he mentioned. But all this is because of national interest.
For singapore case, not just US national interest is here, a lot of countries.
1) Singapore lies in the key to the strait, which can control the critical trade route.
2) Money ! Singapore have the reserves, like kuwait which will help pay for the support effort, direct troops or indirect support of weapons.
3) Singapore rank top in oil refinineries ! one of the top, even if you have crude oil, it is useless unless processed. If singapore refinineries is down, world will have very serious oil shortage. You think factories in China, Japan and Korea will not be affected too ?
4) financial center. Imagine who much money can be wipe out overnight is wars happen, who money ? Not just Singapore, other rich countries ....
Be realistic, in war, we need replacement weapons, materials and food to fight any battles and SAF will not be enough, we will need to depend on others nations. Other nations will help in war, but bear in mind, it is of their own national interest. It is after the war, that Singapore will face the negative impact of the help.
If our enemy allows the US to continue having access to the facilities in Singapore after the war, or agree to provide alternative facilties such as port klang, protecting the malacca straits as a viable trade route will not be a reason for the US to fight anymore.
If war in singapore becomes imminent, within a short notice, all foreign funds in singapore can be transferred to other regional financial centers such as hong kong and shanghai. Nobody will fight to protect a financial center.
US will not commit troops without senate approval and US senate will not send troops in exchange for money. They do not supply mercenaries. For supplies of weapon, they charge very high, learn from Taiwan. We better just pay a few assasins to kill our enemy's leaders than to pay for the US soldiers.
The only reason for US to fight with us is when we have common enemy; for UN to send troops there must be a UN resolution. See how US tried to get their allies that saddam was their common enemy. There is nothing we can do to tell US we have a common enemy if they do not think so.
So, we will need friends like the US and the French to supply us war materials, thailand to provide air bases......but it will be singapore and singapore alone who have to decide if we should go to war, when to go, how to go......it is especially true if it is our strategy not to fight battles in our own land, more so we have to be the one making the call, not waiting for our friends to agree....
.
Lets hope our diplomatic efforts are good enough and there will be no war. -
Baer,
For now, dealing with terrorism remains in the infant stages when it comes to regional cooperation - I'm still waiting to see if the overall emphasis will revert back to counterinsurgency (ala the Confrontation era).
Back to conventional defence strategy: If you've noticed, I purposely stated it as "military security treaty" - you'll need to establish that form of formal alliance before Seibeisuaykia's (wrongful) notions can come to pass.
What the heck, now that I'm in the mood ....
Seibeisuaykia,
Singapore's relied more on MOUs when it comes to creating bilateral ties &, even when things have progressed on to signed agreements, we've been careful not to overcommit or overaccomodate to an extent of indirectly antagonizing our neighbors. Especially any perceived attempt at siteing foreign bases locally. I mean, we do provide faciliation offices, maintainence/resupply means, even R&R, for visiting troops, but they're certainly not on the military/economic scale of the British & its Naval Base days at Sembawang (ask your pa or grandpa).
Much of the ongoing tactfulness is due to historical baggage & geopolitical realities:
>> Foremost is the survivalist instinct or so-called siege mentality: the initial "poisonous shrimp" analogy (small but indigestable by predators), subsequently displaced by the Total Defence concept (partially hinting at preemptive capacity as effective deterrence).
>> Background is our constant juggling of the existing multipolar balance of power, both within SE Asia (Malaysia & Indonesia) & also the larger Asia-Pacific area (notably China & Japan). That's why we joined SEATO as part of Malaya, then tried to maximize AMDA's unique arrangements (KL's "non-aligned" stand discouraged British staging posts locally for SEATO purposes) during the Self-Government & then Merger eras.
>> Attitude is an underlying mistrust of overdependence on other countries, esp. post-'65. Singapore's 1st attempt at joint-military cooperation (to foster bilateral trust with Malaysia) was provided for under the Separation provisions, but it quickly crumbled & hasn't recovered since. The only quasi-military security treaty we have today is the FDPA, initially designed to replace AMDA but, from the local perspective, is realistically "valued" most of all as a neutral platform to build security cooperation/confidence across the Causeway! (Beyond the golf games between senior officers, that is.) There's also an argument to be made that the ANZAC links are also comparatively more "precious" than the US's, since historically they, along with Britain, have deployed individual infantry battalions here until the '70s & '80s (under the FDPA, indirectly to aid our "poisonous shrimp" strategy).
[I also recall reading somewhere that Singapore has some unease about "too-friendly" US military ties, esp. since they're reluctant to reciprocate by sharing or transferring some of technology & arsenal.]
In short, we have what Tim Huxley calls a very "opaque" defence strategy: train primarily to deter, except there's no explicit rival enemy (officially anyway); exponentially encourage military cooperation & strategic relationships for shared-partner stability, yet fear being swallowed by bigger entities (even the idea of a ASEAN-level military force); occasionally impatient with the pace of regional joint-service training (with Malaysia particularly perceived as the reluctant partner), while attempting to suppress, or at least downplaying, our "seige mentality". The American presence in this part of the world is of paramount importance to us, but the regional subtext is just too sophisticated for us to ally unreservedly with them, like certain countries do. -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Maybe you don't know it, but Singapore is the worldÂ’s third largest oil refining centre. You cannot simply think that other oil refineries have much spare capacity. To get extra capacity, you may need to build new refineries which take months.
[b]
If singapore refineries are down, there will only be a disruption of efficient supplies of finished refined products, for a while only. If our enemy confines the war to land battles and allow free passages through the malaycca straits, then all the refineries in the middle east can continue to supply refined cargo to japan....supplementing refineries in china, japan, korea, bypassing singapore. Besides there is also supplies coming from the US west coast. Singapore refineries are not supplying the world, so it is not likely that the "world will have very serious oil shortage."
b] -
It will take more than a couple of months to build a crude refinery which costs at least USD1 billion (1,000 million) it takes a fair bit of economic justification to build such a massive facility, to secure the supply of crude (there is a finate supply) as well as markets to buy the products. Excess capacity is no use if your markets are on the wrong side of the Pacific (Japan for example).Originally posted by storywolf:Singapore is one of the major oil refineries center. That where you are wrong. You cannot simply think that other oil refineries can just step up production, there may not be extra capacity. To get extra capacity, you may need to build new refineries which take months. -
Frankly, it's dubious to think that the USA will come to our rescue to protect our financial- or oil-market niches. Just cuz Singapore is run like a Inc., it doesn't mean America is also of the same mind. Imagine the grassroots & media fallout over there if their troops are mobilized just to protect their big businesses (see Iraq).
Yes, the devastation of Singapore would be a major economic setback for them, but it's not like they can't switch to contingency plans, eg. partner ambitious Thailand in oil refinery or bankroll Hong Kong further as a financial center. Or, for that matter, finance the building of the Kra Canal & bypass the Straits of Malacca altogether.
If anything, I'll say we (& only we) have consistently attempted to keep the US military actively interested in this region. Malaysia & Indonesia are non-aligned; the latter becoming democractic as well. Thailand is historically neutral. The Phillippines remained corrupted to the core. Indo-China are still recovering from colonialist & war remnants for this generation. America's main interest in the Asia-Pacific is in the north-east, & have accordingly based their troops there (South Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan if need be). Post-Clark Air Base, Singapore have provided them an alternative refueling stop in SE Asia, but it's likely they'll find Australia, their main ally in this part of the world, as an adequate staging area to react to any regional crisis.
Putting my wargaming cap on: No, we'll ultimately control our own military destiny but, for argument's sake, IMO the countries that will plausibly come to our aid shall be, in this order:
(a) Malaysia, but only to combine vs. hostile Indonesia,
(b) ANZAC-Britain, mainly due to Commonweath & historical ties, but also the FPDA agreement which was conceived on the premise that Singapore-Malaysia are indivisable in defence, never mind sovereignty;
(c) China, assuming they ultimately have superpower designs & wants SE Asian stability most of all, even if it takes a Sino-sphere of influence to replace the disintegrating ASEAN;
(d) the USA, but unlikely if it's anyone other than the Chinese who was invading, & only then likely to strike the mainland for geopolitical control (instead of liberating us).
Thailand could slot between (b) & (c), but I dunno if they'll take the initiative if we were warring with a fellow SE Asian country. My speculation is they'll ally more with America economically &, as stated earlier, activate the Kra Canal project. Taiwan could also slot in between (b) & (c), but they lack international legitimacy. India's revived relations with this region is still at the infant stage. Indonesia remains largely an unknown; we'll have to see how the new progressive political system translates into foreign policy. -
Singapore is world's third largest oil refining center due to its output. Singapore's refined products output is high because of its efficiency. Turnaround is faster because the refineries are on islands. Singapore refineries are constantly upgrading to get higher yield per barrel. But, over the years, the oil producing countries built refineries to add values to its crude, e.g. indonesia, UAE, China..... High energy consumption countries such as japan, korea, thailand, taiwan and china built refineries in order not to be too dependent on imports. Countries like korea built refineries to secure supplies of naptha for their ethylene plants. I am only talking about the refineries in Asia, not even those in the middle east or australia, yet. In short, there are many capacities outside of singapore.Originally posted by storywolf:Maybe you don't know it, but Singapore is the worldÂ’s third largest oil refining centre. You cannot simply think that other oil refineries have much spare capacity. To get extra capacity, you may need to build new refineries which take months.
Singapore is the main refining center catering for asia, rottadam for europe and houston for usa. so if singapore capacities were down, it will stretch the supplies world wide but unlikely resulting in a very serious world shortage. -
Right now, our best form of defence is still diplomacy. Treaties often end up as scrapped pieces of paper, bearing in mind Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" and Hitler's non-aggression pact with Stalin, which is why operational readiness must be maintained.
While majority of us have a hint of belief that the US will help us in times of hostilities, I find the most realistic allies being the Aussies. At the moment they seem to be trying to emulate the US and become a "superpower" of the East Pacific region. They had went into the East Timor (Timor-Leste) before the UN even stepped in and passed resolution 1236, authorising the formation of the UNTAET mission.
Note that I'm NOT advocating a reliance on any foreign aid in our defence. -
I believe in 20 years China will be Singapore's protector, not the U.S.
China will have more to lose from Singapore shutting down than any one else. It's likely China will make significant investments in Singapore to keep the port and straits open to its shipping and to its access to raw materials.
That is a whole lot cheaper and more rational than trying to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in a country that may not be friendly to them.
Aside from Taiwan no other country in Asia speaks the same language, has the strategic value that Singapore would have to China, and has the ability to interface with other countries on China's behalf. -
Reminds me of the role of Venice in the early renaissance when it was the center of trade between Europe and the middle east, until the portugese found the back door around the middlemen.Originally posted by Unsung_Hero:I believe in 20 years China will be Singapore's protector, not the U.S.
China will have more to lose from Singapore shutting down than any one else. It's likely China will make significant investments in Singapore to keep the port and straits open to its shipping and to its access to raw materials.
That is a whole lot cheaper and more rational than trying to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in a country that may not be friendly to them.
Aside from Taiwan no other country in Asia speaks the same language, has the strategic value that Singapore would have to China, and has the ability to interface with other countries on China's behalf.
China needs links to the outside world. so much so that it built a radio interception station (with Burmese permission) in the Bay of Bengal to monitor traffic coming out of the Malacca Straits. see their options http://chinastudygroup.org/index.php?type=news&id=6485
The Kra canal has been mooted for years and thankfully the problems are still insumountable (unlike the Suez canal, the Kra climbs across the pennisula to several hundred feet, and unlike the Panama, there isn't enuff water to operate the locks to climb the divide see http://www.geocities.com/econ_10330/Kra_canal.html and http://www.thaipro.com/thailand_00/109_kra_canal.htm).
Even with China as protector, Singapore is still not out of the woods. All that needs to happen, is that Aceh (N Sumatra) declares indepedence and blockade the Straits' northern end. Will the US who love indepedence choose between Acehnese independence and Indonesian dictatorship OR US/Singapore interests (go figure that out). -
Good call with the last 2 posts.
I'm inclined to think that Singapore oil-refinery niche may attract more Chinese engagement with this region for the future. Currently we've pretty much cornered that market in this part of the world, & logically a growing China will desire staking a stable foreign partnership in this industry (esp. with experts saying India's gonna our oil exports by next year). If the non-OPEC countries maneuver to form geographical quasi-alliances, I expect the USA to exercise its influence in the Americas (particulary the Gulf of Mexico & Venezuela) instead.
Unsung_Hero, I get your drift but I think you understated the SE Asian political dynamics if the region ends up in-fighting. Natural "buffers" Thailand & Malaysia are logical obstacles to a Chinese southern sweep aiming to "aid" us, so I won't put it past the Thais, with their successful neutrality negotiations throughout history, to establish mutual-benefiting ties with China (&/or America) to gain from the new reality.
Whether we win or lose in a war, our island will be physically devastated to a significant degree. Thereafter, the USA or China may not see it as pragmatic to liberate us, try to mend ties with hostile neighbors, & then try to reconstruct the economy from scratch.
I can visualize a lot of countries saber-rattling on our behalf as a preclude to actual battle, maybe even involving the UN. But when the 1st bullet is fired, they'll almost certainly respond with a bigger degree of self-interest. -
In the end, we can only rely on ourselves for defence.Whatever the shortcomings we have in NS currently, they must be sorted out fast and quick.We need a larger regular force and less conscripts, because a vice-versa will drain our economy to a certain degree.
-
In the end, we can only rely on ourselves for defence.Whatever the shortcomings we have in NS currently, they must be sorted out fast and quick.We need a larger regular force and less conscripts, because a vice-versa will drain our economy to a certain degree.