Why NS ?
-
Originally posted by parn:
I think Singaporean boys should not be educated, so that they will be more humble, loyal to the country, more faithful in their relationship, less social conscious, honest, shy, and easier to listen to their girls.
Ohh....and they won't even doubt or REQUIRE A REASON to do their NS.
Gone are the days when I'm Cleopatra and Loyal Men served me.
i prefer those good old time in china... when gals are just an single use disposable toy....got 3000 of them and just use then throw... -
wait till u meet some hk guy.. then u know what is call boy boy and what is call whiny....
-
must think for the country la. our country so small, hard to find people who wants to work in the army. not like other country got huge population, very easy to find people to join the army.
as long as u have good buddies, 2 years very fast gone.
-
Look at this and you'll understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMxTcRs3KDU
-
Originally posted by vianc:
Many questioned on the need for local boys serve the National Service. There are a few out there who will go all out to find reasons to skip NS, while others think it's a must for local boys to serve NS.
What do you think?
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
In case it escaped your notice, I repeatedly state my very low view of patriotism and fighting for arbitrary causes in my post. I'm not about to go lay down my life for a drawing on a map. The choice between being a rabid patriot and a 'traitor' is a false dichotomy.
Besides, it's highly unlikely that any would-be invader would rape, burn and pillage their way through Singapore since there's too much infrastructure at stake for them to simply discard it all.
@ Gedanken: I'm of the opinion that our military isn't a much of a deterrent. Singapore is ill-equipped to wage the kind of intense urban warfare (i.e. fighting for the kitchen and getting shot at from the bedroom) that would be necessary for us to resist any invader. Who are we kidding? The moment war breaks out, we're going to face a great deal of trouble in bringing in resources to continue the fight. Also, after our inevitable capitulation, any invader would be more inclined to be vicious with the civilian populace if they had previously faced dogged opposition from our troops.
You do raise several good points in your second paragraph. Yes, military service is not without its benefits, but in my view, it still penalizes the male section of the populace quite unfairly. Instead of getting the freedom to choose, we're forced into bondage for the two years, and the supposed compensation doesn't come anywhere close to offsetting the effort demanded.
Also, gender equality and feminists can go jump off a cliff if males are still the only ones expected to defend their country.
finally someone who realised that the "modern warfare" tactics are not so modern after all.
we are living in an age where insurgent can take out a heavily armoured tank with a well position hand grenade. wth. (in iraq, they send people to manually place hand grenades under stationary tanks. knocking out multi-million-dollars high tech toys with an extremely low tech equipment.)
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
@ Gedanken: I'm of the opinion that our military isn't a much of a deterrent. Singapore is ill-equipped to wage the kind of intense urban warfare (i.e. fighting for the kitchen and getting shot at from the bedroom) that would be necessary for us to resist any invader. Who are we kidding? The moment war breaks out, we're going to face a great deal of trouble in bringing in resources to continue the fight. Also, after our inevitable capitulation, any invader would be more inclined to be vicious with the civilian populace if they had previously faced dogged opposition from our troops.
I disagree with you on this point from two angles.
I do believe that our military does act as a deterrent, but substantiation of my point would probably constitute violation of the Official Secrets Act. Yes, I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I'm not about to buy myself a whole lot of grief on account of an Internet discussion. Suffice to say that because of geographic constraints, Singapore does not have much defensive depth and the game plan accounts for this.
As for resistance making the invader more vicious, well, Singaporeans left the fighting to the British in WW2, and to be frank I can't see any way to view the Japanese as having gone any easier on the population as non-combatants during the invasion. IMHO, that theory simply does not hold water, and to be blunt, I propose that it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
how come people in taiwan, isreal are less whiny about it?
probably because of the likes of the PLA and HAMAS staring at them from a distance
-
Originally posted by av98m:
probably because of the likes of the PLA and HAMAS staring at them from a distancebut even so, taiwan ns is only 1 yr.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
but even so, taiwan ns is only 1 yr.
so? -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
but even so, taiwan ns is only 1 yr.
When I was in ROC, we were preparing for an exercise and loading blanks into magazines. Some lads from our host unit came up and asked what those black things were and when we explained, they couldn't get their heads around the idea that it made noise but didn't fire a projectile.
Between two and a half years of service Singapore style and one year of dodging live rounds, I know which I'd more happily take.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
I disagree with you on this point from two angles.
I do believe that our military does act as a deterrent, but substantiation of my point would probably constitute violation of the Official Secrets Act. Yes, I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I'm not about to buy myself a whole lot of grief on account of an Internet discussion. Suffice to say that because of geographic constraints, Singapore does not have much defensive depth and the game plan accounts for this.
As for resistance making the invader more vicious, well, Singaporeans left the fighting to the British in WW2, and to be frank I can't see any way to view the Japanese as having gone any easier on the population as non-combatants during the invasion. IMHO, that theory simply does not hold water, and to be blunt, I propose that it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees.
well, i agree that our military is only a deterrent. nothing more.
you can easily scare off potential aggressor with all those high tech toys. but in an actual war, you think those toys are going to keep functioning? eventually we will run out of ammo, parts etc. look at idon and m'sia. they have the raw material to manufacture ammo, but not singapore. we have to purchase all our equipment from abroad, directly or indirectly.
and to the hell with the geneva convention. to date, i haven seen any country which fully abide by the convention. hospitals and schools are still bombed.
imagine if they "accidentally" take out one or two hospital, with our sluggish efficiency in the healthcare sector, medical treatment will be horrible.
they also just need to knock out a few strategic chokepoints on the roads and railway. with so many underground tunnels twisting under our roads, it is impossible to repair a road in a matter of days. look at the nicoll highway incident. it took months to rebuild the road, even in time of peace. all it takes is a few bombing here and there to destroy the transport network. it is no longer the they-bomb-a-hole-we-fill-it-up-with-dirt kind of situation you see in less developed countries.
and then it will seriously affect troop mobilization. how fast can your troop be mobilize when the mrt and bus services are not working? how fast can you move your troops around when there are enormous craters at important crossroads, effectively cutting off traffic?
how long can you go without food and water? (our food is also imported. and i doubt that merchants would want to sail into a port directly threatened by war)
in other words, beyond its superficial capabilities, the saf is just a paper tiger.
-
Originally posted by av98m:
so?isn't it funny that a country under the constant threat of invasion has reduced its NS duration to half that of singapore's.
i last heard that they are going to further reduce it to 3-6 months, smthing like the malaysian NS. the taiwan ns will then become something for the youth to get aquainted with.
defence will be the responsibility of the regulars.
-
one question:
deathmaster, have you finished your NS?
-
Originally posted by av98m:
one question:
deathmaster, have you finished your NS?
is it relevant to the practicalities i pointed out?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
is it relevant to the practicalities i pointed out?
Yes. They give me the impression you've not even enlisted. I wanted to see if I was wrong. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
well, i agree that our military is only a deterrent. nothing more.
you can easily scare off potential aggressor with all those high tech toys. but in an actual war, you think those toys are going to keep functioning? eventually we will run out of ammo, parts etc. look at idon and m'sia. they have the raw material to manufacture ammo, but not singapore. we have to purchase all our equipment from abroad, directly or indirectly.
and to the hell with the geneva convention. to date, i haven seen any country which fully abide by the convention. hospitals and schools are still bombed.
imagine if they "accidentally" take out one or two hospital, with our sluggish efficiency in the healthcare sector, medical treatment will be horrible.
they also just need to knock out a few strategic chokepoints on the roads and railway. with so many underground tunnels twisting under our roads, it is impossible to repair a road in a matter of days. look at the nicoll highway incident. it took months to rebuild the road, even in time of peace. all it takes is a few bombing here and there to destroy the transport network. it is no longer the they-bomb-a-hole-we-fill-it-up-with-dirt kind of situation you see in less developed countries.
and then it will seriously affect troop mobilization. how fast can your troop be mobilize when the mrt and bus services are not working? how fast can you move your troops around when there are enormous craters at important crossroads, effectively cutting off traffic?
how long can you go without food and water? (our food is also imported. and i doubt that merchants would want to sail into a port directly threatened by war)
in other words, beyond its superficial capabilities, the saf is just a paper tiger.
Try applying these points to Israel. Small area, surrounded by the opposition, little defensive depth, built up infrastructure, not too much by the way of primary industries, yet the facts bear out that they've not only defended themselves from Syria, Egypt and other countries, they took the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
We can if and but till the cows come home, but the facts already tell us that we're by no means forced to roll over and expose our bellies.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Try applying these points to Israel. Small area, surrounded by the opposition, little defensive depth, built up infrastructure, not too much by the way of primary industries, yet the facts bear out that they've not only defended themselves from Syria, Egypt and other countries, they took the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
We can if and but till the cows come home, but the facts already tell us that we're by no means forced to roll over and expose our bellies.
don't neglect the fact that israel, though urbanised, it is not like singapore.
singapore is much much smaller, with everything concentrated in a city. Israel still have some countryside as buffer.
and yes, the israelis have won alot of wars with syria, egypt etc. but those are very short wars which ranges from days to weeks.
if the agressor decided to drag on the war, with reference to the War of Attrition by Egypt from 1968-1970 (3 yrs), israel lost alot of territory. like taiwan, without the protectorship of the USA, these tiny states facing large powerful enemies can never survive on their own.
bravery and skill can only take you so far. in the end, everything will still boils down to resources.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
like taiwan, without the protectorship of the USA, these tiny states facing large powerful enemies can never survive on their own.
Ever seen Changi Naval Base? What ships does the RSN have that can fill those docks?
Again, talking about time spans and resources skates on OSA, but just look at who Singapore has defence ties with and tell me what the point of talking about Singapore fighting singlehandedly is.
Uhh, don't know which War of Attrition you were watching, but by the time the ceasefire was signed the front lines were pretty much unchanged from 1967, and Israel still retained the Sinai.
Pardon my saying, but what I'm hearing you say is that Singapore is indefensible, and so we should just drop NS, roll over and let the oppostion tickle our bellies. Is that right, or am I missing something here?
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
In case it escaped your notice, I repeatedly state my very low view of patriotism and fighting for arbitrary causes in my post. I'm not about to go lay down my life for a drawing on a map. The choice between being a rabid patriot and a 'traitor' is a false dichotomy.
Besides, it's highly unlikely that any would-be invader would rape, burn and pillage their way through Singapore since there's too much infrastructure at stake for them to simply discard it all.
@ Gedanken: I'm of the opinion that our military isn't a much of a deterrent. Singapore is ill-equipped to wage the kind of intense urban warfare (i.e. fighting for the kitchen and getting shot at from the bedroom) that would be necessary for us to resist any invader. Who are we kidding? The moment war breaks out, we're going to face a great deal of trouble in bringing in resources to continue the fight. Also, after our inevitable capitulation, any invader would be more inclined to be vicious with the civilian populace if they had previously faced dogged opposition from our troops.
You do raise several good points in your second paragraph. Yes, military service is not without its benefits, but in my view, it still penalizes the male section of the populace quite unfairly. Instead of getting the freedom to choose, we're forced into bondage for the two years, and the supposed compensation doesn't come anywhere close to offsetting the effort demanded.
Also, gender equality and feminists can go jump off a cliff if males are still the only ones expected to defend their country.
so ....
what would you fight for ? .... your home, your wife's honour, your children, your own life ? ...
remember that that "drawing on the map", may just be where your home is ...
and so you think any likely invader would not rape and plunder and pillage ? ... I just have to roll my eyes at this .....
nevermind about the gulf war, nevermind about what happened to kuwait, that may be a bit distant in your memory, (so I shall not even bring in WWII), just look at georgia ? ....
sure, they may not "burn" your flat, if that's the kind of infrastructure you're talking about, but you think your wife, your money, your car, your baubles, won't be fair game ? ... if you think that just because we live in the 21st century, that warfare has become "civilised" ... then you are naive, .... and if you look around at our geography, and the nature of our potential aggressors, the kind of things they routinely say against our country, and the largest component race of our country, then I must say you are deluded ...
Also, after our inevitable capitulation, any invader would be more inclined to be vicious with the civilian populace if they had previously faced dogged opposition from our troops.
and this sentence, really, speaks of your mentality, your character .... so you're the sort who advocate women not to resist rapists cos the rapists would be inclined to be vicious ? ... that if you were robbed on the streets, you'd say, take this, take it all, just leave me alone ? ... I dunno about you mate, but I like to think women may be better served learning how to gouge out eyeballs and squeeze nuts in self defence ... I also think we should go down fighting, even if defeat is inevitable ... and it's not that a defeatist character simply sucks either, but the knowledge that we'd go down fighting itself is a deterent too ...
but yeah, I guess it takes all sorts ... you're already thinking of giving up even before the war's started, I think we have to fight for what's ours ... if not for the drawings on the map, or even the flag, then certainly, for my family, my loved ones, the things that belongs to me ...
just remember ... desertion in times of war will get you executed ...
-
Originally posted by Bigcable22:
benefit foreigners..
i would say to attract foreign investment.
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
In case it escaped your notice, I repeatedly state my very low view of patriotism and fighting for arbitrary causes in my post. I'm not about to go lay down my life for a drawing on a map. The choice between being a rabid patriot and a 'traitor' is a false dichotomy.
Besides, it's highly unlikely that any would-be invader would rape, burn and pillage their way through Singapore since there's too much infrastructure at stake for them to simply discard it all.
@ Gedanken: I'm of the opinion that our military isn't a much of a deterrent. Singapore is ill-equipped to wage the kind of intense urban warfare (i.e. fighting for the kitchen and getting shot at from the bedroom) that would be necessary for us to resist any invader. Who are we kidding? The moment war breaks out, we're going to face a great deal of trouble in bringing in resources to continue the fight. Also, after our inevitable capitulation, any invader would be more inclined to be vicious with the civilian populace if they had previously faced dogged opposition from our troops.
You do raise several good points in your second paragraph. Yes, military service is not without its benefits, but in my view, it still penalizes the male section of the populace quite unfairly. Instead of getting the freedom to choose, we're forced into bondage for the two years, and the supposed compensation doesn't come anywhere close to offsetting the effort demanded.
Also, gender equality and feminists can go jump off a cliff if males are still the only ones expected to defend their country.
as i have indicated in my earlier reply to this whole question, i am a supporter of National Service. In my opinion, it is an honour to don on a beret and go through hell week and firing practices to toughen up. However, I am not for laying down the life for country because of several reasons. Hence i believe one can serve NS proudly, train himself physically and mentally yet not lay down his life for his country as what you mentioned, "for an arbitrary cause".
every abled-body male has to put in 2 years of his life. this is compulsory and no point arguing. so why not make your experience better? join a specilist, get a beret, be proud of the honour of wearing it, and at the same time make friends, and toughen up.
i have a very optimistic friend who said national service gives you free food, free drinks, free training, free gym, free health assessment, free accomodation, free friends, free overseas trip, free uniform and bag.... -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Try applying these points to Israel. Small area, surrounded by the opposition, little defensive depth, built up infrastructure, not too much by the way of primary industries, yet the facts bear out that they've not only defended themselves from Syria, Egypt and other countries, they took the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
We can if and but till the cows come home, but the facts already tell us that we're by no means forced to roll over and expose our bellies.
there is a difference between Israeli and Singapore troops. Although similar in army size, the Israli army have greater strength and determination. Look at their commandos for instance. They are the best in the world, their training is more gruelling which makes them tougher. here, we have generations of schoolboys where only about 10% are considered "tough" . it is not the army muscle, what matters are the tactics and the determination, whether people are willing to lay down their lives. and that is what makes israeli troops special.nevertheless having a deterrant is better than having none. if you got lost hiking in the woods and met a bear, would you wish you had a dagger or was unarmed?
-
Originally posted by mrvictor:
you fail to notice the difference between Israeli and Singapore troops.
No I didn't. As you have yourself noted, the difference is in the approach to NS, which is that raison d'etre of this discussion. The other circumstances are similar enough that if Singaporeans got their heads screwed on right, they stand as much of a chance and don not need to immediately wave the white flag.
Hell week? You a diver?
-
Originally posted by DarkMatter:
Look at this and you'll understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMxTcRs3KDU
how's ur NS?