Thread: Defending the Lion City... Take 2 - 2008 update

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

Small professional armies have historically repeatedly been able to dismember and destroy much larger opponents. (and frequently the enemy has had more equipment and significantly larger fire power)

Yes sir, larger army does not equal better.

This being true, it is all the more ridiculous for some people to suggest that we are should somehow lose even the slight advantage in terms of numbers in men and equipment. We already have all the regular soldiers that a TINY 4m population like ours can give, which isn't much. Our only recourse is having more people through conscription and buying lots of equipment.

And I still fail to see the argument as to why we shouldn't have more, since Singapore government is:

a) RICH $$$ (like you wouldn't believe)
b) Well capable of operating them

But guess what, we still pay MUCH LESS taxes as a people than either Australia or Canada. : )

Originally Posted by bugs

I see the point but consider this :
1 armed man can win an argument with 100 unarmed men ?

Thank you, it is enough that you see the point. I agree the analogy is a bit weak.

Originally Posted by bugs

If some foreign leader would make such a comment we would first look at his military, if his military budget is smaller than even ours :P we would take it as a joke

Therein lies the cultural differences. You guys are chill Jamaicans, we are humourless paranoid androids.

When someone more than 100 times our size says they would attack us, we start digging trenches. )

Anyway, for your info, Indonesia under a different government made small scale attacks on Singapore in the 1960's called the Confrontation (or Konfrontasi). They weren't joking THAT time. Hell no. )

Originally Posted by bugs

on the other hand if he is prepared for war, we have to look at the enemy public support for such a move , if it is not there he would have to fly the planes himself .

Trust me, the governments of this region (including Singapore) don't need much public support to do something.

Originally Posted by bugs

2 Full mobilization starts talking effects on our economy. No tourist comes to a potential war zone...

Our message is, don't even pretend to threaten us for we will mobilize, and we reserve the right to attack first if threatened... for attack is our ONLY viable defence.

Originally Posted by bugs

Did you considered the fact that your military ( with all the public support behind it) might be considered a credible treat to your neighbors ? And lead to points 1 to 5 describe above on they're part.

Interestingly, as the book in question (Defending Lion City) said, our original defence posture was that of a little "poisoned shrimp". The big fish can eat us easily, but they may die in the process.

We have come a long way from being a mere little shrimp. We have become a "poisonous big ...something..." )

So yes, we can indeed threaten our neighbours should the need arise. While it is true that our inexperienced land army may fumble or get bogged down in a ground operation, but our superior airforce and navy will mop the floor with the opposition.

A tank like Challenger is capable in crossing the Straits of Johor on his own or is required some kind of landing craft ?
If the bridges are out, the navy ( plus the airforce) has the capability to maintain the logistical chain of a armored buffer zone on the Johor ?
edit : Leopard not Challenger. :(