asdfg2, please don't flame. There is no need to resort to ad
hominem attacks. You make a really big assumption when you say that
the people defending Singapore's defence posture are all teenagers
who do not know anything. You cannot know if these people aren't
SAF officers, or their Malaysian counterparts. Respond to the
ideas, not the people.
Whether or not war with Malaysia could be won easily depends on
your definition of "winning". If winning means defeating the
Malaysian Armed Forces in combat, then yes, our victory is
virtually assured. We outnumber and outpower them in every way, by
margins of two or even four to one (twice the manpower, four times
the armor and aircraft, etc). However, this is only the first small
part of winning a war.
We then need to hold the land. If the population is hostile (and it
probably would be), this would take tremendous amounts of manpower
and political will. There is also the threat of guerilla warfare,
which the SAF is poorly equipped to fight. Look at how Israel's
occupation of Palestine is going.
There will also be the political consequences. Invasion and
annexation is forbidden under the UN Charter. We would straightaway
become a pariah state under embargo, like poor Iraq. This would
destroy our economy, which would completely defeat the entire
purpose of any conceivable invasion. We might even face an
international armed coalition.
We have no reason to invade Malaysia. Never had, and never will. We
have done great without natural resources, and they would do us
little good given the current orientation of our economy. We would
capture land, but that land would already be inhabited, so it's not
that things get that much less crowded. If anything, the less
affluent and less educated annexed population would drag us down.
This is even before you consider the tremendous human, economic,
political and moral cost of an invasion. What possible benefit is
there?
However, if Singapore were forced to defend herself, she would
almost certainly need to capture some land around her. That is why
the SAF has to be so strong -- we must attack in order to defend,
and attacking requires much greater strength than defending. What
happens after we create the strategic depth around ourselves to
defend effectively becomes the question. Do we give it back once
the conflict is resolved diplomatically? I believe that we should
for the reasons I've touched on.
Happy now, asdfg2? 
The people you hear on this forum aren't
generally warmongers (except maybe tripwire *joking*). There is a
difference between "invasion" and "preemptive attack for defensive
purposes", even if both involve Singaporean troops on foreign
soil.
However, as our military strength climbs, there will always be the
temptation to use it rashly. In fact, a well respected military
journal claimed recently that Singapore would have an expeditionary
armed force by 2005 (which is probably what spurred the Harimau
article). That is ludicrous -- our soldiers have jobs back home,
and can't spend their time traipsing on international adventures.
That is the worry that I have -- the possibility that a crazed
future Singapore government might activate the SAF, not counting
the cost beforehand.
Let us pray that never happens.
About having an army without an economy or an economy without an
army -- neither is possible. You do not own what you cannot defend.
That is not just what I believe -- investors believe it too. If the
SAF did not assure investors that Singapore is credible and safe,
there would be no investment here, by locals or foreigners. Part of
the cost of running a nation is the cost to defend it, in the same
way that part of the cost of running a stock market is to ensure
its credibility by enforcing rules and eliminating fraud. It is
inescapable, two sides of the same coin. Think on this, asdfg2.
