first answer to ur previous qsn. what we are lacking in
horizontal landspace, we make up for it in vertical landspace. do
they have so much resources to send enough men to search all the
units (housing units, building units, shops) all over singapore?
bear in mind that these searchers will also be subjected from
ambush during their search.
Also, yes, they will kill. but, there's no point in controlling
a piece of empty land with no subjects to rule over.
What makes you think they are into Singapore to rule? The question
is what if a radical regime ever comes into power that is
genocidically hostile towards Singapore?
You only need to take a look at what can happen in Africa,
Serbia and what happened here in the 1950s to get an idea of
how quickly politics can change within a space of a couple
of years to something disasterous.
If the idea is (to dream one up), lets say some regime with
rabidly anti-chinese idealogy takes over in the region and
Singapore becomes the target, the idea is not to rule Singapore but
simply exterminate then you'll be in trouble if your game plan is
to be an insurgent.
Insurgency does not work on an enemy that is bent on destroying
you and your people.
Problem is it takes more then just a couple
of years to build up your military to something credible.
What makes you think the SAF's doctrine is to camp out in
Singapore and wait for the enemy instead of taking the fight to
them at the outbreak of hostilities? In terms of combined arms and
mobility the SAF gears its forces towards mobile offensive warfare,
and not static defensive actions. If the fight comes to our soil
then we are already in trouble.
with today's media's omnipotency, little news are left out to
the world. the media will report any enemy losses to gargantuan
proportion. soon, there will be public pressure back home calling
for the withdrawal of their troops. enemy soldiers are also human.
they have familes back home to care for.
coupled with the fact that most countries nowadays, (at least in
the surrounding region), are democratic, (with the exception of
brunei, but they are unlikely to invade singapore at any time). any
unpopular action will see to the government being voted out
of office, just like the republicans under bush.
Do you think a regime like Burma will care about taking losses
or even about the media? In fact you've chosen only one example to
build your case on, and that's the Americans when the vast majority
of armies outside of europe are hardly like that.
You are making the common mistake of wishful thinking in
warfare, where instead of decisively defeating your enemy one
resorts to thinking that if so and so ambigious conditions
were sastified the enemy will lose heart and give up.
so what about the high loss to kill ratio? if enemy bomb
singapore, just one bomb alone can kill hundreds(i'm not talking
about atomic bomb).
look at sichuan. one earthquake, their 5-7 stories buildings
collapse, killing hundreds per building. here, we have 12-25
stories HDB flats. imagine what would happen if they collapse?
(don't tell me that HDB designed these flats to be bomb-proof, when
they already failed to include lifts at every floor in their
designs.)
The question is, why even allow them to reach you and bomb you
in the first place? They can do so precisely IF you don't even try
to defend yourself from such threats.
And how do you defend yourself? By sitting around and lamenting
the fact that is it a hard task to do or actually putting your
money where your mouth is and coming up with a credible military
that can prevent this from happening in the first place?
