What leads you to presuppose
'nukes can't even "knockout" a country'? Nuclear weapons are very
much a threat to the stability and even survival of any country,
hence the furore over Iran and North Korea concerning their alleged
possession of nuclear weapons. Think over it yourself - wouldn't
you consider Singapore to be especially vulnerable to such a
weapon?
Do you know the term "Second Strike"? While if you don't, it
means the capability to retaliate without any form of assistance
from the mainland. Variations of this include having
well-protected, well-hidden silos, nuke subs and carrier groups out
at sea and stationing military assets and professionals out of the
country. These ensures that even if the country is nuked, it will
be possible to retaliate back.
The international communtities are concerned over nuclear
programme in Iran and N.K because they are worried that any
aggression may results in a large number of deaths, not because
they are afraid that they can't retaliate (or in your terms, being
knocked-out)
Singapore is vulnerable. Every country is. However, you've
missed out the point that most country have reliable defense system
to counter such a threat. Also, a country which uses nukes will
face alot of economical and political pressure by the international
community and neighbours of the target country. So i don't think SG
will be the only one worrying if it were to be nuked, malaysia and
indoneasia will be sure to join in.
You don't think "any country would
be without a proper defence system to detect any attacks"? You
couldn't be any further from the truth. You may simply be ignorant,
but a lot of countries do not have comprehensive early warning
systems.
Am i ignorant? Or are you arrogant? Even having a group of
people watching out on top of trees can also be considered a form
of early warning system. Any country which have a military
force would definitely have early warning capability. Without it,
their army are sitting ducks.
Also, you think that the only
method of defense conceivable is to merely ward off everything that
is being thrown at us. However, Shotgun is talking about
pre-emptively striking at the enemy's heartland, to hinder the
progress of their invasion. If this enemy is distant but possesses
carriers to attack us, and we have no such assets to strike at
their country, it is our loss, after all.
Striking at the enemy's heartland
to hinder the progress of their invasion? I think that would only
further agitate them, causing a more rapid invasion. Knowing
our nation's emphasis on diplomacy and deterrence, i think the
internation communty and our friends would have responded to the
threat by pressuring them economically or by the means of force if
our "enemy" was to send a carrier out for us. Just like what the
coalitions did for kuwait and saudi arabia in response towards
iraq's greed. Also, in the terms of defense, i think planes taking
off from the mainland would be at a advantage when facing the
planes which flew from the carrier.
And I'm amused when you simply
generalise a carrier group as not practical. If we're going to
perform a pre-emptive strike, "more planes, ships and new
technology" will not be more practical when they have neither the
range nor passage to perform such an operation. A carrier group, on
the other hand, allows us to extend the reach of our military power
as long as there is deep water for the carrier to travel
over.
You are amused at my words? While
i nearly laughed my ass out when i read your reply. Pre-emptive
strike? That would make us the aggressor and we will be the ones at
fault. Our military force is more for defense rather than for
aggression and having a carrier group may not equates to extending
our reach, others have defenses too you know.
What are you talking about with
"wars are never over"? I don't think we regard the Vietnam War as
current, do we? And why are you talking about resistance fighters
when the topic is on Singapore's defense? Nobody ever said that
Singapore was going to invade a country. Irrelevant.
There are usually two outcomes of
war. Either the defender wins or the aggressor wins. When the
defender wins, the nation would most probably be hostile to the
aggressor nation and would most like impose certain santions or
boycott products made from that country. When the aggressor wins,
there will always be resistance movement to counter the invading
forces. When i said wars are never over, i include economical and
social, physical and physcological warfare as well as the board
spectrum of warfares which would be too many to be listed
out.
Lastly, resistance fighters are considered a part of a nation's
defence. Irrelevant? Guess you're too innocent instead.
