Other deterence idea for singapore

Obersturmfuhrer SG

Singapore is a signatory state to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

hisoka SG

frankly speaking, i think that would matter sh!t if the authorities decided it was needful.

Agenda SG

A more feasible idea is probably actually sent units into real war situation while having constant espionage missions in our neighbours' land.

That way, We will have veteran units who can actually handle the trauma of killing someone and always crippling potential enemy's resources.

Of the 4 million, How many would actually be fighting for freedom?

tripwire SG

of the 4 million... i doubt there will be any who want to be at the mercy of others... if they have the choice and option of fighting against it.

the Bear SG

have you guys ever even stopped to wonder why the Singapore gabrament unhesitatingly "throw" money into the money pits which are our neighbours?

have you guys ever even stopped to consider why the Singapore gabrament keeps throwing money into places like UBS and whatever it is from other countries?

if you haven't, go think about it...

iceFatboy SG

just play along with the TS.

1) so you get a few nukes.. you need a team of highly trained people to take care. and you need to build these silos.. or even deployed them on vehicles.
tell me, are these cheaper than our army??

2) secondly, if ever deployed, the waste area will entirely wipe out the whole of singapore so it means you fire, your homeland may be wiped out also.

3) and lastly, does it means you got the nukes, you can go around and bully neighbours??

jondizzle foshizzle SG

and

1) If you do decide to fire some nuclear weapons, the countries unaffected would totally destroy Singapore in retaliation

2) USA will be a b*tch and get involved in it and possibly invade Singapore for possession of WMDs

3) Singapore's neighbours will feel insecure and perhaps take drastic action or develop their own nuclear weapons

ray243 SG

Firstly...I know building nukes...maintaining them is damn expensive...which is why I said it was a crazy idea.

Although...if you think about stuff in long term...building nukes is more worth it than constantly buying new weapons.

And to those people who is 100% sure we can win a war...think again. We don't conquer the enemy...we are supposed to make them scared enough to achieve a ceasefire on our terms instead of theirs.

But the problem is...if the enemy is crazy enough to go on a war with us...what makes you think getting them to surrender is easy? Hell...even the US force in Iraq is having a hard time trying to ensure Iraq 'surrender'( meaning...no suicide bombs or anything)

Hell...for you to achieve a proper victory...the population of the enemy must be convinced to surrender.

So what if the enemy got nukes? You guys never hear of a thing called MAD? You do know that during the cold war...both the USSR and US got nukes...but a war never erupt.

WHY?

Mutually assured Destruction to both sides...that's why the cold war never erupt into a 'hot war'

Pakistan and India has nukes as well...did they use nukes on each other? NO.

Hell...the US is PERFECTLY willingly to let some countries have nukes if it is damn friendly towards the US.

Irasel got nukes for a LONG time...and the US never say anything about it.

When North korea tried to developed nukes...everyone including the US is pissed because US never like North Korea from the start.

the Bear SG

please go watch the movie Dr Strangelove.. and see why MAD is just dumb... and that the politicians are dumber than dumb..

and that the military maniacs who think that militaries can solve anything should all be shot... as many times as it takes to kill them...

LazerLordz SG

Bear, have you ever actually done research into MAD or is this an ideological opinion? Neutral

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

You are assuming your enemy will be a rational one.

The thing is this, if we get nukes here, what is to stop our potential enemies from getting their own? Pandora's box would already have been opened.

Another thing to consider, what if your enemy was fanatical enough to be willing to take one or two nukes in exchange for landing one one you?

Will Singapore be able to take one nuke hit? No.

Will other countries need more then one nuke to totally take out? Yes.

When it comes to WMD, it is a lose-lose situtation for Singapore. We will have no bargaining chips, if we do not have a conventional army. Don't have to talk about invasion... a potential enemy does not need to force you to last resort, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat.

They can simply blockade us and cut off our sea lanes, without a navy to respond and enforce our side of the sea, we are pretty much screwed. They can do plenty of things to us if we do not have a conventional army. They can wage sustained Low-Intensity-Conflict on us and we will be pretty much helpless. As long as they don't cross the line, they can mess with us pretty much all they want because the only thing we have is a nuke and we can't pretty much us it until things are really bad... but they can make it bad enough without ever crossing the line.

And frankly no nation on the world will look kindly on us if we threaten tonuke anybody for the slightest thing, some things still need to be settled with grunt work and show of conventional force.

If we dump our conventional forces and just take up nukes, rest assured, you will suddenly realize that Singapore has no bargaining chips in international politics.

LazerLordz SG

That's true.

MAD while irrelevant to our local context, cannot be discounted so readily elsewhere, assuming rational actors in the MAD drama exist.

eagle SG

We should have an army of pigs against blueland

tankee1981 SG

You mean Redland....

By the way the price of pork is very high now especially in China...to the point where farmers get their pig-bearing sows insured...so you think have a army of pigs is feasible?

specialOps SG

I think the threadstarted is really stupid or something.

Get nukes...? Not every kinda conflict can use nukes...you don't fire off nukes just because there's a military conflict....you don't mass kill entire countries because they threathen your economy or peace.

ray243 SG

Wait...did I say we should fire them?

Getting nukes is enough to deter people from attacking us...although it will piss the rest of south east asia off ALOT.

Not that they like us from the start...

eagle SG

last time in sec sch i was discussing with a friend

We could use suicide pigs, parachuting pigs, and missiles with warheads filled with pork

We could always substitute pigs with wild boars Laughing

VagueHart SG

But the idea is just not credible at all.

We're in no position to hold any nukes. No land to hold them, no reasons too. Furthermore, if we get nukes which we're using to deter the enemies away, this will spike them to build theirs. (Considering the fact that the most possible enemies for us don't hold any nukes yet)

And if they want to push their luck, they can just fire the nukes at us, Singapore can't take even a quarter of a normal nuke. They can.

There are better ways to deter enemies. Maintaining nukes will not be cheap too. Have you ever thought why are we building that much in other countries? Why are we investing so much in other countries even though most of the investment fails? Why are we buying so much shares of other countries' properties?

Nukes are just not the way.

specialOps SG

Holding nukes when you don't dare to fire, and you can't fire...and you have no forces to protect ur nukes..is stupid.

A credible and fully capable force like we have now is the best deterrence.

Nobody needs to doubt if we dare to fire nukes, but they have no doubt at all, if they try to be funny, SAF is more than a match for them. That is by far more effective than nukes.

ray243 SG

Which one is more scary...a defense force or a nuke?

Please...I never said that we need to shut down the whole SAF for a single nuke.

I mean shutting down NS service in return and using the volunteer army to maintain the nukes.

OUR navy and airforce is pratically an all volunteer force right?

What makes you think the SAF can do enough damage for the enemy to surrender on our terms?

The momment they managed to drag the war means that we are screwed.

We are in Japan's position during ww2...we have the ability to attack..but no ability to hold the ground.

If we do not hold the ground...all the enemy needs is to drag the war for a little bit longer...then we are in trouble.

A successful counter-attack will seriously screwed up the whole plan.

Doing damage and doing ENOUGH damage to the enemy is a different thing. Once the enemy is prepared to go to war with us...do you think they will stop just because their airforce is destroyed?

If there is one thing that vietnam war has taught us...it is due to the fact that air-superiority means very little in a tropical rainforest country.

There is alot of times in history where taking the capital do not allow you to acheive victory.

Napolean managed to take Moscow didn't he? Yet Napolean still lost the war against russia.

Once the enemy is prepared to go to war...it means the enemy are prepared to take loses.

If human beings are that afraid to take loses in the war...then britian will have surrendered in ww2...

In war...everyone will lose something..but it is a matter of who will lose more and who will lose less.

I have no doubt that the SAF defeat the core command of our enemy...but once the enemy refused to surrender...what will happen? They can drag us down into a sistuation where we will lose more than them.

That is one thing our education did not tell us about. Having a war means both sides are too blinded to listen to logic.

« Previous Page Next Page »