That is one possible way of how a MLRS counter-strike into CBD
may be looked upon.
However, the scenario I suggested was that Singapore makes the
first strike, and the MAF retaliates by wrecking havoc in our CBD
with their MLRS.
With much of our citizens well educated, they'd instantly recognize
that it is indeed a staggering price to pay. If the MLRS strike was
timed way after midnight, where civilian population would be
minimal in the CBD areas, the citizens may start considering the
cost to the war in the first place.
Whether, the war may have been a "Pre-emptive" strike, or an effort
to secure our water supply (which we are moving away from), the
people might consider the SAF efforts to have brought upon us a
disaster rather than become angered at the MAF.
It is part and parcel of war to be able to threaten strategic
objectives and if necessary demonstrate the intent and capability
to capture or damage it. Such strategic objectives could be
industrial centers, or financial centers. (Side note: I do not
consider densely populated civilian housing to be strategic
objectives. )
While they have too few of such MRLS to level the CBD (perhaps we'd
lose a few storeys off a few buildings), it does send the message
across that they are capable of threatening it, and would
"encourage" to weigh our "costs" before we dare make any military
ventures into M'sia.
An honest question, besides their Astross 2, are we
concerned/worried about the MAF capability as a whole, or any of
their other systems? I'm not even concerned about their
Flanker/Adder capability. Its gonna cost them more money to
maintain than to fly.
OTOH, a saturated rocket attack on the CBD does bring the "Risks"
of war a lil closer to home.
I fully appreciate your scenario in the context of this
discussion. But I posit that the MAF would not directly attack any
densely populated area; not unless we do so first. That would
include commercial areas and industrial ones as well. The CBD may
not have as many people at night but the numbers are still
substantial. The same goes for for industrial zones as well. They
would not do so because they fully understand that we would
retaliate in the same manner and the result would be a catastrophic
lost in industrial and commercial capability on the part of
Malaysia; all the more so given the SAF`s ability to inflict more
harm on them; several orders of magnitude more.
Secondly, they would not want to lose the moral high ground by
attacking a non-military target. Not only would it make it
extremely hard for them to justify such an action but the leverage
she seeks when she goes to the negotiating table to discuss terms
of ceasefire or an end to the conflict would evaporate. She is
attacking an important financial node/centre in used not just by
Singapore but many other countries as well. The impact would be
felt by many other countries using the financial centre as well;
and highly likely seriously. It may even push other countries to
initiate counter-productive actions against Malaysia. This may come
in the form of sanctions and may even culminate in military actions
in support of Singapore.
Thirdly, why choose a non-military attack when presented with an
opportunity to inflict harm(albiet a small one) on Singapore`s
military complex; hence limiting(where possible)or slowing down
Singapore`s push up north ?
There are risks in every war. The war would undeniably be brought
closer home; right to the streets of Malaysia. If this realisation
does not filter through into the masses of our population, then the
onus is on the incumbent government to inform the population of the
severity of the situation. You would expect some collateral damage;
intended or otherwise.
