Will 3G mean more combat troops or less? Isn't there more people
needed to operate the gadgets? At best, the added technology just
helps us maintain the numbers as the population dwindles as birth
rates plunge ever lower.
It fluctuates. The reason why National Service was cut recently
to 2 years is because we have had too many babies not too long ago.
Singapore is in no danger of vanishing from the face of the
earth.
And when you look at today's ever softening, pampered city-bred
computer generation, it is food-for-thought what kind of combat
troopers of the future they will make. And how will they stand up
against tough professional jungle fighters of foreign armies.
When you look at the ever ridiculous antics as per military
matters/issues played by neighbours(some), it makes sense to have a
well educated population rather than one who can`t seem to decide
what to buy and how to use what you buy. On a serious note,
training is the key. Another is money. A lot of soldiers fighting
in the streets of Lebanon and Iraq are city-bred. The hind-sight is
that if you stay in a `kampong', it`s unlikely you`ll know
that.
You can look at 3G as a big
"hooray-we-are-the-most-modern-this-that" but in reality it is a
desperate measure to keep SAF a viable fighting force as the
numbers drop and the quality of soldiers become weaker and weaker.
If you remember some editorials from ST a decade ago, this problem
was discussed at length. And the falling numbers is what led SAF to
seek "modernisation".
Part of the idea of maintaining military superiority is to
indulge in the latest technologies and strategies. The Greeks had
the phalanx, the British had thier neat navy ships, the Americans
had the peerless carrier battle groups, etc. You can also say these
are force multipliers which enable you to do things your enemy
can`t with the same number of troops. Of course, if you`re staying
in a country which can`t afford all these, you really need to find
some reasons to make sense of the gap in capability. Otherwise,
`malu' you know.
