quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U jolly know that we cant afford to operate 100 Astros in terms of
manpower.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not if we can afford, it is whether we need to. We are
sticking to our howitzers.
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see the threat of 50 Astros? Do you see that it is much easy
for them to launch 40 Astros at us before all 50 Aircraft can be
off in the sky? Do you see that the Astros are strategic weapons
and our 50 Aircrafts are not and do you see that it is to our
disadvantage?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is strategic weapons to you?
Astros are vehicle-mount, need to be deployed, which then required
them to move in convoy. There are not submarine launched or can
launch directly from underground silo. If they have 50 batteries
which means there are at least 50x15 vehicles excluding vehicles
for personnels. The question is not is it easy to launch but are
they anymore difficult to detect and destroy than any other
artillery system? The answer is No. So there is no difference if
Malaysia were to buy a hundred pieces of howitzer.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As i had said many times, there is a limit for Singapore to match
the race with conventional weapons, over that limit, Singapore have
to go WMD style. That apply to Israel, Pakistan, Japan and
Taiwan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The limit is not limited to the population and the land mass. The
limits also include political, financial, personnels,
training.....there are limits to us, there are limits to them as
well. So what is the limit, over which Singapore will have to have
nuclear weapon as deterrence?
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are damm sure that they are willing to lose 22 million people
(for malaysia) for just 4 Million people?
I do not see why are they at an advantage in terms of population
and land when we launch 10 nukes at them, destroying 10 of their
cities. The cost for them is too large for them to pay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is: are you going to risk 4 million singaporean, in
order to destroy 22 millions malaysia? Put it another way, IF, SAF
were defeated, will you launch nuke at them, knowing that they will
retaliate with nuke, whether you will kill 22 million of them or
not is not important, what is certain is the 4 million singaporean
will perish!! Will you??
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are bloody wrong. The Isrealis nuke had ever since detered
conventional war on Israeli soil for many years, although war had
been wage before when Israel went nuclear, the ME countries now see
that attacking Israel will be damm costly with 500 Nuclear warheads
in their hand. Do you see potential security challenge from Jordan
, Egypt and Syria now? And why do you think Iran want to go
nuclear?
Comeon, India will not hessitate to throw a few nukes as well as
Pakistan as well as Russia to US in the Coldwar, as well North
Korea currently. But it is because of a nuclear deterrence by
someone, somewhere that prevent such ^^$& to happen. If North
Korea do not have a credible nuclear deterrent, US will think much
less into going a war. Same goes to the other example
Please do not disregard the deterrent effect of a nuclear
arsenal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the power balance has tilted in favour of Isreal who were
supplied with more advance weapons, conventional ones; relatively
speaking, the USSR who used to supply weapons to the Arab were
going down hill and eventually disintegreted!! Since when has
Jordan been any security challenge to Isreal? They lost the west
bank to Isreal in the war in 67 and finally gave up the area in 88
to PLO. Egypt since signing the the Camp David Accord has not been
hostile to Isreal. Syria's joining the Allied forces in 91 against
Iraq was a clear demonstration of Syria's walking in line with the
international community. I have no doubt Isreal is in possession of
nuke, but further wars in the middle east were not averted by these
nuke!! I doubt they have 500 warheads.
North Korea's nuclear arsenal is a threat to Japan and south korea
and it is not a deterrence. Do you think US is afraid of the nuke
from North Korea?
Nuclear weapons can be deterrence, but its importance has been
reduced after the cold war. don't treat it like God.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comon, Tengal Airbase had been for years a potential taget for
terrorist and Commando attack. Remove it ok?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every building, shopping center,... is a potential target for
terrorists attack. Why would commando want to attack airbase? blow
up planes, control towers?? When a bomb rip up a building, ppl died
from the blast of the bomb, or the falling debris. When a bomb
damage a nuclear plant, ppl died from radiation. Make the
comparison yourself.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all respect, it think this is native of you to think like
that.
[/b][/quote]
don't know what you are talking about.
