It is not if we can afford, it is whether we need to. We are
sticking to our howitzers.
we cant stick to our howitzer if they overwhem us with Astros,
their Astros outgun our 52cal.
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.
It clearly shows that you dont understand what is a strategic
weapon, a strategic weapon do not have to be those that you are
familar of, not the Trident , DFs or the Polaris this time
round.
The Astro2 is a strategic weapon because it can have a coverage
capability of the whole of Singapore from a stand off distance. A
large number of Astro2 can bring our defense capability to a halt
if it is not stop.
However 50+ Astros from Singapore to malaysia is a tactical weapon
because it could not cover the whole of malaysia strategically from
a stand of distance, definately not bringing it's army to a
halt.
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?
Many countries are in the grey region of having nuclear weapons.
Japan is 6 months away from having nuclear weapons at any point of
notice. If the PM wants a nuke warhead at his backyard, he can get
it through nuclear analyst within 6 months time. Japan is so close
to getting nuclear weapons and when the threat is near, she will
certainly not give a miss, now do you see any real political
opposition?
I do not see why it is limited politically, financially and by
human factors when we do not have any alternatives. Im talking
about alternatives now, and in my opinion when we cant match our
opponent symmetrically, there is no alternative.
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??
America jolly know that 500 Million of their souls will burn in
inferno if engaged in a nuclear exchange so do the russians, so do
the Indians and the Pakistani. It is the deterrence of a MAD that
realli bring out stability. When we are overwhemmed conventional, i
see the probability of us perishing is much higher than having a
nuclear capability.
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.
You are right with the history, i have no doubt about that. But
do share with many analyst that the Israeli nuclear deterrent have
great responsibility in maintaining the peace (i mean away from
conventional war) now. Read the 'Critical Mass' for more
information to know that majority of the Israeli population support
the existence of a nuclear deterrent, the number of support raised
after the night raiding by Iraqis in the Gulf war.
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?
US is not afraid of the nukes in NK? Then why the fish US is
bargaining for humanitarian contribution for the halt of nuclear
expoitation? Tell US, if she is not afraid, then go enter the
peninsula tml. Naive thinking.
Search the net, read the papers to see how serious US is looking at
NK's nuclear and missile capability. US is not afraid......?
LOLX.
When a bomb damage a nuclear plant, ppl died from radiation.
Make the comparison yourself.
How many people die from terrorist bombing bus then an actual
one on a nuclear station before. Tell mi so....
