Silver Bullets

last SG · 2004-05-02T16:14:44+00:00

Maybe its underground with the silos opening up at Code Red

Langley SG

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Yes we have everything to lose. I dunno about you but we can't survive beyond the first exchange, and if we do get nukes, you can be sure other nations will do so as well.

So who uses it first? If we use it on them, they will have no qualms about doing so and we all die. And will they use it on us? I don't think so because they know that we will not resort to a nuclear exhange unless we have nothing more to lose so we our nuclear weapons are nullified as long as they engage in conventional warfare with us.

In the end, our nukes won't stop agressors from trying to invade us, if they also have nukes. They know that as long as they are willing to keep things to a conventional level, they can wage all the war they can want and we wun push the button.

I've heard of dumber ideas like getting nukes and abolishing NS, that's a worse idea. A aggressor can just stroll into our nation, who has no credible armed forces to resist them because they know that the moment we press the button, we're dead and everything we've worked for is gone. So we have no choice but to hand our nation, nukes and all to them.

Nuclear weapons are generally quite useless to us. Their power is appealing but they are way too powerful for any good, especially in an ASEAN context. Israel? They hardly have a choice, they need all the firepower they can get against an enemy that will stop at nothing to kill them.

foxtrout8 SG

Israel has more strategic depth than Singapore for it is a bigger country, protected from Syria by mountains i.e. the Golan Heights and Egypt by the Negev desert. Population centers are relatively protected in the heart of Israel.

I agree with u on the fact that Israel have more strategic depth, however u must understand that the dreadful aftermath on Israel of any nuclear retaliation is still real just that the effect might not be as drastic as what Singapore might encounter.

Eventhough of close proximity, that doesnt deter India and Pakistan to go nuclear. It is the mutual understanding of MAD that actually prevent them from going to war with each other. Imagine India is the supreme player here, they would have invaded Pakistan long ago. To counter that balance, Pakistan go nuclear. To counter the strategic threat, Singapore might go nuclear in the future.

When we plan for nuclear, we dun directly plan to use it, but plan how can we intimidate our enemy with it and hopefully we wont have to use that extremely measure.

Israelis dun go shopping in southern Lebanon but we do in JB. Singapore and Malaysia are each other's main trading partners (if not first then second I believe). Furthermore, we are not only integrated economically but also politically and socially. Destroying our neighbours with a nuclear strike is tantamount to destroying ourselves. You want a military capability capable of hurting but not destroying your potential regional adversaries.

I think u are missing the arguement over here. We are to an assumption that our neighbours are not in good term with Singapore and how are we going to retalitate with a strategic attack when we are strategically attack.

In a war between Singapore and our neighbours, we cant just merely hurt our neighbours. We must destroy them brutally and totally inorder to assure no subsequence retaliation. Singapore cant afford to gain standpoint victory but it is total victory that we must achieve.

Quoted from BG Lee:

''The SAF is an armed force , not a civilian corporation. Its mission is to defeat its enemies, ruthlessly and completely. Its an instrument of controlled fury, designed to visit death and destruction of its foes...soldiers must have steel in their souls .....must learn in war to kill and not to flinch, to destroy and not to feel pity, to be a flaming sword in the righteous cause of national survival.''

Do u really think BG Lee said those statement for shiok, or as a consideration to our vulnerability?

Singapore and Malaysia are currently in reliance of each other, but this does not stop us from over-arming ourselve inorder for us to be at supreme side in case of a conflict. Why do we borther to over arm overselve now? It is because we want to destroy our enemy totally inorder to achieve total victory in war, giving them no chance of fighting back.

So u arguement about our reliance on malaysia and thus we can onli afford to hurt them .... is invalid.

At the end of the day, acquiring a nuclear deterrent does not mean conflict will magically disappear. Miscalculations and misunderstandings can still prompt nuclear states towards a nuclear exchange.

I didnt say that conflict will magically disappear.

Look at Singapore now. Eventhough our deterence is strong, the possibility of conflict never disappear. Did any general or minister said that because of deterence is strong, conflict magically disappear?

In any case which Singapore have to choice but to opt for WMD, it is to strengthen our deterent level but not to totally erase off the possibility of war.

Thus ur statement is again invalid.

foxtrout8 SG

Brother, lets imagine with these simple senarios.

Malaysia have 100 units of Astros which can neutralise every inch of Singapore's soil.

1)We counter-balance that threat by employing 200 units of Astros (assuming that we can employ so much) or 2) by arming ourselve with 10 nuclear warheads?

Solution 1: Malaysia can destroy Singapore with 100 units of Astros, Singapore can onli destroy entire Johor state with 200 units of Astros. If u are toking abt destroying a nation to losing a state, Malaysia is at advantage. There is a off set in equilibrium here.

Solution 2: Malaysia can destroy Singapore with 100 units of Astros, Singapore can destroy entire Malaysia with 10 Nuclear warheads. There is a balance of losing ur country and destroying another country. An equilibrium is fixed, there is a balance in power.

When Singapore obtain 10 nukes, Malaysia follow up suit with 20 nukes.

Senario: It is obvious that all it take is one nuke to destroy Singapore. Thus in our situation, 1 nuke or 10 nuke landing onto Singapore dun realli make a difference except for depth of cavity.

In this senario, Malaysia have the capability to totally anhilate Singapore. Singapore have the capability to totally anhilate Malaysia. Equilibrium is set, there is a balance in power.

It is always the balance of power which contribute to more stability. It is the understanding of MAD that prevent both nations from actually using such weapons.

foxtrout8 SG

But I do not see Singapore acquring SSBNs in the future. No country will sell and to make one will be crazy.

No need of SSBN, nuclear cruisemissile armed Sjoormens will do.

The other option is to keep F-16s armed with nuclear gravity bombs in the air at all times (Think Clancy's Sum of All Fears). But then, there is a reason why the US developed the B-2 bomber.

The US developed the B-2 to enable them to strike conventionally or unconventionally anywhere on this globe. If we will to tok abt nuclear mission, the B-2 was designed to penetrate deep into Russia and release the load.

In Singapore case, we dun realli have to penetrate deep into our neigbours to reach their main pulse. Currently our F-16Ds are designated as RSAF's deep strike fighter/bombers. In USAF, the F-16 is jus a light fighter/bomber.

What i mean is that u cant always fit US's requirement to that of Singapore's shoe. Thus i see no purpose for u to bring up the B-2.

zenden9 SG

It spore manage to nuke our neighbour,we will not survive either!

foxtrout8 SG

Do u understand wat it mean by MAD and MAD as a deterent?

If we will to obtain Nukes, we certainly wont pre-empt our neighbours with nukes. The Nukes are for deterence and onli be use if we know that we are under heavy strategic attack.

I doubt u understand the MAD theory.

Langley SG

Eventhough of close proximity, that doesnt deter India and Pakistan to go nuclear. It is the mutual understanding of MAD that actually prevent them from going to war with each other. Imagine India is the supreme player here, they would have invaded Pakistan long ago. To counter that balance, Pakistan go nuclear. To counter the strategic threat, Singapore might go nuclear in the future.

Yes, you are right. Nuclear weapons serve as a very effective strategic deterrent, especially for small and vulnerable countries like Israel, Pakistan and Singapore. What I want to point out is this: it is quite easy to acquire nuclear weapons but very hard to have a stable balance of nuclear terror. You'll need second-strike and advanced detection capabilities. In other words, you must not be deaf and blind to nuclear missile launch and you must be able to retailate after most of your nuclear forces have been wiped out in a first strike.

Detection-wise, the US and USSR depend on satellites to provide early warning of missile launch. This advanced detection capability is something that non-superpowers would not have. From what I know, India and Pakistan almost came to nuclear war in 1999 till the US intervened and provided early warning capability to both sides to curb the temptation for a first strike.

No need of SSBN, nuclear cruisemissile armed Sjoormens will do. The US developed the B-2 to enable them to strike conventionally or unconventionally anywhere on this globe. If we will to tok abt nuclear mission, the B-2 was designed to penetrate deep into Russia and release the load. In Singapore case, we dun realli have to penetrate deep into our neigbours to reach their main pulse. Currently our F-16Ds are designated as RSAF's deep strike fighter/bombers. In USAF, the F-16 is jus a light fighter/bomber.
What i mean is that u cant always fit US's requirement to that of Singapore's shoe. Thus i see no purpose for u to bring up the B-2.

Perhaps AEW aircraft can provide early warning, given again that we are quite close to each other. However, there is still one problem. Second-strike wise, can the Sjoormen be modified to carry cruise missiles? You'll have to shoot it out through the torpedo tubes right? Anyway, I see your point. Perhaps we could modify our frigates and subs to carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. And since Malaysia is long rather than wide, our F-16s can first fly along the Straits of Malacca then turn inward to attack KL. No need for deep penetration. Still, once you enter Malaysian airspace, it would be hot. A closely coordinated air defence with fighters and SAMs would be hard to penetrate in any case. And nuclear bombs are high-value assests. How many do you think we can afford to lose? China only has around two dozen warheads, and Israel, India and Pakistan probably around the same. Hence, I brought up the B2.

In sum, the possession of nuclear weapons by 2 close enemies is a recipe for disaster unless, like the US and USSR, they can manage this through advanced technology. Such an effort is very difficult and costly. Hence, it is impractical in SEA's case.

Yes, you are right. There is deterrent value in nukes. I'm juz saying that this is a very unstable system which is not easy to manage and that could turn out to be counter-productive as well. If both sides release their nukes in a moment of panic and destroy 20 million lives, then what's the point?

I think u are missing the arguement over here. We are to an assumption that our neighbours are not in good term with Singapore and how are we going to retalitate with a strategic attack when we are strategically attack.

In a war between Singapore and our neighbours, we cant just merely hurt our neighbours. We must destroy them brutally and totally inorder to assure no subsequence retaliation. Singapore cant afford to gain standpoint victory but it is total victory that we must achieve.

Quoted from BG Lee:

''The SAF is an armed force , not a civilian corporation. Its mission is to defeat its enemies, ruthlessly and completely. Its an instrument of controlled fury, designed to visit death and destruction of its foes...soldiers must have steel in their souls .....must learn in war to kill and not to flinch, to destroy and not to feel pity, to be a flaming sword in the righteous cause of national survival.''

Do u really think BG Lee said those statement for shiok, or as a consideration to our vulnerability?

Singapore and Malaysia are currently in reliance of each other, but this does not stop us from over-arming ourselve inorder for us to be at supreme side in case of a conflict. Why do we borther to over arm overselve now? It is because we want to destroy our enemy totally inorder to achieve total victory in war, giving them no chance of fighting back.

So u arguement about our reliance on malaysia and thus we can onli afford to hurt them .... is invalid.

In wartime, I think there is a need to draw a distinction between destroying the enemy's military and the enemy's entire country. I'm not saying you should not destroy the enemy's military. This we must do. However, there is a need to avoid destroying his entire country using nukes. If Malaysia disintegrates, we kena also since we are so closely linked. Hence, my point is that we should aim to hurt the MAF jialat jialat but not turn the whole of Malaysia into another Hiroshima or Dresden. My argument for interdependence is simply that in the event of war, cooler heads are likely to prevail on both sides of the Causeway since we would have everything to lose and not much to gain by fighting. Indeed, why do you think we still have not fought a single war by now despite all the tensions we are having with Malaysia? Of course, this is due to military deterrence but also the realization that war would destroy our economies.

Langley SG

A deterrent is useless if it cannot be used. And once it is used, we will be doomed, yes unless we develop TMD. That's why its called MAD. Also, MAD doctrine only applies when both sides have developed a feasible second-strike capability i.e. SSBNs and strategic bombers. Only when you know your enemies are capable of retailation after a first strike will you be deterred from striking first for such an act would indeed be suicide. Hence the term Mutually Assured Destruction. Otherwise, the order of the day would be preemption---destroying your enemies' nuclear forces in a first strike so that retailation would either be impossible or limited. And since no country would want to be the target of a first strike, they would try to preempt the other as well. This is the stage India and Pakistan are in right now. A very precarious balance.

Sardaukar SG

Perhaps we can stockpile biological/chemical weapons.Its well within our means given our industrial base.We can use it for area "cleansing" to depopulate hostile territories.

Useful ones would sarin,anthrax or VX gas.Or we could design one ourselves.

Of course,it there was a containment failure,perhaps harsh containment protocols would limit the spread of such weapons,up to and including execution of victims.

Tests of these weapons could be performed on pirates captued by the navy or murdereds caught by police and these tests on live subjects classified under "black diamond" projects.It is well within our means,and cheaper than the nuclear option,though there are ethical dilemma's and the political fallout if discovered.

Honestyly,Bio/Chemical weapons are cheaper and more practical for a nation like us.they could be produced in Jurong Island,and if containment failed,expendable manpower cheaply available in the form of reserves and conscripts could be activated to stem the outbreak and perhaps see how live tests in simulated combat conditions would affect living subjects,instead of using more valuable regulars.

[PLAYING DEVIL"S ADVOCATE]

As I said above,i played the devil's advocate.Regarding my point,getting such weapons would be easier and more practical due to our industrial base,but a containment failure on our island would be catastrophic,causing large depopulation.

Also,it is banned under international law and would invite sanctions globally.Our economy would be affected as well as our reputation as a nation.

Furthermore,it would be expensive to maintain them and the area of effect of such weapons is not that good,often depending on an unreliable factor,weather.What cannot be denied is the psychological effect on neighbouring populations and militaries,who would be hard pressed to counter such a threat.

And for what I said about conscripts being inferior to regulars,I believe that holds true.In this case,I refer to combat specialists only,to avoid flames.It is my personal opinion that regular combat specialists are more highly trained and skilld than conscripts,as they have the motivation as well to do the job,having signed on.

Conscripts are forcibly drafted into the combat units and will not be as dedicated,though this may change in wartime when self-preservation takes over.They will slack more and will not be as driven.

zenden9 SG

Psycho! Mad

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

And that's why foxtrout8, nuclear weapons are irrevelant for us, unless of course, somebody else gets them. And it's a real can of worms nobody wants to touch. The last thing we need here is a couple of nukes, not to mention Mr. Sam's reaction.

foxtrout8 SG

The reason why i bring up nuclear weaponary is because i find that it will be a good tool to balance the overwhemming strategic power of our neighbours in the future.

I understand ur point on hurting MAF jialat jialat, but wont u understand that if one day the MAF have overwhemming strategic power ( in my previous example, perhaps 50-100 Astros ), it will not onli make SAF jialat..., it will sink Singapore. If our neighbours have weapons that can sink Singapore, isnt it right for us to have weapons that can sink them as a balance?

My proposal of a nuclear arsenal is onli when Singapore find ourselve in a position that no conventional weaponary can counter-balance the increasing threat from our neighbours.

foxtrout8 SG

I believe ur stand on using Chemical/Biological weapons is very much similar with my proposal on nuclear arsenal.

It is evident that u guys are concern abt the aftermath of using the nuke. Well, i can say that the aftermath of using biological weapons.....is 10 time worst.

On Chemical weapons, we must weight out the possibility of our neighbours to equipped themselve with superb chemical defense capability. Even if our chemical weapons might anhilate most of their soldiers, crucial units ( protected by chemical defense ) can still strike back a devastating blow. My concern is, wat if those crucial units are those units that operate our opponent's strategic weapons? Isit it so that they can still strike us back? Isit it that nuclear weapons are a better wipe-out solution compare to chemical?

Anyway, if i am a tactician, i will go for either nuclear or chemical but never biological. I had reasoned out with myself the entire day but jus unfortunately (perhaps) that i find that nuclear weapons is still the best balancing tool if we are force to a point to use such deterent measure.

Cheers.

storywolf SG

cutebug,

Wow lau !!! "Silver Bullets" is the classified code name for the secret operation for shooting all the wild dogs in tuas worksite, then bring back to cook dog meat .

SS21, 120km range is too near to singapore, for nuclear fallout or chemical. Especially any one notice how fast the weather changes in this region, which make nuclear or chemical very unfavourable to use. Anyway, there is a higher change of using F16s to carry them, as more accurate like what France is doing.

Jazzswing SG

And let's not forget that Mutually Assured Destruction dosen't work as we'll all hope it would. Even with a very stable balance-of-power, there is still one thing we must look out for, and that is the potential opponent's leadership and how rational he is. A suicidal political (possibly North Korea's Kim) or military leadership, or the inability of the government to totally control it's military forces could mean disasterous no matter how stable the nuclear balance is. Say for example, in the distant future, Malaysia and Indonesia (over many years), the people vote islamic fundermentalists into power, noting thier suicidal nature, do you think they care or are rational enough to think?

And in a case of nuclear brinkmanship, each side will be obssessed with trying to make impotent the other's strategic forces like what Langley said. Each fearing surprise attack.

Like what a previous post stated..i think only when Singapore has totally lost the strategic depth (Malaysia or Indonesia in the distant future, becoming 1st class economies and rich enough to buy hgh-tech weapons) then we can consider going nuclear to counter-balance.

Langley SG

True true, if Malaysia has 100 Astros I would root also for nukes. Need to balance against them mah. Who knows, maybe we have nukes already Wink But still, Malaysia should not be stupid enuff to force Singapore to the wall. But then again, who knows?

Langley SG

Double post

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Simple, have an armed forces that can make a new Singapore out of them if they every try to destroy this one. Heh.

Of course, there are political factors, other then sheer firepower that will decide a future conflict. Redland and whatever colour can't just loose ASTROs after ASTROs anyhow to wipe out Singapore without raising some kind of global response, especially when many nations have a vested interest in Singapore.

And of course, it takes a heck load of ASTROs to reduce Singapore to wasteland. While they can saturate the whole of Singapore with explosives, they simply can't main enough explosives per area to level Singapore. And of course, that is under the assumption that the SAF is going to sit by and idly watch while they fire away, or not do anything to counter them.

ferret69 SG

(do take note that all commentary here is me playing the devil's advocate and thinking of the worse case scenario in terms of probable future economic situation)

If and when Malaysia or Indonesia becomes a "1st world economy" what good would be to them in risking a military adventure against a small speck of an island with no natural resource and going down the road of mediocrity?

Our only resource is people (and even this advantage will be steadily chipped away once our neighbours gain "software" for their people) and location (mainly port and air transport hub) but that can be easily circumvented once Malaysia and/or Indonesia comes up economically.

In a counter argument, let's say our economy turns crappy and our neighbours do good economically, faith in the ruling party melts away, replaced by a jingoistic party faction (akin to fascism of sorts) who can bring false pride. What makes us so sure that we won't elect a government of that nature? Hitler was lawfully voted into office anyhow.

The use of nukes or WMDs will just make us a world pariah and I'm convinced NOBODY in the world community woukd lend us assistance in any form if it comes to that (except maybe for other pariahs like North Korea). Not even China would help us (what with all the hype about China this, China that).

I just hope that our own enthusiastic, jingoistic young men would understand that working together with our neighbours as a large economic collective with joint defence(a la European Community + NATO) is the only way we can survive the coming DIFFICULT few decades ahead.

« Previous Page Next Page »