Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by Shotgun @ Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:54:41 +0800

Shotgun — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:54:41 +0800

Ya la, we don't need to chiong all the way to KL. I'm sure the SAF has some 3/4 tank contingency to ensure that our tankees don't accidentally drive all the way up there.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by zexel @ Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:55:40 +0800

zexel — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:55:40 +0800

hahaha well said sgstars..!

its always an eye-sore to see someone with obviously inadequate knowledge

and intelligence, splitting all over the forum with his self-assumed correct tactics and

hulabalu. Think before you speak champ. =)

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:50:07 +0800

sgstars — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:50:07 +0800

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

If the SAF fights like the way deathmaster says it does... then we deserve to lose. He really should do his homework before making anymore statements or he might end up like a certain lion.

But fortunately the reality is not like that.

Chiong to KL for what? Since when was that in SAF doctrine?

Wait for them to shoot first for what?

Also he does not seem to have any grasp of how initial landings are made with Guards formations, as well as the fact that in war your ships will not all be in harbour waiting to be blown up for no reason. Additionally he's acting as if the RSAF will not be a factor.

AFAIK, cutting the tap now is far less of an issue then it was last time, as a matter of fact in the future it water may not be an issue at all.

ah much better. after u edit it, it becomes clearer. was wondering why ur structuring so strange.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:41:45 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:41:45 +0800

If the SAF fights like the way deathmaster says it does... then we deserve to lose. He really should do his homework before making anymore statements or he might end up like a certain lion.

But fortunately the reality is not like that.

Chiong to KL for what? Since when was that in SAF doctrine?

Wait for them to shoot first for what?

Also he does not seem to have any grasp of how initial landings are made with Guards formations, as well as the fact that in war your ships will not all be in harbour waiting to be blown up for no reason. Additionally he's acting as if the RSAF will not be a factor.

AFAIK, cutting the tap now is far less of an issue then it was last time, as a matter of fact in the future it water may not be an issue at all.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by Sepecat @ Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:03:34 +0800

Sepecat — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:03:34 +0800

SG has the means & will to bring the fight to whoever wants to take us on. And the strategy does not end there - it is geared to ensure that it wins quickly & decisively. But it is neither in the aggressor's nor SG's interest to fight a war the first place. Both sides will surely suffer as there is no such thing as a win-lose outcome ( only a lose-lose one ) , but SG will also ensure that the aggressor suffers very much more militarily, politically & economically.

SG armed forces are already structured & organised to mobilise quickly. You do not need to mobilise ALL your reserves to initiate operations - you need only to mobilise sufficient forces faster than what your aggressor can bring to bear against your forces.

The region's geography also lends itself to fast & easy movement of men & equipment via the seaways which have relatively calm waters. Assault boats etc & plentiful other civilian resources are all available on mobilization.

I do not believe that a buffer zone is restricted to a meagre 50 or 60 km. Personally, it is too close for comfort.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by ahtansh @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:11:45 +0800

ahtansh — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:11:45 +0800

Singapore will never declare war with any of our neighbors, likewise they wouldn't. Simply becos Singapore is a Gold mine, they will continue to withdraw Cash and Benefits from us whenever they need it. Destroying us makes no sense at all, they don't need our land or our people but they want our MONEY.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by edwin3060 @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:03:19 +0800

edwin3060 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:03:19 +0800

I think the discussion has been fairly rich so far, and I agree mostly with ST and sgstar.

One thing to point out though-- Ironically, the scenario hinges on the fact that there is a strong, belligerent Malaysian government-- belligerent enough the ignite the conflict, but strong enough to withstand a military defeat, political concessions, and STILL have enough clout to control Malaysia after the war.

Realistically, the times when the Malaysian government has been most belligerent is when it is weakest, since we are the usual punching bag to generate some nationalism and support for the central government. So, it is not inconceivable that the situation degenerates like what deathmaster said-- If the Malaysian government collapses in the wake of the conflict, how would we be able to manage the aftermath? Clearly we don't have the resources to occupy and nursemaid the Malaysians, and yet we cannot leave Malaysia by itself without a central authority to arbitrate its racial and religious conflicts.

So, in all these discussions, keep in mind that our objective would always be two-fold-- firstly, to defeat the Malaysians and yet secondly, not defeat them so badly that they cannot recover. Of course, ideally we would intimidate them so much that they wouldn't fight in the first place-- hence deterrence.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:07:47 +0800

sgstars — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:07:47 +0800

Originally posted by deathmaster:

yes. i had said that it is easy for singapore to chiong all the way to KL, if we choose to, provided that we have the advantage of surprise.

the question is, can we effectectively hold on and control these territories? if we can't, we will be force back anyway, losing the war. USA has the manpower to do so, at a long term basis. USA will not be attacked back home. they can afford to send the bulk of their forces out, leaving behind a nominal force to deal with disaster. i.e. republican guards to handle disaster relief.

for the case of singapore, yes, we can push on. but sooner or later, casualty will mount to an extent that we have to withdraw and consolidate. also, when we push, we are not sending alot of troops out to the frontline. the bulk of them will still have to stay in singapore to prevent invasion by other countries hoping to capitalise on our situation.

unlike the USA, which has a large population base to conscript more manpower when necessary, singapore doesn't have that luxury. once our forces are gone, there is no more backup to rely on.

and as we have discussed aboved,

1) we won't be able to mobilise the full 300,000. would be lucky to mobilise 200,000. any more, it will risk disabling the industries and the economy.

2) we most probably won't be able to send alot of troops across the border, since we need reserve troops to guard against attacks from the rear, i.e. by indonesia.

3) we won't be able to hold on to occupied territory in a war of attrition, which is very possible. (we can at best strike till KL, but that's only half of West Malaysia.) given the ethnic composition of malaysia, and given the malaysian malays' attitude towards other races, i doubt that they will embrace our occupation. insurgency will bleed us dry.

4) we are a civilian army. our economy cannot sustain a long drawn war of attrition. eventually, due to economical concerns, even though we can hold on to enemy territory, we will have to surrender.

5) resources-wise, when we are engage in a war in M'sia, we will be cut off from food supplies. singapore imports 40-60% of our food from malaysia. are we ready to see a 50% reduction in food supply?

Water-wise, all it takes for M'sia to cripple us is to turn off the tap, and blow up our desalination plants. without food, you may still have a chance to plunder food from enemy territory. without water, no one is going anywhere.

as for fuel, Malaysia is a oil producing nation. it is energy sufficient. singapore is an oil importing nation. all it takes is to blockade the Malacca straits, depriving us of oil, to wipe out our technological advantage. tanks, planes, any form of military transportation, they all run on oil. similarly, when oil runs out, no one is going anywhere. just a strike at our oil reserves can effectively halt all our military activities. (how many consecutive 24 km route marches can you do? and 24 km is not much of a distance in M'sia).

SAF is just a paper tiger. i am not going to say that it has totally no power, but its power is very limited, due to singapore's geographic and demographic constraints.

this will be my final post here, like i said, you are making this into a pissing contest.

your FUNDAMENTAL assumption is that SAF will fight in the manner to squish MAF like a cockroach. WRONG APPROACH, we simply dont have the manpower nor firepower to do so. the idea of forward defence, as it has been established here (go read tim huxley la for goodness sake) is NOT to conquer malaysia but to establish a firm zone of control so diplomacy can be made.

it is not unlike the israeli tactic, capture golan heights from syria, hold it to maintain some strategic benefit. why ovverun the whole country ? brings unnecessary international pressure and stretches the supply lines far too thin. all we have to do is capture a couple of states and hold the ground there. most of the MAF is based up north, around pahang/ipoh state areas. the time taken to cross the country and bring up the forces would be too late. the idea is to capture territory, cause enough losses for MAF to be crippled, and bring the politicians/diplomats to the negotiating table.

to think of SAF as an all conquering force/power is HUBRIS on your part. find me which country has the ability to fight a war of attrition nowadays ? even The US is finding it tough in IRAQ, its costing them dearly in financial terms. its a 4 trillion dollar bill (inclusive projected inflation) over 20 years. roughly a third of their GDP (11 trillion) today.only Russia and the US have the capability to sustain a long term military intervention and war of intervention. China might be able to do so in a couple of years. The idea is to conduct a quick strike against KINs (key installations), take out op force, control ground. haggle for peace. look at Israel's type of war. Even in massive battles such as the yom kippur war and the 6 day war, Israel never sought to destroy the country entirely. just cripple the op force, hold territory, sue for peace.

in short, fight the op force, bring them to their knees, neogotiate.

Your argument conveniently assumes several things

1) SAF will happily sit on its backsides waiting for the OP force ( i shant say MAF here, like i said, i simply refuse to make this into a country vs counrty pisssing war) to come within shooting distance before we take action.

2) you assume a war of conquest (as debunked above, unfeasible)

3) you assume they will cut off water.

FYI, our water agreements expire in 2011 and 2061. by that time the marina bay barrage would have come online and our 2nd desalination plan (tuas i think, by hyflux) should be operational. we will be self sufficient in water supply. water is no longer of strategic consequence to us. It is IMPORTANT, however, its strategic significance has DECLINED SIGNIFICANTLY in relation to the developments in desalination, catchment supplies and membrane based recycled water (your toilet bowl water, NEWater)

4) you assume singapore has no means of national reserve troops/manpower. ever heard of MR and PDF 1 and 2 ? go figure. and its not the adobe acrobat reader format.

5) you assume that malaysia is an oil exporting nation so it will have energy sufficiency ? INCORRECT. its not about oil producing capacity but OIL REFINING CAPACITY

WRONG AGAIN, malaysia 's petroleum refineries are undercapacity. they do not produce enough for malaysia's own needs. singapore on the other hand, has the largest amount of crackers (huge boilers that actually breakdown raw crude oil into the many different distillates and ethyls that the petro chemical nations need). we have the largest cracker capacity in SEA. do a little research and you'd find that we host alot of oil refineries that have these crackers. and not conincidentally, these companies provide a sort of "insurance cover" for us. if under any probability of threat, we will stir up alot of vested interests. Japan for one is a major consumer of our products. stop the flow of oil flowing from singapore and you'd have a major GLOBAL catastrophe. thats why IMHO, if war is likely, it will definitely be a major sea battle for SLOC in the malacca straits. go figure why the PLA is building a blue water navy,

and, FYI, singapore also has the largest storage facility for strategic storing/reserve of oil in the region. we currently have about 80 days worth of strategic reserves of oil. mighty china, has only 3 days worth of strategic reserves (due to their rate of consumption). singapore has by far again, the largest amount of oil storage reserves in asia. if this is rationed, im certain it will go a long way more than 80 days. recent initiatives such as JTC building a massive underground oil storage facility below jurong island is only going to INCREASE this capacity. Only Japan has a greater storage capacity (sufficient for 120 days of japanese consumption)

6) mobility.

think of the ASEAN tsunami response. why was singapore able to mobilise 4 chinooks for meluaboh indonesia, 2 super Ps for Aceh, and another 2 super Ps for thailand and 3 of the 4 LST ships within 3 days ? think again. if any nation in SEA is able to project capability fast and effectively, it would be singapore.

lets face some facts here. we have the world HIGHEST AMPHIBOUS SHIP capacity to population ratio. you wont really need 4 LSTs for a population of 4 million right ? we also coincidentally have the highest amount of rotary wing aircraft in asia. you can put together malaysia , indonesia and thailand combined, and SG still has more chopper lift assets than all of them. not inclusive of the UH1s we have in storage.

we conveniently happen to own the most HEAVY LIFT chopper assets here in the region as well. the chinooks. and we have quite a few based in the states that we cant bring back because of political reasons.

and i m not even going into the amount of trucks we have, 5 tons and 3 tons. plus to boot, all your mechanised armour with troop carrying capabilities , bionix 40/50 , bx1, bx2, m113s, V-200.

in any event of a conflict, i m pretty sure there will always be people who like to walk "24km route marches" but im sure ild be pretty happy to plonk my ass in a chopper. and oh, btw, 24km isnt the standard now. 30km for most units who have to leg it. go figure.

conclusion :

SAF is by no means a paper tiger as you'd like to call it. a paper tiger implies that the abovedescribed having no means of achieving a impact, physical or psychological or in this context, military power.

your argument/basis is FLAWED and construed upon certain very bad ideas. i m not saying SAF is dominant and we have a unchallenged military prowess. we have our limitations like you mention, no ability to fight a war of attritiion, food, Manpower and perhaps, arguably so, the will to fight a war. But please do not confuse our limitations with our capabilities and of the fact that we do not lack the means to project power.

that is the primal flaw of your argument. you assume singapore cannot project power. this discourse is to prove otherwise. It would do you good to brush up on some facts before you come here spouting rubbish and statements with substance.

Im not going to cotinue further with such massive posts (too much work anyway) but i sincerely hope this thread dosent become a pissing contest between SG and MY and ends up being a "hey look , MY D*ck is bigger than yours" pissing competition. its a crude analogy to use but, it captures the stupidity of the whole scenario.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by Arapahoe @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:51:05 +0800

Arapahoe — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:51:05 +0800

You see I think by the time we see para drop in JB and regional military exercise it is part of a Chain reaction already. I think we are living within a bigger plot.

I like to speculate this theory of possible cause.

It is highly possible that in the beginning of our independents the spread of communism, which was than a perceived threat to the entire SEA region, has infiltrated young govt and follow by the SAF.

In the 60s it was a plot to divide the 2 states so that MY have to divert resource away from jungle fighting. Over time this strategy take roots it become a geopolitical strategy against SEATO. Also as ASEAN take roots it was impossible for PLA to achieves its goal in SEA but it would still be able to weaken ASEAN if distrust were built between states. And also to their dismay our support for ROC.

Until today this strategy continue to work in their favor. So are we prepared for conflicts? I am not sure if we really know who is the real enemy? or we are part of a subplot.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by deathmaster @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:31:17 +0800

deathmaster — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:31:17 +0800

Originally posted by sgstars:

you used the example of IRAQ vs USA. same lessons here. the 4th largest standing army (IRAQ) lost against the numerically weaker US troops as the US troops had aerial supremacy, technologically dominant and frequent joint training/exercises.

yes. i had said that it is easy for singapore to chiong all the way to KL, if we choose to, provided that we have the advantage of surprise.

the question is, can we effectectively hold on and control these territories? if we can't, we will be force back anyway, losing the war. USA has the manpower to do so, at a long term basis. USA will not be attacked back home. they can afford to send the bulk of their forces out, leaving behind a nominal force to deal with disaster. i.e. republican guards to handle disaster relief.

for the case of singapore, yes, we can push on. but sooner or later, casualty will mount to an extent that we have to withdraw and consolidate. also, when we push, we are not sending alot of troops out to the frontline. the bulk of them will still have to stay in singapore to prevent invasion by other countries hoping to capitalise on our situation.

unlike the USA, which has a large population base to conscript more manpower when necessary, singapore doesn't have that luxury. once our forces are gone, there is no more backup to rely on.

and as we have discussed aboved,

1) we won't be able to mobilise the full 300,000. would be lucky to mobilise 200,000. any more, it will risk disabling the industries and the economy.

2) we most probably won't be able to send alot of troops across the border, since we need reserve troops to guard against attacks from the rear, i.e. by indonesia.

3) we won't be able to hold on to occupied territory in a war of attrition, which is very possible. (we can at best strike till KL, but that's only half of West Malaysia.) given the ethnic composition of malaysia, and given the malaysian malays' attitude towards other races, i doubt that they will embrace our occupation. insurgency will bleed us dry.

4) we are a civilian army. our economy cannot sustain a long drawn war of attrition. eventually, due to economical concerns, even though we can hold on to enemy territory, we will have to surrender.

5) resources-wise, when we are engage in a war in M'sia, we will be cut off from food supplies. singapore imports 40-60% of our food from malaysia. are we ready to see a 50% reduction in food supply?

Water-wise, all it takes for M'sia to cripple us is to turn off the tap, and blow up our desalination plants. without food, you may still have a chance to plunder food from enemy territory. without water, no one is going anywhere.

as for fuel, Malaysia is a oil producing nation. it is energy sufficient. singapore is an oil importing nation. all it takes is to blockade the Malacca straits, depriving us of oil, to wipe out our technological advantage. tanks, planes, any form of military transportation, they all run on oil. similarly, when oil runs out, no one is going anywhere. just a strike at our oil reserves can effectively halt all our military activities. (how many consecutive 24 km route marches can you do? and 24 km is not much of a distance in M'sia).

SAF is just a paper tiger. i am not going to say that it has totally no power, but its power is very limited, due to singapore's geographic and demographic constraints.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:57:22 +0800

sgstars — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:57:22 +0800

Originally posted by deathmaster:

strike with missile first, send in troops later.

in any case, the standing army of Malaysia is much greater than ours. they have plenty of time to mobilise after their first strike, with a much larger force than us.

we on the otherhand, have to depend on rapid mobilisation of a large reserves to match up to the MAF standing army.

___________________________________________________________________

and have you question your assumptions ?

look at the malaysian's ability to support or sustain or even carry out a combined arms at the army level operation ? their standing army is greater, in what sense ? inclusive RELA ? dont joke around here please. RELA is not even a proper militia. MAF simply dont have the transports (look at NURI, hello??!) or the logistics capability to support all of them.

they are barely into combined arms conceptual execution stage while we are embarking on joint ops. their first combined arms division was merely formed 2 years ago while we have had 3 divisions for nearly a decade or more. they simply arent even close when it comes to tactical doctrines and strategic conceptualisation.

their army was really hampered during the 97 downturn while we cotinued to expand and is nowhere near the level of modernisation we have in our army today. they are trying to catch up on this lost decade of modernisation.

what missile to strike with ? brahMos ? astros II ? and you think SAF is incompetent to the extent of allowing a neighbour to carry a armed shotgun in our very backyard ? think again of how we reacted to the malaysian-indon arty and paratrooper exercise. think hard and think again.

just think of it this way. SAF exists to discourage any military excursions by our neighbours. even if we fail in discouraging them, we have the means to make any attack very painful (poisoned shrimp) and we are moving to a stage where we wont have to rely on the poison shrimp. the idea is to make our qualitative edge count. you used the example of IRAQ vs USA. same lessons here. the 4th largest standing army (IRAQ) lost against the numerically weaker US troops as the US troops had aerial supremacy, technologically dominant and frequent joint training/exercises.

i dont want to go into a platform by platform comparison or analysis as its against forum rules and this is degenerating into a "pissing contest" between countries. its pointless to do so.

IT's not like i hate malaysia or anything, but do remember, its never SG's policy to be the aggressor. we have never been anything but on the reciving end of threats. Its pretty clear when you are being threatened, you either beef up or submit to the threat. no prizes for guessing which course of action SG has decided to take.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by deathmaster @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:06:51 +0800

deathmaster — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:06:51 +0800

Originally posted by pigsticker:

you are talking about a Malaysian first strike in which we have no idea that they were going to launch, which is highly improbable...

any high-scale mobilisation on both sides would be known by the other side instantly... it's highly improbable that any side can be caught with their pants down...

strike with missile first, send in troops later.

in any case, the standing army of Malaysia is much greater than ours. they have plenty of time to mobilise after their first strike, with a much larger force than us.

we on the otherhand, have to depend on rapid mobilisation of a large reserves to match up to the MAF standing army.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by pigsticker @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:03:44 +0800

pigsticker — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:03:44 +0800

Originally posted by deathmaster:

all these rantings here are crap.

yes, singapore may have the capability to chiong all the way to KL if we want to, but can we secure the occupied areas?

Iraq offers a glimpse of modern warfare. yes, you could exert a presence over any occupied territories, but at the end of the day, the issue is "can you control the occupied territories?"

can singapore really able to mobilise 300,000 men? i doubt so. there must still be people left to men the industries. it is not as if we can have modern warfare with all male citizens fighting the war. ur industries still need workers to function. e.g. the shipyards, ammunition factory, factories, ports, shops. (can you imagine an entire marketplace where most of the food selling stalls and shops closed? i.e. grocers, butcher, fishmonger, hawker etc. they tend to be male dominated, being own and run by males shopkeepers) people still need to eat, war or no war.

during a war, transport service will most likely be down, being the obvious choice of target. (just knock out a couple of mrt interchanges with missile strikes and you would have disabled the entire mrt network.) thus, it makes local markets even more important to civilians.

and as a defending nation, the attacking enemy often have the advantage of surprise. it is not possible to block a missile launch from as close as JB.

enemy first strike capability would involve the total annihilation of naval and avial forces before the invasion even begin, all the more made easier by singapore's small size. in Iraq, at least it took quite some time for any missile attack, by either plane or ships. but for singapore, any missile strike from malaysia would only take a few minutes, totally no time for evasive actions.

it is also very hard to implement the forward defence ideology, especially when the enemy invasion has the advantage of surprise. enemy forces would most likely be in singapore before we get to mobilise our units. also, even if we did get to mobilise our forces, how do we bring them across to enemy territory? via 2nd link and causeway? with our butts vulnerable to all sort of attacks?

by just demolishing the causeway, it would delay the movement of our forces by several days. the japanese took 1 week to repair the causeway. they could afford the wait, but not singapore, being a small country.

transport the troops in ships? it would only make soldiers more vulnerable to airborne torpedo attack on the relatively defenceless troop transporters. Unless you want to try out the japanese method of crossing the straits using sampans. i seriously doubt the feasibility of transporting thousands of units across the water in sampans.

the SAF is also a highly bureaucratic organization. in the case of defensive actions to be taken after the aftermath of enemy first strike, (where they obviously would have already targetted the top brass, who may still be sleeping at their homes).

the wiping out of the SAF top command would bring chaos to the organisation, that it would take quite some time to sort out, before things function properly again.

so, in conclusion, i think that the SAF has over inflated its capability to defend against an invasion.

you are talking about a Malaysian first strike in which we have no idea that they were going to launch, which is highly improbable...

any high-scale mobilisation on both sides would be known by the other side instantly... it's highly improbable that any side can be caught with their pants down...

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by deathmaster @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:59:06 +0800

deathmaster — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:59:06 +0800

all these rantings here are crap.

yes, singapore may have the capability to chiong all the way to KL if we want to, but can we secure the occupied areas?

Iraq offers a glimpse of modern warfare. yes, you could exert a presence over any occupied territories, but at the end of the day, the issue is "can you control the occupied territories?"

can singapore really able to mobilise 300,000 men? i doubt so. there must still be people left to men the industries. it is not as if we can have modern warfare with all male citizens fighting the war. ur industries still need workers to function. e.g. the shipyards, ammunition factory, factories, ports, shops. (can you imagine an entire marketplace where most of the food selling stalls and shops closed? i.e. grocers, butcher, fishmonger, hawker etc. they tend to be male dominated, being own and run by males shopkeepers) people still need to eat, war or no war.

during a war, transport service will most likely be down, being the obvious choice of target. (just knock out a couple of mrt interchanges with missile strikes and you would have disabled the entire mrt network.) thus, it makes local markets even more important to civilians.

and as a defending nation, the attacking enemy often have the advantage of surprise. it is not possible to block a missile launch from as close as JB.

enemy first strike capability would involve the total annihilation of naval and avial forces before the invasion even begin, all the more made easier by singapore's small size. in Iraq, at least it took quite some time for any missile attack, by either plane or ships. but for singapore, any missile strike from malaysia would only take a few minutes, totally no time for evasive actions.

it is also very hard to implement the forward defence ideology, especially when the enemy invasion has the advantage of surprise. enemy forces would most likely be in singapore before we get to mobilise our units. also, even if we did get to mobilise our forces, how do we bring them across to enemy territory? via 2nd link and causeway? with our butts vulnerable to all sort of attacks?

by just demolishing the causeway, it would delay the movement of our forces by several days. the japanese took 1 week to repair the causeway. they could afford the wait, but not singapore, being a small country.

transport the troops in ships? it would only make soldiers more vulnerable to airborne torpedo attack on the relatively defenceless troop transporters. Unless you want to try out the japanese method of crossing the straits using sampans. i seriously doubt the feasibility of transporting thousands of units across the water in sampans.

the SAF is also a highly bureaucratic organization. in the case of defensive actions to be taken after the aftermath of enemy first strike, (where they obviously would have already targetted the top brass, who may still be sleeping at their homes).

the wiping out of the SAF top command would bring chaos to the organisation, that it would take quite some time to sort out, before things function properly again.

so, in conclusion, i think that the SAF has over inflated its capability to defend against an invasion.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by skythewood @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:51:28 +0800

skythewood — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:51:28 +0800

maybe because singapore is a part of MY for the previous 3 conflicts?

but now, MY is the geographically closest nation?

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:49:10 +0800

sgstars — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:49:10 +0800

Originally posted by Arapahoe:

Just wondering.........

is there any reason why whenever we talk about war in this region we always have to assume that it has to fight with MY?

look at the actual past conflicts that the region experienced.

1) Japanese invasion

2) communist insurgent

3) Indonesia confrontation.

All the 3 conflicts fought in MY but with a foreign entity that either Aid and abetting local combatant or sending conventional forces into the Peninsula?

In the late 70’s and early 80’s I believe with Vietnam in Cambodia we were looking at Thailand.

i didnt use MY as an example

truth be told, MY is as much bashed and use as a target point of abuse from SG's POV as we are from their POV. in simple terms, sama~ sama la.

but do bear in mind, the very famous mobilization on national day. our good malaysian and indonesia friends had an ARTILLERY exercise(joint exercise) in johor , literally pissing distance in artillery terms and had Paratroops practicing simulated air drops and deployments to "attack" and reclaim an island held by "enemy" troops.

its not the action of allies to do such "friendly" activities. i mean, do you see the US rehearsing a massive simulated invasion off britain to piss france off ? no right ? stinks of something else altogether. plus the frequent bashing by politicians from their end. the buggers have been known to openly call for attack/punish singapore.

thank goodness their generals and sultans are a lot more sensible and careful with their words than their "loose cannon" politicians

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by Arapahoe @ Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:19:15 +0800

Arapahoe — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:19:15 +0800

Just wondering.........

is there any reason why whenever we talk about war in this region we always have to assume that it has to fight with MY?

look at the actual past conflicts that the region experienced.

1) Japanese invasion

2) communist insurgent

3) Indonesia confrontation.

All the 3 conflicts fought in MY but with a foreign entity that either Aid and abetting local combatant or sending conventional forces into the Peninsula?

In the late 70’s and early 80’s I believe with Vietnam in Cambodia we were looking at Thailand.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:05:56 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:05:56 +0800

Buffer zone is your main idea and to push away MAF to disable their artillery range ability (maximum 50-60km away not include missile range) is quite risky without eliminating the battery it self through air strike or missile. The problems are where is the artillery battery? Buffer zones need infantry advance, along with tank and air support. Meaning to say, SAF need to push their advance about 50 km away into enemy terrain.

The buffer zone is familiar terrain to MAF and even single sand will be under their target. From advance point itself, SAF need to face heavy artillery shell, missile, air strike and MAF infantrymen.

The whole idea of a buffer zone is so that shells and rockets will not fall on Singapore, but on Malaysian soil instead if it comes to that, obviously this means that the SAF, which is holding this zone, will have to bear the brunt of it.

However there is a catch.

The MAF forces on the other side will also have to face SAF tube arty, which happens to be superior in quantity and quality to their own (hence them getting ASTROS to level the score), so in any exchange of shells the MAF will usually fare worse. Of course if you factor things in like NCW being used by an arty force (if it is ever completed) vs a non NCW equipped arty, things become even more lopsided.

Basically put, I don't think the MAF will find it an easy job to start a bombardment of the buffer zone given in terms of tube arty they can't go toe-to-toe with the SAF.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:07:20 +0800

sgstars — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:07:20 +0800

christ . i hate the forum interface here. i spent an hour thinking and typing a 2000 word rebuttal and it dosent get posted.

dude. no issues with you. just that i find this

a) your grammer and typing patterns are really familiar to someone else.

b) your logical construction of argument is very similar too, adopt some small point , focus, acknowledge opposint viewpoints but cast them aside as irrrelevant

c) you like to skip from idea to idea without fully substantiating your point

as far as i know, it's modius operani all over again to me.

i m contesting your objectivity. you point to MAF and SAF and then flick over to lebanon : hezbollah vs IAF and assume we can draw lessons from there. its like comparing a cherry and a durian and discussing their similarities. fair enough, you have certain similarities but the buck stops there. its a frutiless discussion (mind the bad pun) if you ask me. one is a low intensity conflict and the other would be full scale, all spectrum, cross platform battle. Its like comparing the Red baron's tri wing fighter and the b2 bomber in a dogfight. bad comparions or purely unobjective ones ?

Hezbollah is a guerellia / terrorist group. they are not legally or professionally bounded to codes of conduct as compared to a conventional military force. why would the MAF even doing something like hezbollah ? its asbolutly farcical u can even raise this.

ild like to highlight your over focus on certain things. you apparently have the same bad habits as our good mutual friend the noisy lion and love to establish very focused scenarios and overfocus on a single aspect. thats tunnel vision. not exactly what i would call

"A simple tactical exploration helps giving the true picture to reader about the reality of war. The simulation hope can built respect among each other."

take for instance your buffer zone example. you made the fundamental assumption that SAF secures a buffer zone to prevent enemy artillery. your basis of argument is extrapolating from the fact that SAF's course of action is strategically predetermined by the fact of having to prevent MAF from deploying arty.

this is unlikely to occur. several reasons being Geneva convetion denying the use of projectile fire against civillian targets and for the fact that SAF has strategic power projection and mobility assets that can counter or prevent that from occuring (think ah 64D longbow equipped apaches , STORM 3G detection and counter battery fire datalinks and choppers to drop anti arty units).

Your assumption that SAFmust move a ground based force to establish a buffer zone is fundamentally flawed as well. its overfocusing on one aspect of battle. appreciate the context. no one is going to fight a war where , i lob my astro IIs at you and you lob your 155mm back at me. its going to be a full spectrum conflict (hence the beauty of NCW)

let me explain further. AFAIK , SAF follows a certain battle model which involves

1) Aerial supremacy : F-15 AESA Strike eagles secure the skies, eliminate all aircraft opposition with JSOWs and leave them smoking craters in the ground

2) the RSAF conducts A2G operations and eliminates possible enemy threats and bases to prevent enemy supplies and troops from reaching staging points and areas.

3) SAF moves up and eliminate and mop up enemy formations remainding. secure KIN and establish a ZONE OF CONTROL.

this would allow SAF to bring redland to the diplomatic table and force a ceasefire on our terms.

we simply cant sustain a long war. we dont have the supplies and supply chain to bring it up to our troops and manpower to do so without sacrificing our economy. if we have to fight, we are already doomed since its going to impact our economy by so much.

try to fit it and view it in such bigger and overarching themes rather than simply focusing on some small element of battle and extrapolating. error is likely higher. its a what if scenario all again. so what if MAF has astro IIs within 100km of singapore. singapore send cruise missile, malaysian send brahmos and eventually someone will say we launch the nukes and the other country is destroyed. the potential for it to be degenerating into absolute rubbish is far greater than any possible productive benefit IMHO

i believe thats why there's a good reason for having no tactical/armchair "country vs country" scenario as mentioned in the forum rules. it simply brings out the worst in every individual. even if mature responsible individuals are discussing it, someone is bound to pop in and start a whole vicious cycle of flaming and flame wars.

the way i see it, is that this sort of discussion and argument usually involves problematic assumptions and are only valid within a very fixed and limited scenario. this renders any insights garnered , very limited usefulness as they are limited by the assumptions. an excercise in futility if you ask me.

just look at the buffer zone idea and how different assumption and definitions have created divergent strains within this thread . like for instance yours as a sphere of physical space that SAF must dominate and SG ty's "buffer" as allowing the spearhead to punch a hole through enemy lines and allowing mop up forces free reign to operate and destroy weakened/remaining enemy forces. that is the problem. there is no one fixed set of underlying assumptions within a clearly defined scenario here that is understood or appreciated in the same way here.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by Sontosontorions @ Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:26:06 +0800

Sontosontorions — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:26:06 +0800

Thanks to Sgstars but your first opinion doesn’t help here. By studying other wars by comparison, it helps some of us to understand the real war scenario. You better learn something from your colleague Tyrannosaur.

Tyrannosaur, I do agree with you on Lebanon which all out mobility will crush Hezbollah and thanks for the answer. The answers we (both) should seriously consider;

“The thing is, the whole affair started because of two soldiers, but will the nation of Israel be willing to go to out-all war and risk their economy and plunge the entire region into a flashpoint? I don't think so”

Other than above quote, we’re facing the same scenario whereby Hezbollah keep firing their missile into Israel far then IDF expected. Create a psychology war to civilians and politicians. Comparing both SAF and MAF equipment, it’s something both of us try to avoid. It’s really mess.

I do understand about armour doctrine when it comes to urban deployment but IDF mistake is, they forgot what so call as “king of the battlefield” been obsolete long times ago or more precise, they underestimate their enemy.

Buffer zone is your main idea and to push away MAF to disable their artillery range ability (maximum 50-60km away not include missile range) is quite risky without eliminating the battery it self through air strike or missile. The problems are where is the artillery battery? Buffer zones need infantry advance, along with tank and air support. Meaning to say, SAF need to push their advance about 50 km away into enemy terrain.

The buffer zone is familiar terrain to MAF and even single sand will be under their target. From advance point itself, SAF need to face heavy artillery shell, missile, air strike and MAF infantrymen.

So, the clearer picture (a little) is here, during mission to create the buffer zone, it will cost a lot of life, both sides. It’s really hell. SAF or MAF might be winning since both got their own cards.

A simple tactical exploration helps giving the true picture to reader about the reality of war. The simulation hope can built respect among each other.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:14:24 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:14:24 +0800

Nah nobody said it would be easy, unless we play bastard and attack without reason... in which case I seriously dooubt any of us will want to fight for this kind of immoral government.

At the end of the day it's good to remember that beyond redland and blueland nonsense, they are actually our ALLIES....

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by rain-coat @ Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:38:45 +0800

rain-coat — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:38:45 +0800

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war"-Sir Winston Churchill

but then again, "Diplomacy without deterrence is like music without instruments"-one of the german kaisers

war would not break out overnight, it would have a period of jaw-jaw. so by that time the defence forces on both sides would already be on high alert, so forward defence may not be easily excuted. my 0.2cents

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:24:55 +0800

sgstars — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:24:55 +0800

just share a little anecdotal evidence.

had the opportunity to train with one of their royal malay regiments quite some time back. we walked a short distance route in the jungle and fought a dawn attack with them.

the physical stamina of their troops wasnt fantastic, nor were they tactically superior in execution (you can argue that they were observing and not showing their true prowess, no contest)

i wouldnt say exactly our guys are great either but the malaysians had one thing about them. toughness.

to watch this guy dip his canteen into a pool of stagnant /marshy water and fill it up and drink straight from it. thats my memory of them. tough. SAF troopers will never do this, even with a puritab. they can live off the land if its necessary. SAF troopers more urban kampung boy, will die without our supply train.

but their physical (for a handpicked bunch, they sent a company over to train with my battalion) wasnt fantastic. they werent all career soldiers. motivational levels were LOW if you ask me. can clearly tell most of them felt out of place and uncomfortable training with us. very rigid command structure as well. warrant officers and senoir NCOs are like gods there. officers are almost feel distant but the really nice guys were the average grunts. really enjoyed talking to some of them.

for some of us, its always a matter of redland vs blueland. most singaporeans cant be bothered about it. but for most of them, its about getting a stable job that puts food and money for the family. doubt we'd ever go to war if the people in boots wanted their way. too much to lose, far too little to gain.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by SingaporeTyrannosaur @ Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:39:17 +0800

SingaporeTyrannosaur — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:39:17 +0800

Lebanon. If one stronger army in Middle East failed to win their objective (to eliminate poor Hezbollah movement) and facing humiliating war, how about well equipped army? It will be bitterer isn’t it? The tactics is ambush and run within 10 minutes to void close artillery support, and hey! Once again they use tunnels, same as Vietnam. Why Israel too afraid to advanced far inside Lebanon? It will make them suffer a great loses because the invader got more difficulties to recognize the terrain compare to defender.

Actually I do not think they were afraid, but simply they lacked the will or motivation to bring the war to its conclusion. If it was a full scale war without restraint ie. the Israeli-Arab wars Hezbollah would have been simply crushed, tunnels or not.

The thing is, the whole affair started because of two soldiers, but will the nation of Israel be willing to go to out-all war and risk their economy and plunge the entire region into a flashpoint? I don't think so. The whole affair in Lebanon was an issue of a lack of motivation and that basically the IDF was fighting a war in which their objectives were unwinnable to any decisive conclusion.

That’s basic. That’s why US pay a lot of money to Iraq commander during the invasion. Further more Israeli infantry back bone – their armor - been ripped out and air strike failed to provide maximum impact to military assets except for civilians. IDF kills a lot of Hezbollah army but the main issue is, they failed to achieve their objective even though by using most sophisticated tools and it been agreed by IDF.

Hmm seems to be more of the version we get on CNN then what really happened when the IDF took a cold and hard look into what happened.

IDF armor was extremely useful in that conflict, the fact that it bore so much firepower points to it's widespread use in the line of fire. At the end of the day tanks are always useful in urban warfare along with infantry when you need to mail explosives to certain locations.

And if you look at it, it's actually it's the airstrikes that Hezbollah fears the most. To the point they needed to put their rocket launchers right beside civillians to make sure that even if they got wacked they would get some media mileage out of it.

The failure of the IDF was a failure of resolve and political leadership, not the army and it's soldiers. The politicans got into a fight they had no clear way out of and left their army to clean up the mess.

War is an extension of politics, if you go into war with bad politics you will get bad results even if you have the best armies in the world.

Saying about Iraq, always remember, it’s under sanction since 1990 before second Gulf War broke out. The ratio 110:1 happen due to poor equipped Hezbollah army and Iraqi soldier. For sure MAF better than that. Even during joint training, they keep certain thing in their pocket.

It’s really hard to say something tactical isn’t it. Except something that everybody already knows. MAF and SAF will more to conventional war but what about combination of CW and CIW together? Is it possible?

If you are better equipped you won't be fighting an insurgency but try to go for a more conventional battle.

This is because insurgencies are inefficent ways of fighting any battle. In any pitched battle between insurgents and organized military forces the insurgents have always taken heavy losses. The idea of an insurgency is not to win the war by force, but by politics. If your enemy is in a war with no clear objectives in sight (ie. Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq) and constrainted by plenty of politics, an insurgency is a great way of messing with them and affecting their morale. But materials and manpower wise insurgencies don't really inflict that much damage on the enemy.

Look at Iraq for example, the current insurgency is costing lives, no doubt. HOWEVER the amount of damage actually done to the US military is minimal, some single battles in WW2 exceed the deaths and material losses the US army suffer by far. The main effect is on morale, of being stuck in a hellhole for months where you don't know who will be next to draw the IED card.

But then again the SAF does not intend to fight this kind of occupational war, hence it would be difficult to organize an insurgency, nor will it have much effect. Additionally you need several conditions for such a thing to exist as well, such as a ready pool of recruits and support from the populace, and an abundance of weapons to distribute.

Unfortunately Malaysia does not have such conditions. The population is educated and relatively well off, and would be less convinced to fight and die for a cause which they view is more of that of their government's then some higher religious calling or something like that. Most of them, I suspect, like us, will want to war to be over as soon as possible and to get back to our lives under whatever new government that is left at the end of the day. The vast differences in worldviews and political opinion in Malaysia will be another factor.

Additionally jungle warfare will be an issue, but not as much as we'd think. I suspect the SAF will be reluctant to engage the MAF in the jungles and will instead focus on controlling the main highways to create safe sectors for the "buffer" zone. In other words, bypass the enemy like the US Military did in Iraq to strike at the heart, Network Centric Warfare will be vital for this.

Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war? replied by sgstars @ Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:31:54 +0800

sgstars — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:31:54 +0800

it might be just me but it seems like your style of writing and your content of argument is exactly like lionnoisy

flag clone alert !

Recent Posts in 'Are we more than prepared for a conflict, if not war?' | sgForums.com