Singapore 6 Day War?
-
These only work when you are trying to hide something that does not move, not when you are driving a Twardie down south, all the IR and radar hiding technology in the world is not going to help.Originally posted by tankfanatic:i dont think so... see the achievement of israeli detection satelit and uav. MAF also have implement radar absorbing and thermal evading paint on their equipment. Added to that i ve seen most of their equipment have that radar absorbing net. They really go to great length to hide their equipment, i tell you.
If they move it, we'll see it.
Anyway all this talk aside, in the end it boils down to who fights the smarter war. -
Well having MBTs around help a lot in FIBUA, ask any grunt who had armour support.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Well yes, of course. But the entire war will get bogged down to an urban warfare scenario, and we don't quite have the armour to deal with that just yet unless the SAF does turn the Leopard 2s we will get into urban warfare models, which is quite likely since MBTs of that size are restricted to largely open land.
In an urban warfare scenario, I would be hesitant to charge in even if we have the numbers as things could turn into Pyrrhic victories if we don't watch it. No sense wasting an army, winning a battle and loosing the war at the same time. Just looking at the Israeli performance is enough to give any reasonably competent commander some pause.
Surely we have counter battery fire that could neutralise arty fire? Do the Malaysians have that sort of thing at the moment? We could also look into UAVs which I would dare say be very useful for such a scenario.
Is the Israeli performance typical of the IDF usually fights? Note the recent conflict was fought with very restrictive goals and tatics. If the IDF truly decided to go all out back then, things would certianly be very different.
A better example to draw from would be the Yanks when they did their thunder runs during the capture of Bagdad. They barely managed to pull it off given they were outrunning their supply lines, outnumbered over 10 to 1, and what have you not but I think it goes a long way to prove what you can do if you take the movement of the battle from the enemy and outthink him.
While the Iraqis actually had more then sufficent firepower to defend Bagdad, the American network centric attack was able to outwit and outfight their defences by keeping several steps ahead of the defenders at all times. Resulting in confusion and chaos in the enemy lines.
Of course SAF aims are far more modest and I don't think we'll fight outnumbered 10 to 1 but the basic premise is quite clear- to fight a static war would be quite silly for us.
Could we really afford to fight a static arty counterbattery war? The MAF will be very willing to trade some arty pieces for cutting off our shipping routes and wrecking havoc on our vital areas. -
The trouble with the Iraqi example was that the enemy in question just crumbled away only to return later. As such, the insurgency battles were a cumulation of many mistakes.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Well having MBTs around help a lot in FIBUA, ask any grunt who had armour support.
Is the Israeli performance typical of the IDF usually fights? Note the recent conflict was fought with very restrictive goals and tatics. If the IDF truly decided to go all out back then, things would certianly be very different.
A better example to draw from would be the Yanks when they did their thunder runs during the capture of Bagdad. They barely managed to pull it off given they were outrunning their supply lines, outnumbered over 10 to 1, and what have you not but I think it goes a long way to prove what you can do if you take the movement of the battle from the enemy and outthink him.
While the Iraqis actually had more then sufficent firepower to defend Bagdad, the American network centric attack was able to outwit and outfight their defences by keeping several steps ahead of the defenders at all times. Resulting in confusion and chaos in the enemy lines.
Of course SAF aims are far more modest and I don't think we'll fight outnumbered 10 to 1 but the basic premise is quite clear- to fight a static war would be quite silly for us.
Could we really afford to fight a static arty counterbattery war? The MAF will be very willing to trade some arty pieces for cutting off our shipping routes and wrecking havoc on our vital areas.
If the M'sians defend Johor a la Hezbollah, it is going to be certainly a very shot war. -
The Americans faced lots of problems in their Thunder Runs. A lot of lead elements were cut off, ambushed and some even fought til their ammunition were almost depleted. Not a good situation to be in, network centric or not.
It takes nerves of steel to fight outgunned, even in a network centric battlefield. While the technology and doctrine may be up to it, are the nerves of the soldiers capable of taking it? -
The Americans faced lots of problems in their Thunder Runs. A lot of lead elements were cut off, ambushed and some even fought til their ammunition were almost depleted. Not a good situation to be in, network centric or not.
Aye not denying the issues the Yanks faced with their Thunder Runs; in fact I even mentioned it in my post.
It takes nerves of steel to fight outgunned, even in a network centric battlefield. While the technology and doctrine may be up to it, are the nerves of the soldiers capable of taking it?
But of course, it does not change the fact that the underlying premise below the current incarnation of Blitzkrieg expressed in the Thunder Runs is very sound. Note that the Yanks went into this with several strategic errors like underbidding their forces, a stretched supply line, and overambitious top brass.
The fact that they managed to pull it off probably had a lot to do with very fortunate circumstances, as well as their technology being able to take up the slack for them. The thing is, it is my opinion that we should learn from their mistakes not by avoiding the premise of modern Blitzkrieg, but by doing it properly, and a lot more carefully.The trouble with the Iraqi example was that the enemy in question just crumbled away only to return later. As such, the insurgency battles were a cumulation of many mistakes.
I think a lot of the mistakes, political and the like, made during the post-invasion handing of Iraq by the Yanks had a lot to do with why the insurgency managed to happen. But thatÂ’s really something beyond the grunts.
If the M'sians defend Johor a la Hezbollah, it is going to be certainly a very shot war.
And why keep drawing on Hezbollah as a proper defense plan? Their apparent resistance to IDF attack comes more from the fact that their opponents were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs completely out of the style that they were best at fighting. Had the IDF really fought, thereÂ’s no doubt the outcome is going to be a quite different.
If the SAF really puts its chips down on the table, it certainly isnÂ’t going to be (I hope) anything like what the IDF did in 2006, which was a mess of restrictive policies, underestimation of the enemy, and no clear victory conditions.
And of course thereÂ’s the other side of the story, despite all their propaganda on how they were inflicting serious losses on the IDF and not taking any while the IDF were missing anything of tatical value and hitting civilians, the truth of the matter is that Hezbollah was actually taking a serious pounding, so much so that the entire thing was actually a massive military defeat, but a propaganda and media victor.
The loose accounting standards and organization of Hezbollah naturally allows them to cover up their losses and be creative about them, but the fact remains as a military threat following the events of 2006 they has been badly affected by their losses.
So I donÂ’t think the MAF is actually going to try to defend Johor ala. Hezbollah, for Hezbollah, beyond showing media savvy and playing on the IDF underestimating their capabilitiesÂ… is not really a model on how to defend stuff. And of course the SAF isnÂ’t exactly going to fight like the IDF did in 2006 as well.
So no, I donÂ’t think it will be a short war. Unless our commanders are so incompetent to have totally no strategic momentum in attacking Johor at all, any battle fought there will likely be of the conventional kind decided more by conventional strategies and tactics then restrictive and ambiguous politics. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
If the Malaysians play FIBUA on us, how do you think we will perform? Something that hasn't been mentioned much here is how capable are we against our own tactics? Is the SAF willing to level the whole of Johore just to get rid of snipers, Anti-tank missile squads that hide in every corner of Johor? Even if we stick to the Highway, we are simply avoiding the battlefield and not taking our objectives. Moreover it's all fine and dandy to level an entire city, but it is another matter of quelling the population. We can take Johor but can we hold it?
And why keep drawing on Hezbollah as a proper defense plan? Their apparent resistance to IDF attack comes more from the fact that their opponents were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs completely out of the style that they were best at fighting. Had the IDF [b]really fought, thereÂ’s no doubt the outcome is going to be a quite different.
If the SAF really puts its chips down on the table, it certainly isnÂ’t going to be (I hope) anything like what the IDF did in 2006, which was a mess of restrictive policies, underestimation of the enemy, and no clear victory conditions.
And of course thereÂ’s the other side of the story, despite all their propaganda on how they were inflicting serious losses on the IDF and not taking any while the IDF were missing anything of tatical value and hitting civilians, the truth of the matter is that Hezbollah was actually taking a serious pounding, so much so that the entire thing was actually a massive military defeat, but a propaganda and media victor.
The loose accounting standards and organization of Hezbollah naturally allows them to cover up their losses and be creative about them, but the fact remains as a military threat following the events of 2006 they has been badly affected by their losses.
So I donÂ’t think the MAF is actually going to try to defend Johor ala. Hezbollah, for Hezbollah, beyond showing media savvy and playing on the IDF underestimating their capabilitiesÂ… is not really a model on how to defend stuff. And of course the SAF isnÂ’t exactly going to fight like the IDF did in 2006 as well.
So no, I donÂ’t think it will be a short war. Unless our commanders are so incompetent to have totally no strategic momentum in attacking Johor at all, any battle fought there will likely be of the conventional kind decided more by conventional strategies and tactics then restrictive and ambiguous politics.
[/b] -
and all of a sudden, the TNI decided to team up with ATM.
LOL. -
Who's the ATM? Well, very well said, The malaysian may deploy the same tactics as us. but what we do not noe is what is their tactics and how they mobilise.
-
Angkatan Tentera Malaysia.
always the bogeyman....
the TNI & ATM have proven that they managed to caught the SAF with her pants down before.
have the SAF done likewise? -
Originally posted by ferryman2393:Angkatan Tentera Malaysia.
always the bogeyman....
the TNI & ATM have proven that they managed to caught the SAF with her pants down before.
have the SAF done likewise?
Malaysia always the bogeyman, sure or not? 
TNI and ATM caught SAF pants down, got meh? share leh...when and how?
-
I would also like to know.
-
What kind of scenarios would u guys think that there would be an actual war between singapore and their neighbours? Water? Sand? Granite? Or even satellites?
Come to think of it, Singapore is well known to have the capacity to endure all sorts of verbal bashings by our neighbours, even recently joined by Thais, which is one of our best allies for many years.
If Singapore is being attacked, other than the USA, do u think we would have any regional friends that would step in to help fight our aggressors?
Do u think Singapore need to be defensive aggressor in the first place?
Do u think Malaysia and Indo which sabre rattling all the while dare even to move their first steps against us?
Do u have confidence in our defense, this meant our commanders in SAF, our tools of the trade and our strategies? How much can u see from your pespective what are the homeworks done by our side to handle this issue?
Are we able to handle 2 fronts at any time?
In the most desperate of times when war is near and real, and most richs and politicals have already escaped the country, do u still believe in Singapore? Or would u pack and go?
If u have no choice to get out but to join the fight for the existence of Singapore, should we pay or rather make the aggressors pay a really hard price to start this war?
Yeah, we may lose the country forever, but let's make sure the aggressors spend the next 50 years licking their wounds.
I am sure our neighbours know about the aftermath of engaging Singapore very clearly. So come back to the question, do u think our sabre rattling neighbours even dare to start in the first place?
There is no 6-day war, only a war to make sure Singapore can stand up in times for her children. Not the govt children but the children of motherland we have been sleeping, playing and living in all the while. -
In the most desperate of times when war is near and real, and most richs and politicals have already escaped the country, do u still believe in Singapore? Or would u pack and go?
i like this question. happened before in MY a few years back when DrM chucked his No 2 into gaol. fear of internal strife leads many rich people into extended holiday together with their family and together with their money.
LOL. hypocrites. the whole lot of them. -
TNI and ATM caught SAF pants down, got meh? share leh...when and how?
independence day... -
and how is that?Originally posted by ferryman2393:independence day... -
Army is organised into 4 area commands (divisions) numbering 1 to 4. Each division is commanded by a jeneral or mejar jeneral (Maj-Gen). 1st division is based in East Malaysia. The rest are in Peninsular or West Malaysia.
which forum?
Each division comprises 3 brigades. Brigades number 1 to 12. Each brigade is commanded by a brig-jeneral (Brig-Gen). My understanding of allocation is as follows:
1st Division = 3, 5 and 9 Inf Bde
2nd Division = 2, 6 and 8 Inf Bde
3rd Division = 1 and 7 Inf Bde, 4 Mech Bde
4th Division = 11 and 12 Inf Bde, 10 Para Bde
Each brigade has a complement of approx 4,500 men.
Each Brigade normally comprises 3 regiments. Each regiment is normally commanded by a Kolonel or Lt Kol. Regiments are generally of 2 types, Regimen Ranger Diraja (or Royal Ranger Regiment) and Regimen Askar Melayu Diraja (or Royal Malay Regiment). Abbreviations are normally RRR and RAMD. Each Regimen are battalion sized formations and normally designated as Malbatt (or Malaysian battalion) in UN operations.
RRR number 1 to 10. RAMD number 1 to 25.
4 Mech Bde comprises 7 RRR, 12 and 19 RAMD all of which are mechanised.
10 Para Bde comprises 8 RRR, 9 and 17 RAMD all of which are para formations.
There are also 3 groups (regiment-sized) of special forces. These number 11, 21 and 22. Groups are known as Grup Gerak Khas (or Special Forces groups). I think there is also a Pasukan Khas Laut (Abbr: Paskal) which is a special naval force. There is also a Regimen TUDM under the air force.
There are 5 Armor regiments belonging to the Korp Armor Diraja or Royal Armour Corp. Regiment numbers 1 to 4 and 11. 1 KAD is assigned to 4 Mech Bde. A separate squadron 1 (subset of regimen) comprising Scorpion ACV is assigned to 10 Para Bde.
There are also 16 Artillery regiments. Regimens are known as regimen artillery diraja or Royal Artillery regiments. Each regiment is believed have 3 Batteries. Assumed to be split between 2 Med Arty, 7 Fld Arty, 1 MRL, 4 AD, 1 Arty loc and 1 UAV. Identified numbers include 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 21, 22, 31, 32, 34 and 51. 51 RAD is assigned the Astros MRL and is also believed to be assigned to 3 Div at Gemas. The 155mm G5 is believed to be assigned to 21 and 22 RAD. 31 RAD is believed to be assigned the Banshee 400 UAV. 34 RAD is believed to be assigned the Jernas.
Reserves are known as Regimen Askar Wataniah (or Territorial Army regiments). These are segregated into 300 and 500 series regimens. 500 series regimen number 501 to 516. There is normally 1 per state except for Sarawak and Sabah which have 2. Series 300 numbers start from 301. There was supposed to be some reorg of AW regiments.
The army is supported by several other corps such as the signal corp and has an army air wing (A109H and Mi17s).
Principal equipment are as follows:
ACV: 48 PT91M (w 28 tank transporters), 26 Scorpions, 186 Sibmas, 140 AML60/90s and 92 Ferrets.
APC/MICV (incl non-combat variants): 111 KIFV, 211 Adnan, 184 V100/150, 25 Stormer, 452 Condor, 37 M3
Arty (non-AA): 130-200 105mm Model 56, 12 FH70s, 28 G5 Mk 3, 18 Astros and 81mm mortars. 18 L119s 105mm (not confirmed)
ATGW: Eryx, Baktar Shikens, Metis-M RPG7s, Carl Gustav and RCL. Some sources include AT-7 Saxhorn and Milan 2T.
SAM: Jernas/Starburst/Rapier, Anza Mk II, SA-18 Igla (one source puts it as SA-16 but unlikely).
(i) Edited to delete "Royal" from Malaysian Army. - 17 Aug 06
(ii) Deleted "I think 4 RAMD is also a Gurkha regiment." - 17 Aug 06
(iii) Added "Each regiment is normally commanded by a Kolonel or Lt Kol." - 17 Aug 06 -
Who said that FIBUA was ever going to be easy? In the end when you got to do it you got to do it even if it's ala Fallujah. This is the reality of urban combat.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:If the Malaysians play FIBUA on us, how do you think we will perform? Something that hasn't been mentioned much here is how capable are we against our own tactics? Is the SAF willing to level the whole of Johore just to get rid of snipers, Anti-tank missile squads that hide in every corner of Johor? Even if we stick to the Highway, we are simply avoiding the battlefield and not taking our objectives. Moreover it's all fine and dandy to level an entire city, but it is another matter of quelling the population. We can take Johor but can we hold it?
However once again the alternative is to sit and wait around to be pounded with impunity in all our areas by enemy arty and trying to solve the problem with counterbattery and PGMs.
Let's not forget that even if they can't directly invade they can also isolate or blockade. They can tahan a few months of economic downturn but the effects as always, are far worse for us. It would be madness to fight a static war, or even think that the poisoned shrimp strategy is a viable one anymore. All it takes is an agressor willing to tahan the poision.
After all in a static defence, we will always be taking far more damage in a far smaller area then their opponent, that bit is blatantly obvious.
Do you think that all this investment in Bxs and Leo2s, network centric warfare and UAVs are so simply we can drive around a little red dot? I think not. -
Isn't that the point of having a stronger navy and airforce? After all, our trade comes largely by sea, and it is up to the navy and airforce to maintain the lines of communication and resupply.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Who said that FIBUA was ever going to be easy? In the end when you got to do it you got to do it even if it's ala Fallujah. This is the reality of urban combat.
However once again the alternative is to sit and wait around to be pounded with impunity in all our areas by enemy arty and trying to solve the problem with counterbattery and PGMs.
Let's not forget that even if they can't directly invade they can also isolate or blockade. They can tahan a few months of economic downturn but the effects as always, are far worse for us. It would be madness to fight a static war, or even think that the poisoned shrimp strategy is a viable one anymore. All it takes is an agressor willing to tahan the poision.
After all in a static defence, we will always be taking far more damage in a far smaller area then their opponent, that bit is blatantly obvious.
Do you think that all this investment in Bxs and Leo2s, network centric warfare and UAVs are so simply we can drive around a little red dot? I think not.
Moreover, in a Total War scenario (which means our economy goes down the drain while we are at it), M'sia can muster more men to fight than we have. Loosing an army to gain Johor is hardly a victory we would want. -
The problem is this: While we have a stronger air force and navy are they enough to achieve air and sea supremacy or just superiority? Maybe I can say that in the air there is a decided superiority, but at sea? I think while we are ahead, itÂ’s hard to say we are REALLY ahead.
Note that they donÂ’t have to directly engage you to disrupt your operations. All they need to do is to take the battle far out onto their own turf by extending the blockade higher up the shipping routes where our navies. Our ships will be forced to operate higher up if they intend to break the blockade.
Of course thereÂ’s also the issue of Indonesia not playing us out and deciding to mess around with the shipping routes at this time as wellÂ… not to mention it is unlikely trade will come in if a country is under bombardment.
And of course, there is the issue of our airforce being able to operate if they are constantly under the arty range of MAF guns and rockets. Can we really work if thereÂ’s a constant threat of shells landing in the CBD?
As the Israeli experience shows, unless you can take the physical land where the launchers come from, all the PGMs are unable to destroy all the rockets and stuff your enemy has to throw at you. And the thing is, MAF arty is going to be a lot more efficient and effective then the rockets the militants in the Middle East uses. IÂ’m not comfortable with merely trying to plink them from far and hope they donÂ’t come back. We need to actually seize the land they come from, or at least give them something let vital to shoot at (like the SAF).
The way I see it, in a limited war scenario, our economy is going to crash anyway and we are fighting it on the terms of the opponent might as well do something decisive about it and take the fight to them.
Hence I'm for ala Fallujah... if they Fallujah us we are also pretty messed up... might as well do the killing and mess on the other side of the causeway. -
But we loose the war? Johor is large enough to encompass most of the SAF if we deploy 3 divisions for the job. If it turns into our Stalingrad, well, we might as well start working on turning our country into THEIR Stalingrad.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The problem is this: While we have a stronger air force and navy are they enough to achieve air and sea supremacy or just superiority? Maybe I can say that in the air there is a decided superiority, but at sea? I think while we are ahead, itÂ’s hard to say we are REALLY ahead.
Note that they donÂ’t have to directly engage you to disrupt your operations. All they need to do is to take the battle far out onto their own turf by extending the blockade higher up the shipping routes where our navies. Our ships will be forced to operate higher up if they intend to break the blockade.
Of course thereÂ’s also the issue of Indonesia not playing us out and deciding to mess around with the shipping routes at this time as wellÂ… not to mention it is unlikely trade will come in if a country is under bombardment.
And of course, there is the issue of our airforce being able to operate if they are constantly under the arty range of MAF guns and rockets. Can we really work if thereÂ’s a constant threat of shells landing in the CBD?
As the Israeli experience shows, unless you can take the physical land where the launchers come from, all the PGMs are unable to destroy all the rockets and stuff your enemy has to throw at you. And the thing is, MAF arty is going to be a lot more efficient and effective then the rockets the militants in the Middle East uses. IÂ’m not comfortable with merely trying to plink them from far and hope they donÂ’t come back. We need to actually seize the land they come from, or at least give them something let vital to shoot at (like the SAF).
The way I see it, in a limited war scenario, our economy is going to crash anyway and we are fighting it on the terms of the opponent might as well do something decisive about it and take the fight to them.
Hence I'm for ala Fallujah... if they Fallujah us we are also pretty messed up... might as well do the killing and mess on the other side of the causeway.
Unless we try something as radical as a beach landing elsewhere and push out from that stand point, I can't see a way out of it. We will likely only try to be as irritating as possible. I say sink their navy while we are at it.
Come to think of it, we ought to look into getting Landing craft that can fit our Leopard 2s. -
holding large patch of their land will cost a lot of casualties. While SAF probably can do it for a certain lenght of time, im wondering if our 'up there' could stand steadily seing a lot of SAF personel died.
And network centric war, air war and naval war cost money, a huge amout of money. How much it cost to wage war and acomodate 150 000 soldier in Iraq?
i say no war. peace. Instead of hating its better to love. -
Indonesia has illusions of grandeur and considers itself the big brother of the region. Being the oldest civilisation here and the former dominant culture etc.
And yeah, they're the biggest and most populous country here in these parts.
There is absolutely no reason why if we invade Malaysia through Johore, that Indonesia will just stand idly by.
"Forward Defense" or whatever we want to call it, is an invasion - period.
If Indonesia don't at least take some token punitive action against us for invading Malaysia, they will have no face left.
And after the whole thing is over - whichever side win - they will have no status in SE Asia if they did nothing.
If I'm not wrong, KL & JK may have some formal or informal mutual defense pact.
So if we stick to Forward Defense, we will definitely be fighting a multi-front war.
Just like Israel. Everytime Egypt make trouble at one end, the Syrians and Jordanians will create trouble at the other end. -
The question is: Is there any other alternative if war really breaks out?
Certainly camping the SAF in mainland Singapore won't be a viable option in the long run, and it will be a war fought on the opponent's terms, not to mention at their leisure. We certainly lack the sheer air and naval power alone to win any war if your opponent is in it to the bitter end to see your destruction or collapse at the end of the day.
In that kind of scenario, it would make no sense to turn Singapore in a Stalingrad for by all measures if it has become like that then Singapore would have already lost the war as a nation.
If our economies cannot function, supplies are cut off, and we are forced to fight with absolutely nowhere to fall back on it would only be a matter of time before collapse will happen. While such a battle might be costly for any invader, the fact is at the end of the day they will still be standing and probably in procession of the land. We on the other hand, would have quite effectively ceased to exist as a free people.
A static, turning Singapore-into-Stalingrad kind of war is exactly the kind of war the SAF was not designed to fight. It completely removes all initiative on our part, obliterates our combined arms ability (which is perhaps one of the key areas we hold a significant edge in the region), as well as wastes much of the intelligence gathering and other war fighting technologies we have that would be the most useful in an offensive situation.
This is not to mention the capability of the SAF to resist will decrease sharply with every vital area or advance the invader makes that overruns a vital base or airfield. At the end of the day you canÂ’t ensure air or naval superiority if your very own land is threatened.
So if our country becomes Stalingrad, the battle is already half-lost and the conclusion will simply be a matter of time. Our only hope would then be that the enemy would lose heart from their serious losses and perhaps back offÂ… but then they still have plenty of cards on the table like a blockade or suing for peace on terms that are very favorable to them.
If they are a radical foe that intends nothing less then the ultimate occupation of Singapore, then good luck to us if we intend to fight Stalingrad style.
So I have to disagree, if we are at war the best option would be to take the offensive, instead of letting them come to us. Letting them come to us would be a suicidal option given we have virtually no strategic depth.
Note that the vital deterrence ability of the SAF comes from its reputation of being a credible offensive force in the region, that is, if we were only a defensive force that goes for the minimum best outcome in conflict then other nations would have no qualms about pushing us around as long as they stop short of a total invasion.
So unless somebody else has a better idea on what to do when the stuff hits the fan, (for which I would gladly take it over the forward offensive strategy) I do not think a static, turning Singapore in Stalingrad approach is appropriate as an alternative survival strategy.
At best it is only a fail deadly, and one that might not even deter an aggressor determined enough to see our ruin.
If Israel fought with the that idea they would almost certainly not exist today.
For our case I believe it's almost always better to spill blood for their land then for ours. -
Sorry, you have to write so much only for me to tell you that you have misread my post.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The question is: Is there any other alternative if war really breaks out?
........
So I have to disagree, if we are at war the best option would be to take the offensive, instead of letting them come to us. Letting them come to us would be a suicidal option given we have virtually no strategic depth.
.....
I never said Forward Defense is bad. Forward Defense is GOOD.
What I am saying is that Indonesia will likely NOT sit idle.
So, like Israel, we have to be prepared to fight on many fronts. -
Chill dude, I read you the first time... I was answering more to Fingolfin_Noldor who was suggesting we try the static defence.