Singapore must help malaysia if indonesia attacks
-
Originally posted by zacklee:
The only amazing thing here is your hypocrisy.
Sometimes when i read forum such as these I am totally amazed by the utter ignorance and self righteous sword wielding kids. Somehow I can't help but draw a conclusion that half of you are just noobs in military deployment and self rattling about superiority of SAF.
I'm sick of Malaysians hurling accusations of 'armchair general' around these forums, coming from a country that does not have compulsory military service. (No, your half-farked NS does not count.) Pot calling the kettle black. If armchair generals are we, than what of your average Malaysian posters, most of whom have never seen a day in uniform? What qualification do you have to claim that you are any better than us? If we rattle about the superiority of the SAF then it comes from having spent 2 years in that organization. We are not blind to its faults. It is deeply flawed in many ways. You can hear us rattling about it here also if you had chosen to pay attention. But we know what the SAF is and what it is capable of.
I am not an expert on the MAF. But when I was in NS I met some chaps who have had brief experience with our Malaysian counterparts. The horror stories I heard from them helped to dispel some of my notions that the all regular MAF (in most cases it was the RMN) was vastly superior to our conscript armed forces. It was deeply farked in areas where it should have been better than the SAF. Of course this was not the whole picture. The encounters those fellows had with the MAF were brief and limited and from some time ago. It is not even close to an accurate depiction of the MAF's capabilities at present. But those accounts come from experience, which is more than you will ever have.
I digress. But the point here is obvious. We know little. But you know nothing. Nothing at all. So who's the noob now?
Kids and wankers with the occasional soldier thrown in. That's what Malaysian posters are. As compared to Singaporeans: kids and wankers who are occasional soldiers. You're not better than us, so stop pretending that you are and throwing up airs.
(This is from someone who thinks the MAF will thrash the TNI, before you start one of your hissy fits.) -
This is a beauty.Originally posted by Typhoon:The only amazing thing here is your hypocrisy.
I'm sick of Malaysians hurling accusations of 'armchair general' around these forums, coming from a country that does not have compulsory military service. (No, your half-farked NS does not count.) Pot calling the kettle black. If armchair generals are we, than what of your average Malaysian posters, most of whom have never seen a day in uniform? What qualification do you have to claim that you are any better than us? If we rattle about the superiority of the SAF then it comes from having spent 2 years in that organization. We are not blind to its faults. It is deeply flawed in many ways. You can hear us rattling about it here also if you had chosen to pay attention. But we know what the SAF is and what it is capable of.
I am not an expert on the MAF. But when I was in NS I met some chaps who have had brief experience with our Malaysian counterparts. The horror stories I heard from them helped to dispel some of my notions that the all regular MAF (in most cases it was the RMN) was vastly superior to our conscript armed forces. It was deeply farked in areas where it should have been better than the SAF. Of course this was not the whole picture. The encounters those fellows had with the MAF were brief and limited and from some time ago. It is not even close to an accurate depiction of the MAF's capabilities at present. But those accounts come from experience, which is more than you will ever have.
I digress. But the point here is obvious. We know little. But you know nothing. Nothing at all. So who's the noob now?
Kids and wankers with the occasional soldier thrown in. That's what Malaysian posters are. As compared to Singaporeans: kids and wankers who are occasional soldiers. You're not better than us, so stop pretending that you are and throwing up airs.
(This is from someone who thinks the MAF will thrash the TNI, before you start one of your hissy fits.)
1: I did not say hurled any accusations of 'armchair general'. Is it me or did someone not pay any attention? Moreover If I remembered well was someone else that started it, and it was some Hokkien-talking Singaporean ( sorry to pick on you) and chino65.
----
Well yes, what can I say? Our NS is social work and I am not shy to admit its stupidity. It started out positively only to come to this stage due to children-loving parents and weak governmental commitments.
Well, hey you know, don't need to use sophisicated english if you can't figure outthe difference between a poser and a poster. It relly got me cracking! but then maybe you do have a good point if you meant poser.
You see, the difference between a constructive critical evaluation and ego building is the difference between good post like the many here and entries below. I mean hey, if you want a good discussion then moderate the topic and steer it in a right direction. Moreover, by saying nothing you are actually condoning to the thoughts.
crusader91:
I agree.East malaysia is backward filled with 'cavemen'
Arthas79:
Anyhow, we should come in and help negotiate a peace treaty between the two. And yes, we should take a slice of Malaysia as well at that point of time. Afterall, we all know(and the Malaysians too(chuckles)) that Singapore would make thier country a better place than what it is today.
FG42:
i rather trust the malaysians then the indonesian savages!
SpecOps87
And with both M'sia and Indonesia being pre-dominantly Muslim countries...I seriously hope that PMP produces enough ammo of 5.56mm and 7.62mm man.
-----
Well if it help your ego to say i know something and you dont helps. Good for you mate! Live on and suck it up. The fact is that we do not go around and bash other nations. Its pure ignorance if you think of it. I know my country more then you know yours so it is only right for me to say mine is great and your third world country sucks. Well of course Malaysia is not better then Singapore, known fact - so you dont really have to keep point it out.
My whole point is discussion can do without the racist remarks and nation bashing. If it was about TNI and MAF then just compare that both - you dont go say bla bla bla... but you know, SAF still better then both. It is as if you are so insecure that you need to slip such statement in everytime to feed your ego. P.s i meant 'you' as in a general referance. not Typhoon in any way.
No goin to start a flame war here, but I hope you do know the difference in evaluating a military force is difference between combat proven and not combat proven, which TNI and MAF are and i highly doubt 'the occassion soldiers' of SAF and you held so tightly as your point of reference are.
Yes...we are fantastic, but who knows. I don't - therefore i don't go say Singaporean infantry suck now right. In any engagement in any kind the difference between life and death is a split second and the risk of death are as high both sides only to be determined by weapons and other variables. What I am trying to say? Well you can hold a m16 and spray all around, but it takes 1 accurate shot of blowpipe to take you down permanently. And this goes to even for the pro-MAF humans.
Psst.. I did not say MAF will trash TNI - that you drew a bias conclusion yourself in defending you beloved SF. Good for you for that. BUT I am saying that no one will be stupid enough to commit to a full scale campaign without factoring the impacts it would have to the region and how the rest of the world would react to her agressions.
...........................
For one last time I do not think MAF will pawn TNI, i rather am inclined to think otherwise in a prolonged battle. I am saying Singapore will be stuck in the crossfire. I am saying the agressor will be punished serverely by global citizens whoever it was. I am saying Singapore hardware is the leader within the region. I am saying that its ignorant to discredit both the capabilities of TNI and MAF. In my view, a desprate army is the scariest army. Look at Russia in WWII, it might be stupid in modern thoughts, but marching through landmines is something demoralizing to the opponent. East Asian being the second most unstable region with N. Korea being so unpredicted, the more unpredicted an army is - the most reason to fear because they operate with a totally different M.O.
Btw 2 years of NS means nothing until you have a blood baptism, and even then even the strongest and the toughest could break mentally. That saying goes to everyone. -
just want to clarify before i get flamed
Not goin to start a flame war here, but I hope you do know the difference in evaluating a military force is difference between combat proven and not combat proven, which TNI and MAF are and i highly doubt 'the occassion soldiers' of SAF and you held so tightly as your point of reference are.However I do have high respect for SAF regulars.
Yes...we[refering to most of everyone in this forum] are fantastic, but who knows. I don't - therefore i don't go say Singaporean infantry suck now right.
....
Btw, PRIMUS rocks. Love the shoot and scoot capability.
[/b] -
actually if you check the latest figures from the military balance, malaysia army is quoted at 80,000 including all support elements and this figure will be further reduced to 60,000-70,000.Originally posted by zacklee:Its approx 90,000 in battle order minus support elements.
valid point. We are screwed in that sense.
while its stated at the same time... that indonesia has about 400,000 reserves.
so... in a number game... i think we all knows who is the winner.As above, but same goes to singapore.
singapore do not face the same geographical situation as east malaysia... and being given our sensitive geostrategical location and considerable distance from even the nearest indonesian island...
the comparison of numerical difference between singapore and indonesia is of little value... unless indonesia can overcome the inherent physical and geopolitical obstacles.. which east malaysia do not enjoy.True. But I prefer to think otherwise. Wars do not conviniently happens and same goes to participating in wars. Well a war will definately mess up oil prices the least i can think off head. something would likely happen, its impact another story. But point taken
this thread is not about how the war comes about... but rather a discussion about possible singapore reactions in the event of a war between TNI and MAF.
geopolitical consideration and logistical limitations were noted in the beginning to "encourage" indonesia to limits its war to east malaysia...Is it just me or E Malaysia is the unlikely MAIN THEATER? But well thats where Brunei and allies come into picture, but yea~ i admit.. I am not 100% sure of it...just READ above.
east malaysia is the main theater of a TNI and MAF war... due to tactical and strategic reasons.
the last thing brunei wants is a war on its land... its my opinion that brunei would rather seek a peace deal with indonesia through singapore, with the backing of england and by extension... america.
and the last thing indonesia wants... is help malaysia garner allies against TNI... thus a peace accord between indonesia and brunei, and by extension with singapore, british, america, thailand and philippine would serve to isolate malaysia and consolidate indonesia hold on occupied east malaysia.I doubt it would be in a large scale invasion in East Malaysia, most likely targeted key location invasion, something very much isolated by size, easily taken and would also mean 'possibly' easily re-taken. Moreover, wars now are much faster.
only if indonesian generals have the IQ of a fish... would what you said ever gonna happen in an all out invasion and occupation of east malaysia by TNI.Its Military illogical to defend the whole Kalimantan Border what else face2face engagement.
east malaysia is practically indefensible... especially against a large foe like TNI.Come on, be honest, if Malaysia is losing Singapore will be peeing in her pants as well. Imagine the changes is regional politics and your neighbours. Even Aust armaments has alot to do with its proximity with Indonesia, and if your claims of race, skin colour is true, well you're contradicting yourself by acting high and mighty.
singapore would be concerned, but i doubt we will be peeing in our pants... decades of defence and diplomacy building has given us a reasonable level of confidence in our ability defend our interest.
nobody gonna invade australia... and by extension mess with the USA... but its doubtful.. that australia would invade indonesia given its current military numbers to save a less then friendly, non strategic piece of foreign land on the other side of the indonesian achiepelego.Water issue. A silly saga but essential in strategic importance wise. Admit. psst.. for you gloats out there, if we are so 'noob' as you think we are, well you better pray hard that in your FANTASY of a 'successful' campaign, no missiles accidentally pass thru your defence net, cause for every one of it, its a building block the very least. I'm not comparing guns, just sharing some humility not to wear a hat bigger then your head, cause it will simply block your sight.
the SAF is not as naive as you, we dont hallucinate like you do..... in a war... we expects large number of casualties..civilian and military...
even against larger foes, we intend to fight and inflict even more casualites on our enemies and win the war... and I'm not comparing guns either.... though we practically win in almost every weapon category from fighters, stealth frigate to MBTs against MAF.... just some facts and reality.True, but by not helping, one way or another Singapore will be crucified in the long run. Something cross my mind... refugees...lol.. its silly but imagine the 'swim-overs'...
only if the war spreads to west malaysia.. which i have pointed out repeatedly... the low probability of that happening due to several consideration... not least the might of the SAF.. and the limitations of the TNI.Point taken, but it will be a long run logistical problem, on the immidiate term this is not relevant. Deployment would be made as TNI showing aggression
what's the point of deploying your forces.. if you do not have the logistical capability to support them? or you intend to fail?
TNI generals aint no fools... they will know your forces will be drain of supplies within afew days... that would simply encourage them to invade... -
well.. half... probably because only half of the forumner here are soldiers in SAF, the other half are made up of noobs from malaysia like you, visitors from other foreign lands and maybe even some local girls...Originally posted by zacklee:Sometimes when i read forum such as these I am totally amazed by the utter ignorance and self righteous sword wielding kids. Somehow I can't help but draw a conclusion that half of you are just noobs in military deployment and self rattling about superiority of SAF.
Yes i am a Malaysia and no doubt I will not second any opinion in Singapore's military standing in the region in every terms Deployment, Logistic, Air superiority, Comm. &Cont. etc.
but you have serious doubt about our ability to fight and defend ourselves and our national interest.... because we are SMALL!
it never cease to amaze me... that singapore's physical size is always featured when malaysians take to the stage...
however.. i must agreed.. size is important... not the land size of a country.. but the brain size of its leaders and people... thus far.. by all modern yardstick, its does appears that singaporeans score pretty well.... -
.... sorry guys for those who wonder where i disappeared, i got a little busy with life heh.
Anyway, who ever thinks that a missile hit us boom alot of civilians will die i have a few things to add to it.
People will die. some will hide in shelter, some will hide in reinforced "structures" so it will be more demolition than real tragedy. Good way to make the people pay for "upgrading" later on too.
Civilian deaths and destruction of high rise buildings are a great political card to wield. Especially shocking if filmed!
It is an SAF SOP to not hit civilian buildings; cant say what you can do regarding MLRS though. If the enemy armed forces use any building to hide in and attack us, we will declare (with evidence trust me we can do this) then move in to level it to the ground.
Most singaporeans are not noobs however, we are each expose to different levels of the operation of the SAF. Some more than others. Nonetheless all of us will not reveal the true extend of what we saw/heard. It's only prudent for us to do so. Not some big dick showing contest. -
Thanks for the replies and insight Tripwire. It was just a little distasteful how some members in the forum uses race, religion and colour as their main perspective in basing their statements. Cheap shot.
I must admit there are alot of confusion regarding MAF composition, no doubt there is a reduction in MAF active forces. You are right in the facts. According to IISS, MAF stood at 80,000 active personels. I mistakenly took the figure of 110,000 - MAF +MRN +MRAF. My bad. Apologies!Originally posted by tripwire:actually if you check the latest figures from the military balance, malaysia army is quoted at 80,000 including all support elements and this figure will be further reduced to 60,000-70,000.
while its stated at the same time... that indonesia has about 400,000 reserves.
so... in a number game... i think we all knows who is the winner.
Indonesia have 233,000 active as of 2006 according to the same report. No information of reserves.
Agreed. This is a fact. There is little evidence that presumably any military figures would be of any relevance - which bring me back to my point, 3. number wise.. malaysia dont stand a chance.Originally posted by tripwire:singapore do not face the same geographical situation as east malaysia... and being given our sensitive geostrategical location and considerable distance from even the nearest indonesian island...
the comparison of numerical difference between singapore and indonesia is of little value... unless indonesia can overcome the inherent physical and geopolitical obstacles.. which east malaysia do not enjoy.
Tripwire, can you please shed some light and elaborate a little bit more on your views on this part of your discussion? I agrees Brunei would probably do so, unless I can't think of what reason for them to be pro-malaysia anyway.Originally posted by tripwire:east malaysia is the main theater of a TNI and MAF war... due to tactical and strategic reasons.
the last thing brunei wants is a war on its land... its my opinion that brunei would rather seek a peace deal with indonesia through singapore, with the backing of england and by extension... america.
and the last thing indonesia wants... is help malaysia garner allies against TNI... thus a peace accord between indonesia and brunei, and by extension with singapore, british, america, thailand and philippine would serve to isolate malaysia and consolidate indonesia hold on occupied east malaysia.
It is just my opinion which I hope we can engage in, although it is true that E Malaysia theater would provide much of 'smart tactital and strategic' reasons. E Malaysia is a good as a resource denial strategy and staging ground for whoever that controls it.
I can roughly understand where you are coming from, but I really can't see any reason it to be a MAIN theater, strategic and tactical, yes.
In my oppinion there is little or doubtiously a waste (figure of speech) for Malaysia to even try to defend E Malaysia should it be the MAIN theater. The borders are long, over 1,500km if I am not wrong and any attempt is just not-going-to-happen. It would make more sense to fight and scoot from E Malaysia once it loses any strategic value ie airbases etc. and resolve to hit and run tactics (arguable) and gerilla tactics.
It would be a close fight on MAF on the losing end considering both sides would be well acustomed to jungle warfare. In view of MAF, we will not be able to sustain constant supply lines considering geo and hardware issues and even with the organic SAC to be deploy from W to E Malaysia, I highly doubt it makes any huge difference anyway. The movement seemed irrelevant to TNI onslaught - probably only a fortification and deterance movement.
In any senario of war, E Malaysia is a valid first move from TNI and deterance to buy time for MAF side. Any larger engagement would likely only take place after this scenario plays off itself. and would likely spins around after E Malaysia taken and focuses on West Malaysia. It is just hard for me to think of any reason for Malaysia to even commit its conventional army in E Malaysia in liue of logistical issues. In the strategic argument, frequent small isolated engagement would be more likely.
What I mean by wars plays off more quickly was that even with resource denial I am doubtious how far it would actually impact Malaysia in short run. Staging ground for air harassment by TNI into W Malaysia would be more likely in the shortrun. However long term as a bargaining chip i would not deny its possibility.
HOWEVER, I say all these given a senario of a 1 to 1 war which is highly unlikely. I would say deterance through political channels or economical sanction would kill any likelyhood of mass deployment by TNI. I know I know irrelevant to this discussion.
...
Coming backOriginally posted by tripwire:
First off, sorry for my Market/ crude use of english. Its a bad use of figure of speech. Yes I do agree with every point you made in this statement.
[b]
singapore would be concerned, but i doubt we will be peeing in our pants... decades of defence and diplomacy building has given us a reasonable level of confidence in our ability defend our interest.
nobody gonna invade australia... and by extension mess with the USA... but its doubtful.. that australia would invade indonesia given its current military numbers to save a less then friendly, non strategic piece of foreign land on the other side of the indonesian achiepelego. [b]
Brings us back into our initial question, which side would Singapore side. Any open military support by whichever nation proximate to Indonesia would be disasterous for the future at the same time the whole idea being surrounded by Indonesia should Malaysia falls into the hand of Indonesia is nothing less then alarming. What is your view in this? Lets just say if Singapore have to pick one or stay neutral, who, why and how. A simplistic approach.
Australia would unlikely be involve in this conflict should the lid blows over. Maybe before as mediator and after as peacekeepers. Not in mist. They have neither the numbers to do that and it would be bad for their future homeland security taking into account their recent movement away from 'reminisance of motherland' to their newfound ally, the United States. I agree.
It will take a bigger country to put an end to the Indonesia agression or as how some history plays out the world folds her arms and wait till someone loses before steping in to rebuid it. UN will likely play any role in the conflict. Effects from the rest of the world would likely only be felt after the whole thing cools down. not before.
BTW I did not mention anything about invading Australia.Originally posted by tripwire:
Sorry for this part. It was a flaming statement I made to those statements made throughout the post that gloated about how incompetant MAF is. By comparing hardware, we are more inferior but by active soldier we are definately on par. We do not walk into a firing machinegun. Its an outright intelect insult. Not that I am a pro-MAF, but hey give em a break.
[b]
the SAF is not as naive as you, we dont hallucinate like you do..... in a war... we expects large number of casualties..civilian and military...
even against larger foes, we intend to fight and inflict even more casualites on our enemies and win the war... and I'm not comparing guns either.... though we practically win in almost every weapon category from fighters, stealth frigate to MBTs against MAF.... just some humility.
[b]Originally posted by tripwire:
Please do elaborate on the several consideration if you may
[b]
only if the war spreads to west malaysia.. which i have pointed out repeatedly... the low probability of that happening due to several consideration... not least the might of the SAF.. and the limitations of the TNI.
[b]
.
IMHO The war would definately spread to W Malaysia. But if i read your words right, in your oppinion, SAF would step in - which kind of invalidate any discussion of W Malaysia. True.
I do not quite follow your discussion to be honest, IMHO its a simple as - if SAF assist MAF, then the main theater yes would be E Malaysia, if no outside assistance the likelihood, it only logical MAF would concerntrate on W Malaysia defences. And hence which brings me back to the main theater being W Malaysia. even you agrees that there is no point to fight in E Malaysia if supply line is unsustainable. But the main theater is in E Malaysia...so whats what? It will take two sides to have a war
You mentioned that singapore would isolate malaysia and on another singapore would play a role in W Malaysia defences? There is a few more other points you contradict yourself, so please do clarify.
And no regional citizen would allow indonesia's occupancy of E Malaysia in the long term. If you are going to factor in regional pacting then you must also factor in everything else also. You can't just simply pcik and choose what you want to hear and discard the rest as irrelevant just because it doesnt support your argument.
Thanks for the insight! -
Well then enlighten me. I do not for once doubt singapore's capabilities. Admirable to every extent, but just can't stand to gloating part. Can't blame you since you are standing like everyone of them on high pedestals.Originally posted by tripwire:but you have serious doubt about our ability to fight and defend ourselves and our national interest.... because we are SMALL!
it never cease to amaze me... that singapore's physical size is always featured when malaysians take to the stage...
however.. i must agreed.. size is important... not the land size of a country.. but the brain size of its leaders and people... thus far.. by all modern yardstick, its does appears that singaporeans score pretty well....
You try to use my views to use as an attack and the very least have little or no curtesy - whats more even choose to ignore the point i made about NOT using race and religion to base your discussion on.
Objectivity in discussion is more important then cheap shots on racial and other non-relevants to make an argument.
Well, yeah the brain size sadly i rest my case.
quote]Originally posted by tripwire:
it never cease to amaze me... that singapore's physical size is always featured when malaysians take to the stage...
[/quote]
I dont see why our leaders brains andr ace alway featured when singapore takes the stage either. There you go.
quote]Originally posted by CM06:
My apologies. I was refering to some. Not most
[/quote] -
Well then enlighten me. I do not for once doubt singapore's capabilities. Admirable to every extent, but just can't stand to gloating part. Can't blame you since you are standing like everyone of them on high pedestals.Originally posted by tripwire:but you have serious doubt about our ability to fight and defend ourselves and our national interest.... because we are SMALL!
it never cease to amaze me... that singapore's physical size is always featured when malaysians take to the stage...
however.. i must agreed.. size is important... not the land size of a country.. but the brain size of its leaders and people... thus far.. by all modern yardstick, its does appears that singaporeans score pretty well....
You try to use my views to use as an attack and the very least have little or no curtesy - whats more even choose to ignore the point i made about NOT using race and religion to base your discussion on.
Objectivity in discussion is more important then cheap shots on racial and other non-relevants to make an argument.
Well, yeah the brain size sadly i rest my case.
I dont see why our leaders brains and race alway featured when singapore takes the stage either. There you go.Originally posted by tripwire:it never cease to amaze me... that singapore's physical size is always featured when malaysians take to the stage...Originally posted by CM06:My apologies. I was refering to some. Not most -
For your information guys,
Zacklee here has compiled a rather detailed list of the units and deployment of the MAF on the LDF forums.
Perhaps Zack, you have the honours of producing that same list here?
Thanks. -
If fighting does break out, it will start as a localised one over the disputed area - which is a far flung corner of E Malaysia.
There is good reason for the INDO to localise the fight in E Malaysia where it is their neighbourhood and they can deploy their forces more effectively. It is also easy for them to hold any territory gained in E Malaysia.
And MAF forces run the risk of being trapped in E Malaysia if somehow reinforcements and resupply cannot reach them. That the TNI with its overwhelming numbers will crush MAF if reinforcements doesn't come is a foregone conclusion.
However, INDO attacking mainland W Malaysia has the military value of tying down MAF forces afraid to leave the "mainland" undefended.
...
The most likely fights over W MY will be air battles.
INDO will try to take out airfields and naval installations. Shipping will also be prime targets as MAF will have to send a "task force" to the war zone.
Of course, the usual installations that can cripple MY's war efforts will also be targeted.
...
Singapore will play the role of mediator at first and at the same time warn both to steer clear of Singapore.
And since we are geographically so close to W Malaysia, we are effectively sending the message to TNI that attacking W Malaysia is NOT OK with us.
Furthermore, as mediator we will also be encouraging both sides not to exapnd the war to non-disputed territory.
How INDO respond to this request from Little Red Dot will determine whether we stay out of the war - or not.
...
The TNI manpower is no joke. We have 300,000 part time soldiers while they have 300,000 in uniform 365 days a year.
Our only blessing is they need to make their way here first.
But this can happen easily if they did take over W Malaysia with its tiny little army of 80 - 90,000.
So, IMO no question:
we will side with Malaysia for no reason other than to safeguard ourselves from a potentially even BIGGER threat than MAF will ever be.
Beisdes, the Malaysians had been the best, most peaceful neighbour any one can hope for over the last 40 years.
Yes there are sabre rattling and petty quarrels. Nobody's perfect.
But imagine the alternative - Indonesia - as our neighbour across the Causeway.
If you think MY is not nice, wait till you are completely surrounded by the biggest, baddest junkyard dog in the neighbourhood.
SAF reservist ICT will be like 3 months every year, not 3 weeks. -
As much as TNI has huge no. of soldiers, their logistical abilities are questionable at best. I do not think they can have the whole bloody lot fighting a war and hope to be able to continue supplying the army for too long. Not least, at the moment, they can barely run their fleet to police their own waters, let's not even talk about beach landings.
Borneo is the only feasible battleground available to them, and quite frankly, I doubt they will dare to invade Peninsular Malaysia without some sizable logistical capabilities which currently do not exist. More so, I am certain that the Brunei sultanate has a defence pact with us, and surely they will get entangled with the Indonesians if they so invade W. Malaysia. We will have little choice but to at the minimum station troops there as a sort of deterrent. Mobilisation of naval assets will definitely come in and God knows what happens next. Once the shooting starts, it is hard to pull back.
Personally, I question whether the Indonesians can even get involved in a war, given that there are diverse ethnicities, and some separatist leanings. Some groups might start rattling sabers should the TNI become overly weakened. -
CM06, nah its okay, the information is not exactly all accurate either
just seeking some fellows to throw some points here and there and see if it cooks up any good corrections. Feel free if you like.
Thank you everyone for steering the discussion back to its course.
My sentiments on this issue of MAF vs TNI is relatively somewhat along these lines. First off I totally doubt this scenario would even take place considering their internal issues. But well letÂ’s just say it happens.
Surely neighboring country would compare and sought to be better then the other, itÂ’s normal. Albeit the recent years of squabbles about air intrusion and water issues - Malaysia have been relatively passive towards Singapore. We are good neighbor one way or another. A devil you know is better then the one you don't. I don't see any valid reason why Singapore would want to isolate Malaysia even in the context of self-preservation. It make no good sense. Isolating Malaysia would only bring future insecurities in the future - considering the possibility of it could even happen matters.
Modern world no longer have good long tolerance on any outright military occupation. Any condonation by any nations would be heavily criticized for destabilizing the region and would only cause political and foreign policies nightmare. I don't think good smart leaders that Singapore have would miss or downplay this point.
Singapore would definitely get stuck in the crossfire. Brunei on the other hard is hard to say - too little influence passive or active to change any course, likely they will try to lean more towards any coalition or neutral ground as much as possible.
It would be a matter of how much Singapore is willing to get involved. Passively relieving MAF in W Malaysia to concentrate on its Eastern front or altogether get involve in the defense of E Malaysia.
Any movement in TNI troops to Kalimantan would unlikely goes unnoticed to start with. Rapid MAF deterrence para deployment in E Malaysia would be likely in the scenario, followed by secondary ground troop deployment. SingaporeÂ’s BruneiÂ’s AustraliaÂ’s New ZealandÂ’s assistance would be bonuses. Even at this point, TNI in their right mind would be having second thoughts to go down this road.
In the event of a full scale all out attack, the only logical move for MAF to defense to a point where all strategic value is lost, retreat surviving forces to W Malaysia and abandon E Malaysia to nationalist (not a good way of putting it tho) and rangers to harass enemies lines while occasional strategic attacks. Hit and run precision bombing.
Yes E Malaysia would be easily lost and would give TNI a very good staging ground for any future assault, but pacifying remaining forces would be a pain and the likelihood any strategic value initially would be very well balanced off to the decrease of its value altogether. Reasons:-
1. MAF would have a smaller area to defend.
2. TNI forces would be scattered.
3. Constant harassments from hiding forces in E Malaysia.
4. E Malaysia has very little buildups and these are actually the strategic values when they started that would likely be rendered unusable by the time TNI secure these positions.
5. Resource denials have no immediate effect to MAF
W Malaysia fortification by then would be ready and condensed. By then Indonesians in Malaysia (you need to account for that) would be very much flushed out from the nation that could be a torn in mist of war. With the lost of E Malaysia, it will turn into a race to control the skies (Eastern Theater) and sea (Straits).
In terms of skies, it would be a fair fight, but Malaysia would have the upper hand as with the lost of E Malaysia there is virtually no existence of seafaring supply lines to maintain while Indonesia would have. In terms of sea, Southern hemisphere would unlikely have any major sea movement considering proximity to Singapore in the scenario of neutrality. South China Sea would be too vulnerable for TNI to launch any invasion forces. Too long in open sea and susceptible to weather and MAF scouts to detect. Invasion would likely be from Western Theater. By this time MAF would be entrenched. RMN would be providing support while RMAF keep TNI at bay at the Eastern front and provide air support in the west. Up until now lets just say TNI would be at least be already feeling war exhaustion. Even by now if world do not tame TNI, assuming any invasion was to happen, it would be somewhat hard but possible for TNI to launch a massive landing campaign or any airdrop to muster enough one kill punch towards MAF.
My point is I canÂ’t imagine it even reaching to this stage. I am just letting my imagination go wild. There is too many loopholes where the aggressor would and should give up. This has not yet even to take account of the worldÂ’s condemnation and involvement and economic lashbacks.
Not to mention even considering that the whole nation stands united for this cause and not seek any chance of defecting away. Internally would be a nightmare for Indonesia. They just are unable to sustain any role as an aggressor. -
1: Thanks for calling us little and not tiny.Originally posted by chino65:If fighting does break out, it will start as a localised one over the disputed area - which is a far flung corner of E Malaysia.
There is good reason for the INDO to localise the fight in E Malaysia where it is their neighbourhood and they can deploy their forces more effectively. It is also easy for them to hold any territory gained in E Malaysia.
And MAF forces run the risk of being trapped in E Malaysia if somehow reinforcements and resupply cannot reach them. That the TNI with its overwhelming numbers will crush MAF if reinforcements doesn't come is a foregone conclusion.
But this can happen easily if they did take over W Malaysia with its tiny little army of 80 - 90,000.
2:Valid points about bring trapped, the only dilemma i could think of for MAF is how willing are they the defend E Malaysia. Its virtually undefendable to start with. There is little to none major installations that would strategically affect MAF in short term given this war taking place in a modern world. Any overt reinforcement to E Malaysia would only spiral down from relevant and valid decisions to bad strategic decisions.
My two cents, if this was a WWII era, burn everything to ground and scoot back to W Malaysia at the first sight of invasion. Sorry Sabahan and Serawakian, I still love your pineapples. But looking at it objectively, the cost-benefit would be a bell shape graft, after it start tilting towards cost over benefit, evacuation of major forces should be done while sapper teams to burn down strategic value installation to speed up the cost-benefit ratio down and then reorganize remaining forces into rugrats to harass behind enemy lines. -
crazee matey.....we gonna have a mutiny with the Royal Ranger Regiments if we dont put a single efforts in defending E Malaysia.......i dont think MAF will let TNI take it all without a fight.....along history we never run from a fight...why should we run now?Originally posted by zacklee:1: Thanks for calling us little and not tiny.
2:Valid points about bring trapped, the only dilemma i could think of for MAF is how willing are they the defend E Malaysia. Its virtually undefendable to start with. There is little to none major installations that would strategically affect MAF in short term given this war taking place in a modern world. Any overt reinforcement to E Malaysia would only spiral down from relevant and valid decisions to bad strategic decisions.
My two cents, if this was a WWII era, burn everything to ground and scoot back to W Malaysia at the first sight of invasion. Sorry Sabahan and Serawakian, I still love your pineapples. But looking at it objectively, the cost-benefit would be a bell shape graft, after it start tilting towards cost over benefit, evacuation of major forces should be done while sapper teams to burn down strategic value installation to speed up the cost-benefit ratio down and then reorganize remaining forces into rugrats to harass behind enemy lines. -
Hi SureRock, I am not saying we don't - we do, until it is no longer a smart move. In terms of strategic sense, engaging TNI in E Malaysia would provide time for Malaysia to call for defense aids as well and fortifying and force consolidating in W Malaysia ( I am literally saying W is more important then E, its a fact and you only got 2 to choose from, if 1 gets attack 2 gets time).Originally posted by SureRock:crazee matey.....we gonna have a mutiny with the Royal Ranger Regiments if we dont put a single efforts in defending E Malaysia.......i dont think MAF will let TNI take it all without a fight.....along history we never run from a fight...why should we run now?
If we are to fight this war out of pride and ignorance then well we derserve evey single bit since we are outnumbered by 3 to 1 in regular army alone. Not to mention both sides are accustomed to jungle warfare and are deadly as they come by. It would be a fair game in human capital strength- the difference would be arms and toys as force multiplier. How much it is irregardless still do not justify going up against TNI upfront. I see a bleak future for MAF to commit any more troops then 'sufficient' or even to fight it the conventional style with brick and mortar.
In my view, it makes good strategic sense to let E Malaysia go eventually once all defense preparation is done. and sit on it and wait till either war exhaution, world intervention, internal uprising, TNI get outstretched, commitment of TNI forces elsewhere sets in and retake E Malaysia.
We all love the pineapples there - definately a luxury we will deny Indonesia from having.
Sometimes sacrifices have to be made and in this case it would be E Malaysia. It literally reduces MAF defence radius by half ~ and in logic sense doubles the effectiveness of the remaining half of the defense. -
would it not be better to "try" and defend as best you can before retreating?
I mean proper military doctrine means you gotta outnumber defender 3:1 before you can successfully take over their position. But against TNI, you're still outnumbered, but nth better than rustling up a few peninsular M'sians who's sons got wacked by the indonesians, might give them and others the will and hot-bloodedness to fight back harder... IF the oppotunity presents itself.
IMO, if MAF just drop and run, Malaysia is CONFIRMED to lose E Malaysia forever -
ur misquoting me. Read aboveOriginally posted by Idle_King:would it not be better to "try" and defend as best you can before retreating?
I mean proper military doctrine means you gotta outnumber defender 3:1 before you can successfully take over their position. But against TNI, you're still outnumbered, but nth better than rustling up a few peninsular M'sians who's sons got wacked by the indonesians, might give them and others the will and hot-bloodedness to fight back harder... IF the oppotunity presents itself.
IMO, if MAF just drop and run, Malaysia is CONFIRMED to lose E Malaysia forever -
D'OH!!!
-
haha love the pic buddy. But elaborating further. 3 to 1 ratio doctrine is just merely a guideline for 'common sense'. In real terms if LETS SAY mere example China decides to go on a border expansion, what do you do? Instantly drop your arms and give up if China am the aggressor and moreover Japan defies the doctrine as well by a near success in invading China. Tho I must say this is a bad example. You got the gist.Originally posted by Idle_King:
D'OH!!!
In reality this doctrine hold much less weights (not no weight) then when it was actually written.
Its a good guideline but my own take in it (everyone is entitled to their own opinion) that this doctrine mainly applies to isolated engagement probably at best up to company level engagement in today's time. Rarely do you see anymore WWII like armies where you have hundreds of divisions. I mean really, if you have an army of millions like the soviets have - sending your army as marching minesweepers is another's day story - sorry keep bringing this up - just utterly shocking to know it actually happened[/b][/quote]
Separate issue, if we look closely at MAF deployments, it make good sense that a high concentration of force lies in the center of W Malaysia, nearer to Northern Thai border. This would provide speedy deployment to its Northern border (choke point anyway) in any scenario of ThaiÂ’s aggression. Singapore would be another story. The war would definitely no second doubt be on Malaysia soil. MAF would probably have no choice but to sacrifice Johor and part of Pahang while hold a defensive parameter along Pahang and Negeri sembilan. Not going to go there.
Back to the topic in case of TNI aggression and our geographical layout, it provides us with good and rapid deployment ability to secure both seafronts with little problem in logistical shifting of troops between the two land fronts.
Moreover looking into recent MalaysiaÂ’s purchases, along its vision statement (cant remember where I read it, something like 1992-1994 consolidate army then bla bla bla to 2020) there seems to be a thrust for better airlift and support elements. Cut this short, YES MAF is looking to boost security for E Malaysia.
Even many people have thier oppinion for the recent Aug to Carbine as a standard issue rifle, Yes i share all the same sentiments with most of you out there, for it be bad decision or the license issue.. but the only logical thing i can think of putting myself into their head (INITIAL INTENTIONS) is its use for jungle warfare. Shorter barrel to improve short range capabilities.............. cough...but how well the rifle will survive in MAF regular's hand is another story altogether not yet factoring in the environmental factors.
What I am going on and on is it unlikely E Malaysia is forgoten altogether. -
All your immediate neighbours have huge armed forces compared to MAF. OF course, I'm not complaining as this makes us sleep so much better at night. If ever we need a clear signal of whether MAF has any aggressive intent - its continued small size is the best reassurance.Originally posted by zacklee:1: Thanks for calling us little and not tiny.
Even when we leave potential opposing force out of the picture, for the land mass that make up Malaysia, MAF size is adequate only because Malaysia had been blessed with a (relatively) small and peaceful population. Unlike INDO.
Simply put, you guys do not have enough men or equipment to defend both E & W Malaysia. If push comes to shove, I do agree with your assessment that KL will give up E MY.
I maintain that it would be in SG's interest to help MY should its existence (W Malaysia) ever be threatened. "Better the devil you know" kind of thing...
I'm sure the INDO must have spent many nights wondering why Sabah/Sarawak isn't flying the red/white flag like the rest of Kalimantan.Originally posted by zacklee:2:Valid points about bring trapped, ...
My two cents, if this was a WWII era, burn everything to ground and scoot back to W Malaysia at the first sight of invasion. ...
Again, have to state that Malaysia had been very lucky to be given this territory for nothing. You guys get to administer a large tract of land that really hasn't got much to do with the real Malaysia. I read in reports that the KL government doesn't spend much money developing the place or caring for the people.
Nearly every Malaysian I have met in overseas countries are from W MY. They are the ones whom are well-educated, well-off and savvy. I've never met anyone from E MY overseas. They remain backwards and neglected thanks to KL.
And in return KL rake in money exploiting its rich natural resources. (Nothing to lose you say?)
As I understand, there is a huge chinese population and also lots of indigenous Ibans or Dayaks. And also a big ratio of the population are non-Muslims.
The people of E MY have made noise in the past about KL government but generally they are quite docile and understand that the alternative - being ruled by INDO - is even less desirable.
PS
In case you say I shouldn't talk about things I completely don't know - I have been to Sabah/Sarawak. But just a short trip and most of the time I spent trekking through jungle and riding boats along the huge rivers. -
And in return KL rake in money exploiting its rich natural resources. (Nothing to lose you say?)
don't u know that all natural resources in malaysia is govern by law by the respective state governments? the only natural resources available to the federal government are off shores EEZ. even then a percentage goes to the respective state governments deemed closer.
As I understand, there is a huge chinese population and also lots of indigenous Ibans or Dayaks. And also a big ratio of the population are non-Muslims.
The people of E MY have made noise in the past about KL government but generally they are quite docile and understand that the alternative - being ruled by INDO - is even less desirable.
PS
In case you say I shouldn't talk about things I completely don't know - I have been to Sabah/Sarawak. But just a short trip and most of the time I spent trekking through jungle and riding boats along the huge rivers.
and do u know that West Malaysians entering East Malaysia need to furnish their international passports until a couple of years back? whilst the same thing does not apply to East Malaysians entering West Malaysia.
do u know West Malaysians cannot work in East Malaysia without prior consent of Sabah/Sarawak state governments? whilst the same thing does not apply to East Malaysians seeking work in West Malaysia. even those in federal government posts.
do u know that the only thing the federal government has a say in Sabah/Sarawak affairs are security and international relations? the rest are determined by Sabah/Sarawak themselves.
ever noticed there's no UMNO in Sabah/Sarawak?
no sir, u need more than a couple of trips to Sabah/Sarawak to learn this. -
It would be prudent to boost security for E MY...Originally posted by zacklee:Moreover looking into recent MalaysiaÂ’s purchases, along its vision statement (cant remember where I read it, something like 1992-1994 consolidate army then bla bla bla to 2020) there seems to be a thrust for better airlift and support elements. Cut this short, YES MAF is looking to boost security for E Malaysia.
but on the Airlift part, the RMAF wants the EADS A-400 right? with a fiasco going on over at EADS ever since their Airbus A340-500 project, when can you expect it to turn up? might as well get more C130 instead...
And also, in order to "boost" security, wouldnt MAF need more troops not just hardware? is there any push to get more men?Even many people have thier oppinion for the recent Aug to Carbine as a standard issue rifle, Yes i share all the same sentiments with most of you out there, for it be bad decision or the license issue.. but the only logical thing i can think of putting myself into their head (INITIAL INTENTIONS) is its use for jungle warfare. Shorter barrel to improve short range capabilities.............. cough...but how well the rifle will survive in MAF regular's hand is another story altogether not yet factoring in the environmental factors.
truth be told, i prefer the M-16 and her variants over bull-pups
What I am going on and on is it unlikely E Malaysia is forgoten altogether.
-
I was stating that KL profits from Sabah and Sarawak. And losing East Malaysia is losing a big slice of income.Originally posted by ferryman2393:don't u know that all natural resources in malaysia is govern by law by the respective state governments?
no sir, u need more than a couple of trips to Sabah/Sarawak to learn this.
As this statement from this website shows:
http://malaysia-today.net/reports/2006_04_04_MT_reports_archive.htm
"Let us look at what they have planned for East Malaysia, the two states that contribute to 50% of PetronasÂ’ RM59 billion petroleum revenue every year, and the two states that have been allocated the smallest share of the budget though the hardcore poverty in those states are the highest."
The personal views of the author aside, it said clearly that East Malaysia pays money to the KL government.
So are you stating that KL DOES NOT PROFIT FROM EAST MALAYSIA AT ALL?
No, sir, next time read carefully and check your facts before you shoot your mouth off. -
Well, Chino, I totally disagree with your accessment. I wrote up quite a long reply but an error erased everything, so ill make this short. Hope it convey everything else ill do so as your replies.Originally posted by chino65:I'm sure the INDO must have spent many nights wondering why Sabah/Sarawak isn't flying the red/white flag like the rest of Kalimantan.
Again, have to state that Malaysia had been very lucky to be given this territory for nothing. You guys get to administer a large tract of land that really hasn't got much to do with the real Malaysia. I read in reports that the KL government doesn't spend much money developing the place or caring for the people.
Nearly every Malaysian I have met in overseas countries are from W MY. They are the ones whom are well-educated, well-off and savvy. I've never met anyone from E MY overseas. They remain backwards and neglected thanks to KL.
And in return KL rake in money exploiting its rich natural resources. (Nothing to lose you say?)
As I understand, there is a huge chinese population and also lots of indigenous Ibans or Dayaks. And also a big ratio of the population are non-Muslims.
The people of E MY have made noise in the past about KL government but generally they are quite docile and understand that the alternative - being ruled by INDO - is even less desirable.
PS
In case you say I shouldn't talk about things I completely don't know - I have been to Sabah/Sarawak. But just a short trip and most of the time I spent trekking through jungle and riding boats along the huge rivers.
In terms of E Malaysia to W Malaysia, yes it had contributed alot and no doubt they have the smallest size for good reasons. There is no logic to develop E Malaysia!
W Malaysia and even taking into singapore in as illustration, the only way i can see how you justify money allocation or richness is by economical and financial richness in which with the same money spend on W Malaysia compared to E Malaysia for example road repairs makes no logic sense. NOT saying we shouldnt invest alright but in an adequate manner. You give the 2 state lets say 40% of the fiscal budget because they contribute 70% to the total renevue last year, do it make any economical sense?
but yes, there is certain unfairness to this whole sentiments but factoring in the complexity of cultures and aboriginals along with its vast forested lands, and head counts. It make no valid sense to build up just for the sake cause they contributed much. It simply economy sense - for the majority benefit.
I drawing a bias remark saying this but Singapore is small, certainly distribution of equality in terms of infrastructure is not an issue. But with a country that is vastly divided between a sea, its a totally another ballgame and your fundementals that you generate your views cannot apply in this case.
Bigger countries have problems with distribution simply because it is the way it is. It is ALWAYS for the majorities benefits' for whatever reasons political, common sense , economical whatever the reason is. Money distribution is never distributed by how much you contribute. YES too little money is given, but it should not be compared in a sense they gave X amount therefore they are entitled x% of it.
Awareness of E Malaysian needs is definately something to keep poking on since it is a blunder of conflicting needs, but saying that W Malaysia is canibalising E Malaysia and E Malaysia made the better bad choice (MAS not INDO) in joining the Malaysian Alliance is simply unjustified. Its a blunder that can be corrected and not a mistake made.
And they are richer then you think they are. there are large communities of E Malaysian in AU and UK. All doing very well and funded very well, but of course it is never a complete answer - there are always place for improvements.
Well you are generally not wrong in your views, but the way you generate your views are wrong in my oppinion.
Even if singapore controls E Malaysia, the development and robustness will never be on par for obvious reasons. Spending 50mil on road maintainance in E Malaysia could pay for Singapore for 2 years.
BUT yes being the least budgeted is definately something worth noting.
BTW if malaysian deforest vast area for development NGO and world green communities would heavily critisized the move. And they way they are is te best - generating profits. You dont go messing around with 5 star cash cows just because you think it can perform better being different right?
W Malaysia is definately profiting from E Malaysia, but it is simply the way it is. I don't get the big fuss out of it. Looking on a bigger picture, romania joining EU..who benefited? do give a few minutes on it.