Possible war scenarios Singapore will engage in

• I-like-flings(m)

  2 Dec 07, 01:14

  Originally posted by damienthedevil:

  and to have a win win situation -
  
  We will strike a deal with the Indons and Brunei , Sarawak goes to Indons, Sabah goes to Brunei and we will take the whole of West Malaysia. Maybe to placade the Thais we will give them Kedah and Langkawi.
  
  

  i love this!!!
• purpledragon84

  2 Dec 07, 01:25

  huh.. ppl send one nuke we say goodie bye liao leh... we attack ppl.. america sure act hero.. wait catch our prime minister and president like how they catch saddam..
  
  protect is enough la.. no NSF will so hero go and conquer places for u one la.. actually only got one that is.. infantry(a.k.a freedom fighter) will solo ops..
• crusader91

  2 Dec 07, 01:46

  What nukes ????? You need good reasons to use nukes (or get flamed internationally) and those missiles not cheap leh........
  
  If we can win a war, singapore will have an honourable history that can instill patriotism in singaporeans. Lose means singapore civilisation wiped out and we become nomads.......
• LoudnessFZ

  2 Dec 07, 01:49

  talk about wars..talk about solo ops...i think we have enough soldiers now
  
  the only think we need is...spec ops soldiers!or..S.T.A.R.S..
  
  those doing spec ops maybe injected by a genome something which will
  make them strong and durable.
  
  liddat even if soviet were to war with singapore..we send them and we'll win..
  
  
  
  to u guys maybe im talkin crap here or maybe donno it already existed.
  
  but hey,i think if we're to be infiltrated by any major power countries,its not only
  the soldiers are involved..confirm theyll send inside men to do stealth jobs
  in executing important members which will give them the victory
  
  god..who noes?
  
  and probably singapore's one of small countries which really need a nuclear weapon than america or china.
  
  and if only expats need to undergo NS...sg'll have a better chance in defending its nation
  
  think bout it man...expats come here and work but if something happen they never help defend the country?man...they should die first
• alan-

  2 Dec 07, 01:56

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)
• LoudnessFZ

  2 Dec 07, 02:19

  yea maybe singapore is the best and yada yada.
  
  but its best to think about the worst case scenario and not being co cky,
  
  we never know what the enemy might have up its sleeves
  
  good to have confidence,but over confident pays off deadly
• LazerLordz

  2 Dec 07, 02:22

  Originally posted by alan-:

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)

  What you are taught in OCS may not reflect our strategic thinking.
  
  Not to be an ass, but your OCS training only covers company and platoon level tactics.
  
  I'm thinking that the reason why there's more training which you perceive as defensive is probably due to the role that you will play (I'm assuming you're Infantry). SAF doctrine doesn't prioritise occupation or stabilisation ops in civilian enemy territory.
  
  Defence operations to secure a sanitized buffer zone, probably realistic though.
  
  However, assets wise, any SAF offensive will not be primarily troop intensive.
  
  I may be wrong, but this is based on what I've absorbed in studies on our role in the regional security framework so far. It is entirely possible that I'm just being too academic here.
  
  
• chino65

  2 Dec 07, 10:04

  Originally posted by alan-:

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)

  Which part of the OCS course are you taught this? And in which building are these lessons conducted? And which batch are you?
  
  What role did you hold after passing out and what is your rank now?
  
  Thanks
• AndrewPKYap

  2 Dec 07, 10:07

  Originally posted by alan-:

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)

  "SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region." so what?
  
  ...navy and air blockade, property and stocks price drop 90%, money rushes out of Singapore... war over... no need to even fire one bullet... don't live in an illusion and delusion...
• Rockhound

  2 Dec 07, 10:14

  Originally posted by alan-:

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)

  i may not be from ocs but most of my training is geared to one thing..
  
  Go in...Whack them senseless...regroup....move on...and i was from a SIR...in 3 months do Heliborne 3 times(not ala guards style...just the ferry troops kind)....never actually did defence...
• T.Ryousuke

  2 Dec 07, 10:19

  Cut off com,ship,food,fuel and water lines.
  
  wait for RSAF to send their plane and ship out and hunt them one by one. Wait for the supply to run out and come in bomb the run way and milt target. The war will be over unless US support us from outside. So in short food control ppl and power supply control a nation.
• Rockhound

  2 Dec 07, 10:22

  Originally posted by T.Ryousuke:

  Cut off com,ship,food,fuel and water lines.
  
  wait for RSAF to send their plane and ship out and hunt them one by one. Wait for the supply to run out and come in bomb the run way and milt target. The war will be over unless US support us from outside. So in short food control ppl and power supply control a nation.

  I find that the RSAF is our trump card.....air superiority will win the war.....
• T.Ryousuke

  2 Dec 07, 10:33

  Originally posted by Rockhound:

  I find that the RSAF is our trump card.....air superiority will win the war.....

  Ya they r strong but not for long range, overall they still need US troop to support and supply. The main problem for the enemy will be US side.
• eagle

  2 Dec 07, 10:34

  What I understood in army.... by the time ground infantries are activated to defend, it is already near the end. Our front line defence is the air force, followed by the navy. In addition, SAF goes on a quick attack doctrine, which is to conquer right up to the enemy's base within the shortest time; using attack as a form of defence
• T.Ryousuke

  2 Dec 07, 10:38

  Originally posted by eagle:

  What I understood in army.... by the time ground infantries are activated to defend, it is already near the end. Our front line defence is the air force, followed by the navy. In addition, SAF goes on a quick attack doctrine, which is to conquer right up to the enemy's base within the shortest time; using attack as a form of defence

  So in short they r fighting for time.
• damienthedevil

  2 Dec 07, 11:19

  Originally posted by alan-:

  in the first place, from what im taught in OCS, we are taught to defend, not attack. If u see carefully on the type of weaponaries we have, its more defensive and counter attack than offensive itself. btw.. saf bridging capabilities is only up till M'sia, not Indon. so its pretty obvious who we are defending against
  
  In addition, Indon owe singapore too much (during suharto time) that they might never call for a war on us.
  
  Anyway, based on quality, SG weaponary and technique skills are unmatched in the region. (according to one of the sg army books on sale in borders etc)

  hmmm....I thought during OCS our trainers will drummed into our head that we are an AGGRESSION force and that any war will be fought on Enemy land.
  
• eagle

  2 Dec 07, 11:35

  Originally posted by T.Ryousuke:

  So in short they r fighting for time.

  Army: Singapore simply cannot sustain a long war
  
  Sun Tze art of war also states that long wars are not good for the country.
• Daisuke-kun

  2 Dec 07, 11:36

  aiyah.
  just send infantry can already.
  he can take down 100 men.
• Hellraiza

  2 Dec 07, 12:05

  phwoarr....i see alot of armchair generals! *salutes
  
  but i wonder how many here actually have their boots on the ground..
  
  Lazerlordz-i was kidding lah. Please don't ban me ok?
• T.Ryousuke

  2 Dec 07, 12:11

  Originally posted by Hellraiza:

  phwoarr....i see alot of armchair generals! *salutes
  
  but i wonder how many here actually have their boots on the ground..
  
  Lazerlordz-i was kidding lah. Please don't ban me ok?

  So u the Chief of staff.
  
  Men:"Sir to run or die together?"
• LazerLordz

  2 Dec 07, 12:11

  Originally posted by Hellraiza:

  phwoarr....i see alot of armchair generals! *salutes
  
  but i wonder how many here actually have their boots on the ground..
  
  Lazerlordz-i was kidding lah. Please don't ban me ok?

  I ban you for fug? I'm not even the mod here.
  
  
• Hellraiza

  2 Dec 07, 12:16

  Originally posted by LazerLordz:

  I ban you for fug? I'm not even the mod here.
  
  

  oops. for a moment i thought this was the SAF forums.
• Hellraiza

  2 Dec 07, 12:17

  Originally posted by T.Ryousuke:

  So u the Chief of staff.
  
  Men:"Sir to run or die together?"

  neither. get drunk together!
• chino65

  2 Dec 07, 12:33

  Originally posted by LazerLordz:

  What you are taught in OCS may not reflect our strategic thinking.
  

  I am very curious which country's OCS he's from. Or is it the OCS in his mind?
  
  I've never heard of an army (OK maybe the JGSDF) that teaches its officers to be " defence only " mindset. We may as well just be sheep. Sit there and wait for enemy.
• purpledragon84

  2 Dec 07, 16:14

  i seriously think NSFs are not that reliable.. to go out and conquer places.. if say defend our country when we kena attacked ok la.. but if bo dai ji suka suka go out attack another country i think it's quite impossible..
  
  and regarding nukes.. come on.. america can do whatever they want.. n nobody can stop their tyranny..
  
  "either you are with us, or you're against us" <-- what a loser..