Better yet, create a French Foreign Legion like scheme where all FTs must serve at least 5 yrs in the Legion b4 getting citizenship..
Foreign talent not a good idea for defence issues. Remember when Brits used to be in charged of our defence, they failed and Japs conquered us. Imho, only Singaporeans should be defend SG. We could accept foreign help, but still, the defence of SG must lie in our hands, not foreign talent. Furthermore, we know the terrain more than foreigners, so foreign talent in defence is out.
Originally posted by Commander31:Foreign talent not a good idea for defence issues. Remember when Brits used to be in charged of our defence, they failed and Japs conquered us. Imho, only Singaporeans should be defend SG. We could accept foreign help, but still, the defence of SG must lie in our hands, not foreign talent. Furthermore, we know the terrain more than foreigners, so foreign talent in defence is out.
All that terrain known how is useless if they so decide to drop off a neutron bomb...
And we have had foreign talent for defence for a while. Gurkhas anyone?
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:All that terrain known how is useless if they so decide to drop off a neutron bomb...
And we have had foreign talent for defence for a while. Gurkhas anyone?
damned you beat me to it.
i 'd throw in fillipino and china nurses as well.
our home front can accept foreign talent in medical sectors but cannot accept foreign talent in army ?
@commander31,
the brits failed for a mulitude of reasons,
foremost for not seizing the initiative when they anticipated the japanese landings and stopping them at chokepoints in Malaya.
competency in leadership : while percival was a brilliant staff officer who anticipated correctly where the japanese would land and how they would move down the malayan peninsular, he didnt dare to launch operation matador [his hands were tied actually, again, metaphorically speaking] , which would have repelled the japanese. He wasnt a battle tested warrior like yamashita.
Percival's direct opposite, Yamashita, was fresh from Japan's war in china and was a seasoned field commander (unlike the green and unexperienced Percival). His rapid attack and use of unorthodox warfare like bicycles and tanks allowed rapid japanese advance.
his bluff at the end of the battle of singapore (his troops were running out of arty shells and ammunition) managed to win the day. luck certainly was a factor. Had the British refused to surrender, there would probably be a likelihood of british forces repelling the intial wave of Japanese invasion and bunkering down in singapore.
plenty of other reasons like if the prince of wales and repulse werent sunk and all that too. but ild summarize it with this. Britain had a game plan, its just that Britain didnt execute its game plan well enough and effectively enough to counter the Japanese.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:I am not trying to argue we should have just questioning now that we have a larger and heavier armour force how does SAF going to support and maintain at the same performance.
Was also thinking the term forward defence..... and rapid deployment goes hand in hand. If SAF is still taking that approach i just think that maintaining that capabilities goes hand in hand.
Transport plane is an over support for all occasions. Together for Peace n able to meet crisis needs. I don;t think cirsis happen every year but it only need to happen once. thats all.