Why does Singapore not declare neutrality?
-
like that arh? That's easy
-
Switzerland is a Neutral Country. Once a German general was at a Swiss county shooting competition. He asked what happens if there is a million man army at the Switzerland door step. His host said every one will fire one shot and go home.
The German persisted what about a 2 million man army. His host said everyone will fire two shots and go home.
Every citizen is armed and then some more.
In another words. Swizterland is a neutral country. But that doesn't there isn't an army. IMHO if you are neutral, you need a bigger armed forces. Especially since you are not taking sides.
-
Yup. Not many people realise that not only Switzerland had an army but it had to use that army to defend itself on several occasions. It used fortifications and terrain as force multipliers. This included a complete mobilisation in world war 1&2 for obvious reasons which deterred German invasion on both instances. The Swiss also boasts the 2nd largest conscript force per capita mobilised after the Israelis. It is naive to think that disbanding the army will provide peace. History teaches the opposite. The stronger the army, the less likely war will occur.
-
reda this---
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11892.html
Foreign policy also had to accommodate the views of predominantly Islamic neighbors who were viewed by Singapore's leaders as possible threats to its existence. As a gesture toward its neighbors and in recognition of its own regional roots, Singapore maintained its membership in the Nonaligned Movement, although it consistently rejected neutrality as a foreign policy option. Singapore's leaders had reasoned that avoiding entanglements with the great powers would leave Singapore far too vulnerable to threats from regional neighbors, as Indonesia's Confrontation campaign had demonstrated. Neutrality also was perceived to be inconsistent with the Total Defence style of defensive vigilance that the PAP attempted to instill in the citizenry following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia......
-
like truman once said, the only language the russian understood are, how many divisions have u? just because Asean exists doesnt mean singapore is safe. i tell u, indonesia and malaysia have proved on so many occasions in history their hatred for singapore. look at the indonesian commandos. the macdonalds building bombing. the only reason why the malay countries right on our doorstep dont act agressively is because of our armed force. as touchstone put it, the moment singapore does what u want, cut our army by half, banish ns and cut our arms expenditure, indonesia and malaysia will be knocking down our doors. that i can bet u on that.
-
stop thinking naively. singapore's armed force is easily more deadly than malaysia's and indonesia's combined. look at history and it is easy to see in SE asia alone, there r nations on our doorstep willing to crush us the very moment we lower our guard. this is the hard truth, it may hurt ur pockets, but would u rather suffer war?
-
suffocated easily by smouldering neighbours..
.no need any bullets -
this is reality. if we dun have a strong force to show the enemy, the next thing u know, they step all over u. look at last year how indonesia almost went to war with malaysia over a few ethical issues, moreover so with singapore! its only a matter of time. those leaders at asean summits are just all smiles on the surface, anger festering underneath.
-
Aren't you pessimistic...
-
its sad how ppl claim we should scrap ns and our expenditure budget without looking over the other side of the fence..
-
Ya lor ya lor. No need to scrap wad... just downgrade me can alr. =D
-
Other than spending on the armed forces, the armed forces must be willing to develop & deploy advanced weapons and willing to unleash it on any enemy
best 1 shot can sink an aircraft carrier at beyond the horizon............Muhahahahahahaha!
-
singapore already has that sort of capability. already, our navy and airforce easily dwarfs that of indonesia's and malaysia's combined, which is why they r so afraid of us. why else do u think they still sell water to us? the moment they stop, they worry we will think it as an act of agression and declare war, something malaysia's military cant handle. these days, its not how many troops u got, its how powerful my missiles r compared to urs.
-
but war is about attrition rates
our assets maybe powerful, but once a few of them are destroyed, the enemy will pour through the loophole like the Zergs
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Aren't you pessimistic...
to scrap ns and our defense budget is too optimistic.
If we have to go to war, it is either win or lose, there is no in between for a small country like sinapore.
-
Originally posted by Casopia-maplesea:
these days, its not how many troops u got, its how powerful my missiles r compared to urs.
Almost but not quite. Look at what's on the other side of the equals sign in this equation.
-
First of all being a Netural state doesn't mean they don't have any Military assets. They still have reserves and a defence force! Singapore's Model of Total Defence is mainly to inject a sense of belonging into Singapore youths.
Our Goverment has spend lots of effort yearly to make Singaporeans love this Nation. (NDP)
This Country is yours - take care of it!
-
We have always been neutral. Just that we are a small country.
We have to have an army to protect our people. But judging at the amount wasted on NSF, regulars.. I feel we should have mercenaries to protect our soveriegnity instead.
Cheaper, Better, Faster. -
The discussion about NS is separate from that of defence. NS conscription can be a dated concept. In the Iraq war (Iraqi freedom), a conscript army was swept away by a force a few times smaller but more technologically advanced. NS today should not be the same NS as in the 1970s. Today's warfare demands high technology thinking soldiers (but still equally committed). A smaller force is far easier to equip more thoroughly than a larger force but it cannot be too small that it cannot handle threats. If NS today is still like NS in the 1970s, we are also gone case if we meet a higher tech aggressor. The question is whether the investment in NS can be put to more efficient use elsewhere. The Government appears to be ensuring that NS is kept relevant as a key platform for defending Singapore. Having said that, it is not unreasonable to consider the efficiency of NS every once in a while.
-
Originally posted by slim10:
The discussion about NS is separate from that of defence.
NS conscription can be a dated concept. In the Iraq war (Iraqi freedom), a conscript army was swept away by a force a few times smaller but more technologically advanced.
NS today should not be the same NS as in the 1970s. Today’s warfare demands high technology thinking soldiers (but still equally committed). A smaller force is far easier to equip more thoroughly than a larger force but it cannot be too small that it cannot handle threats. If NS today is still like NS in the 1970s, we are also gone case if we meet a higher tech aggressor.
The question is whether the investment in NS can be put to more efficient use elsewhere. The Government appears to be ensuring that NS is kept relevant as a key platform for defending Singapore. Having said that, it is not unreasonable to consider the efficiency of NS every once in a while.
I agree with u on thisin fact, i will like the SAF to have something like the Gundam battlesuits--highly mobile & destructive....what i mean is Combat Exoskeleton for infantry
DARPA has been into this technology for years already....so SG should not lag behind too
-
Originally posted by Mr Milo:
I agree with u on thisin fact, i will like the SAF to have something like the Gundam battlesuits--highly mobile & destructive....what i mean is Combat Exoskeleton for infantry
DARPA has been into this technology for years already....so SG should not lag behind too
Nice. In fact Lockheed martin already has something in the market called "hulc".
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/hulc/index.html
Don't know why soldiers should be carrying 100 kg weights. Soldiers shouldn't be bogged down with too much gear unless its body armour.
As usual, such devices are generally prohibitively expensive. Can probably buy a few 3 tonner for every hulc.
-
No to foget that ther is at least one crazy mother farker like me waiting to kill in a war. a licens to kill yeh yeh. and believe if i will not hesitate even if kena courtmarshalled later to unleash a killing spre on both enemy soldiers and civilians alike. i waiting waiting hehehe
-
More important to make sure not waiting to kill at downtown east....*avoid stare*
-
in the first place, as i said, in this mordern world, its not the size that matters anymore, dun u guys understand? look at the gulf war. it was finished in a matter of weeks with the UN airforce. already, our airforce and navy easily dwarfs that of malaysia and indonesia combined. when war comes, its no longer what Truman said "how many divisions have you?" its "how many missiles have you? how powerful are they?"
the very reason why malaysia still bothers to sell us water and indonesia doesnt bother us is because of our war capacity. look at history. the indonesian commando-cum-terroirsts? the time malaysia almost went to war with indonesia last year? how much more with us the moment they see our forces are weak! the ASEAN isnt a back-up card ppl, look at her members! all smiling islamic faces, underneath all eager to see singapore go down and become islamic like them.
we can scrap NS like u ask, but then what? u defend? u know how to use a gun? ok, maybe the def budget is too high, but if PAP cuts it by half like u say, i tell u, singapore will be attacked the verry next day.
dun try using the UNO either. the US is on the other side of the world, and history has shown us so many times how in competent the UNO has been.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Nice. In fact Lockheed martin already has something in the market called "hulc".
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/hulc/index.html
Don't know why soldiers should be carrying 100 kg weights. Soldiers shouldn't be bogged down with too much gear unless its body armour.
As usual, such devices are generally prohibitively expensive. Can probably buy a few 3 tonner for every hulc.
Nice suite but still not as advanced as what i thoughtkekekeke...think nia
still, it is a basic platform for advanced suites
for portability, it is best if packed into a suitcase
for highly destructive weapons, provide modular attachments that can be sent via air drops