Discussion:
STS : You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
(too old to reply)
Bad Boy
2004-04-17 21:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?

If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.

It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.

No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.

Bad boy.
Anyway, I looked at him incredously and burst out laughing... and told
him, all Malaysia needs is to land one, just one missile inside the
red-dot... and half the nation is GONE!!
This is a 'country' that an airplane comes into land, even with the
landing gear out, it's still in Malaysian territory...
This is a 'country' that can put-up two mobile communication towers (for
redundancy) and have "Nationwide coverage"...
This is a 'country' that is a red-dot that if you organize a marathon
race, the route will have covered the nation...
Ha, ha, ha...
thanks.
From Singapore Straits Times
16 April 2004
You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
By Anthony Paul
SINGAPORE has a poorly kept military secret, if the city's taxi
drivers, who often double as driving-seat generals, are to be
believed. A visitor taking a taxi from Changi Airport will sometimes
be told the inside story.
About three minutes past the 'Welcome to Singapore' sign and tree
cover, the road suddenly becomes a perfectly straight stretch of
several kilometres. In the median strip to your right, low shrubs in
large pots have replaced the trees.
If war threatens, you're told, Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel
will descend and drag those pots clear.
The squads will simultaneously topple palm trees lining the road and
dismantle a parallel line of lamp-posts. Within minutes, Changi will
have an additional runway for SAF jets.
Foreign Policy magazine's annual globalisation index recently named
Singapore Asia's most globalised country - the most open to visitors,
trade and capital flow. But this openness obscures another of the
city-state's distinctions - Singapore is one of the world's
best-prepared fortresses.
Defence spending per capita compares with such places as Israel and
Kuwait. Sudden mobilisations periodically prove Singapore's claim that
at the press of a button, the SAF can field more than a quarter of a
million men within hours. As British defence specialist Tim Huxley has
written in Defending The Lion City, Singapore is 'probably the most
densely defended state in the world'.
Why so much defence for such a small state?
One obvious response is the island's strategic position, on the main
route for vast East Asia-Europe sea traffic.
But another compelling reason is this unusual state's ambition.
Within 10 years, says Asian Demographics, a marketing consultancy, the
republic can expect to be Asia's second-richest nation, with a gross
domestic product per capita of US$35,020 (S$58,900). (Other forecasts
for year 2013: Japan, US$38,987; Hong Kong, US$29,902; Australia,
US$22,961; Malaysia, US$5,394.)
To sustain the growth rate needed, Singapore must continue attracting
investment and skilled immigrants. Unfortunately, Singapore is 'a fine
place in a lousy neighbourhood', said a former DBS Bank economist.
'Though there are no immediate threats, being seen to be able to
defend ourselves against any bully is important to investors.'
Threat perceptions in Singapore include Malaysia, Indonesia and,
lately, terrorists. Further complicating defence issues are those two
larger neighbours' Chinese minorities. They tend to look upon
predominantly Chinese Singapore as an ultimate refuge.
When mobs began rampaging through Indonesia's Chinese communities in
1998, Singapore feared it might become the destination for literally
hundreds of thousands of Sino-Indonesians. The threat failed to
materialise, but not before the SAF began extensive preparations to
ward off any unacceptably large influx.
Meantime, Singapore continues its up-and-down relationship with
Malaysia, which supplies close to half the island's water. Singapore's
resultant sensitivity about water security is evident in a passage in
From Third World To First, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs.
In a blunt conversation with then Malaysian prime minister Mahathir
Mohamad, Mr Lee noted that Malaysia had guaranteed Singapore's water
supply. But if that guarantee were ever breached in 'a random act of
madness', he told Dr Mahathir, 'we would have to go in, forcibly if
need be, to restore the water flow'.
Prospects of such an armed conflict are extremely remote. But this
past weekend, war caught my attention - dramatic TV reports from Iraq
and a Sunday Times article on Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's concept
of 'the new type of soldier needed by the 'third-generation SAF' '.
Later in the morning, I visited the Fort Canning bunker. In the fort
commander's conference room, I watched wax images of British generals
re-enacting Singapore's 1942 surrender to the Japanese as the island
ran out of water and fuel.
I asked myself: For all Singapore's chutzpah, what really would be the
SAF's chances if war came?
Though clearly impressed by the SAF, author Huxley judges it to be
largely a citizen force, 'dependent for its personnel on essentially
acquiescent rather than enthusiastic conscripts and reservists'. The
fact that they have never been battle-tested, says Mr Huxley, leaves
us with the question: Are SAF personnel really warriors - or just
bureaucrats in uniform?
We won't really know until there really is a war.
But as a former war correspondent (Indochina, the Soviet-Afghan war),
Motivation in combat: The slogan of the US Military Academy at West
Point is 'Duty, Honour, Country'. The word sequence, with 'duty'
first, wasn't chosen idly. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed the
main source of battlefield courage was not so much the official
propaganda ('save the world from communism') or even patriotism. It
was duty to closest comrades, beginning with the squad and platoon.
SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know
of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the
same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve
unit.
What I saw in Vietnam leaves me with no doubt that duty to comrades
who are also their close friends will make their unit more than
formidable under fire.
Combat history: Happily brief. But it may be worth noting in the SAF's
only combat to date - the storming of a hijacked airliner at Changi in
1991 - its well-trained commandos shot dead all four Pakistani
terrorists within 30 seconds of entering the passenger cabin.
If I were someone looking for a serious fight with Singapore, I'd
ponder the two points above. The SAF gives the impression that it
would indeed be madness to test its preparedness.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
dexter
2004-04-18 00:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Yes, SAF will inflict maximum damage to any invader.
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Bad boy.
Anyway, I looked at him incredously and burst out laughing... and told
him, all Malaysia needs is to land one, just one missile inside the
red-dot... and half the nation is GONE!!
This is a 'country' that an airplane comes into land, even with the
landing gear out, it's still in Malaysian territory...
This is a 'country' that can put-up two mobile communication towers (for
redundancy) and have "Nationwide coverage"...
This is a 'country' that is a red-dot that if you organize a marathon
race, the route will have covered the nation...
Ha, ha, ha...
thanks.
From Singapore Straits Times
16 April 2004
You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
By Anthony Paul
SINGAPORE has a poorly kept military secret, if the city's taxi
drivers, who often double as driving-seat generals, are to be
believed. A visitor taking a taxi from Changi Airport will sometimes
be told the inside story.
About three minutes past the 'Welcome to Singapore' sign and tree
cover, the road suddenly becomes a perfectly straight stretch of
several kilometres. In the median strip to your right, low shrubs in
large pots have replaced the trees.
If war threatens, you're told, Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel
will descend and drag those pots clear.
The squads will simultaneously topple palm trees lining the road and
dismantle a parallel line of lamp-posts. Within minutes, Changi will
have an additional runway for SAF jets.
Foreign Policy magazine's annual globalisation index recently named
Singapore Asia's most globalised country - the most open to visitors,
trade and capital flow. But this openness obscures another of the
city-state's distinctions - Singapore is one of the world's
best-prepared fortresses.
Defence spending per capita compares with such places as Israel and
Kuwait. Sudden mobilisations periodically prove Singapore's claim that
at the press of a button, the SAF can field more than a quarter of a
million men within hours. As British defence specialist Tim Huxley has
written in Defending The Lion City, Singapore is 'probably the most
densely defended state in the world'.
Why so much defence for such a small state?
One obvious response is the island's strategic position, on the main
route for vast East Asia-Europe sea traffic.
But another compelling reason is this unusual state's ambition.
Within 10 years, says Asian Demographics, a marketing consultancy, the
republic can expect to be Asia's second-richest nation, with a gross
domestic product per capita of US$35,020 (S$58,900). (Other forecasts
for year 2013: Japan, US$38,987; Hong Kong, US$29,902; Australia,
US$22,961; Malaysia, US$5,394.)
To sustain the growth rate needed, Singapore must continue attracting
investment and skilled immigrants. Unfortunately, Singapore is 'a fine
place in a lousy neighbourhood', said a former DBS Bank economist.
'Though there are no immediate threats, being seen to be able to
defend ourselves against any bully is important to investors.'
Threat perceptions in Singapore include Malaysia, Indonesia and,
lately, terrorists. Further complicating defence issues are those two
larger neighbours' Chinese minorities. They tend to look upon
predominantly Chinese Singapore as an ultimate refuge.
When mobs began rampaging through Indonesia's Chinese communities in
1998, Singapore feared it might become the destination for literally
hundreds of thousands of Sino-Indonesians. The threat failed to
materialise, but not before the SAF began extensive preparations to
ward off any unacceptably large influx.
Meantime, Singapore continues its up-and-down relationship with
Malaysia, which supplies close to half the island's water. Singapore's
resultant sensitivity about water security is evident in a passage in
From Third World To First, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs.
In a blunt conversation with then Malaysian prime minister Mahathir
Mohamad, Mr Lee noted that Malaysia had guaranteed Singapore's water
supply. But if that guarantee were ever breached in 'a random act of
madness', he told Dr Mahathir, 'we would have to go in, forcibly if
need be, to restore the water flow'.
Prospects of such an armed conflict are extremely remote. But this
past weekend, war caught my attention - dramatic TV reports from Iraq
and a Sunday Times article on Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's concept
of 'the new type of soldier needed by the 'third-generation SAF' '.
Later in the morning, I visited the Fort Canning bunker. In the fort
commander's conference room, I watched wax images of British generals
re-enacting Singapore's 1942 surrender to the Japanese as the island
ran out of water and fuel.
I asked myself: For all Singapore's chutzpah, what really would be the
SAF's chances if war came?
Though clearly impressed by the SAF, author Huxley judges it to be
largely a citizen force, 'dependent for its personnel on essentially
acquiescent rather than enthusiastic conscripts and reservists'. The
fact that they have never been battle-tested, says Mr Huxley, leaves
us with the question: Are SAF personnel really warriors - or just
bureaucrats in uniform?
We won't really know until there really is a war.
But as a former war correspondent (Indochina, the Soviet-Afghan war),
Motivation in combat: The slogan of the US Military Academy at West
Point is 'Duty, Honour, Country'. The word sequence, with 'duty'
first, wasn't chosen idly. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed the
main source of battlefield courage was not so much the official
propaganda ('save the world from communism') or even patriotism. It
was duty to closest comrades, beginning with the squad and platoon.
SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know
of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the
same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve
unit.
What I saw in Vietnam leaves me with no doubt that duty to comrades
who are also their close friends will make their unit more than
formidable under fire.
Combat history: Happily brief. But it may be worth noting in the SAF's
only combat to date - the storming of a hijacked airliner at Changi in
1991 - its well-trained commandos shot dead all four Pakistani
terrorists within 30 seconds of entering the passenger cabin.
If I were someone looking for a serious fight with Singapore, I'd
ponder the two points above. The SAF gives the impression that it
would indeed be madness to test its preparedness.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Darth BiRdYz
2004-04-18 06:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by dexter
Yes, SAF will inflict maximum damage to any invader.
Which service in the SAF do you serve in, little boy?
Tweety Soul³
2004-04-19 01:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darth BiRdYz
Post by dexter
Yes, SAF will inflict maximum damage to any invader.
Which service in the SAF do you serve in, little boy?
He serve in your mother's bedroom at night!
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-18 03:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
They have to cross the causeway first. Can they do it in a few hours?
Post by Bad Boy
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
There is no point in attacking Singapore, it is baren and devoid of anything
worthwhile. Just deny it water, it will die by itself.

The trick is to defend against these greedy war mongers, who steal from the
resource rich region of south east asia in order to survive.
Post by Bad Boy
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Threatening to invade the neighboring countries is not a sign of friendliness.
Malaysia should stop subsidising civilian car factories, and divert these
subsidies into war factories, like Singapore. Thankfully Malaysia is beginning
to do this but reluctantly. Too peaceful you know. Unlike the war mongering
and greedy Singapore.
Bad Boy
2004-04-18 06:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
They have to cross the causeway first.
You think so ?
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Can they do it in a few hours?
More than enough.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Bad Boy
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
There is no point in attacking Singapore, it is baren and devoid of anything
worthwhile.
Good. Then don't send missile to attack Singapore.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Just deny it water, it will die by itself.
We will have all the water we need.
Malaysia has to honour its part of the water agreement.
Cutting off water supply before its expiry is an act of
war.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
The trick is to defend against these greedy war mongers, who steal from the
resource rich region of south east asia in order to survive.
You are incoherent and illogical.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Post by Bad Boy
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Threatening to invade the neighboring countries is not a sign of friendliness.
Yes. Threatening to sent missile to destroy half of
Singapore is not friendly at all.
Telling everyone about the consequences of sending
missile to attack Singapore is NOT making threat
against anyone.
When attacked, one has the right to respond, and
respond with vigour. I am merely stating a fact, not
making threats.

If you cannot understand the difference, blame
your lack of intellectual ability.
Post by Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
Malaysia should stop subsidising civilian car factories, and divert these
subsidies into war factories, like Singapore. Thankfully Malaysia is beginning
to do this but reluctantly. Too peaceful you know. Unlike the war mongering
and greedy Singapore.
Malaysia is free to spend money on 'defence', or whatever
means it can find to enrich the corrupt officials.
If Malaysia was able to get rid of corruption, its armed
forces would be a creditable fighting force.
Unfortunately, defence money is not used to strengthen
the armed forces but to line the bottomless pockets of officials.

Bad boy.
raptor
2004-04-18 08:26:45 UTC
Permalink
only give more tips to taxi drivers and the enemies can invade the island
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Bad boy.
Anyway, I looked at him incredously and burst out laughing... and told
him, all Malaysia needs is to land one, just one missile inside the
red-dot... and half the nation is GONE!!
This is a 'country' that an airplane comes into land, even with the
landing gear out, it's still in Malaysian territory...
This is a 'country' that can put-up two mobile communication towers (for
redundancy) and have "Nationwide coverage"...
This is a 'country' that is a red-dot that if you organize a marathon
race, the route will have covered the nation...
Ha, ha, ha...
thanks.
From Singapore Straits Times
16 April 2004
You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
By Anthony Paul
SINGAPORE has a poorly kept military secret, if the city's taxi
drivers, who often double as driving-seat generals, are to be
believed. A visitor taking a taxi from Changi Airport will sometimes
be told the inside story.
About three minutes past the 'Welcome to Singapore' sign and tree
cover, the road suddenly becomes a perfectly straight stretch of
several kilometres. In the median strip to your right, low shrubs in
large pots have replaced the trees.
If war threatens, you're told, Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel
will descend and drag those pots clear.
The squads will simultaneously topple palm trees lining the road and
dismantle a parallel line of lamp-posts. Within minutes, Changi will
have an additional runway for SAF jets.
Foreign Policy magazine's annual globalisation index recently named
Singapore Asia's most globalised country - the most open to visitors,
trade and capital flow. But this openness obscures another of the
city-state's distinctions - Singapore is one of the world's
best-prepared fortresses.
Defence spending per capita compares with such places as Israel and
Kuwait. Sudden mobilisations periodically prove Singapore's claim that
at the press of a button, the SAF can field more than a quarter of a
million men within hours. As British defence specialist Tim Huxley has
written in Defending The Lion City, Singapore is 'probably the most
densely defended state in the world'.
Why so much defence for such a small state?
One obvious response is the island's strategic position, on the main
route for vast East Asia-Europe sea traffic.
But another compelling reason is this unusual state's ambition.
Within 10 years, says Asian Demographics, a marketing consultancy, the
republic can expect to be Asia's second-richest nation, with a gross
domestic product per capita of US$35,020 (S$58,900). (Other forecasts
for year 2013: Japan, US$38,987; Hong Kong, US$29,902; Australia,
US$22,961; Malaysia, US$5,394.)
To sustain the growth rate needed, Singapore must continue attracting
investment and skilled immigrants. Unfortunately, Singapore is 'a fine
place in a lousy neighbourhood', said a former DBS Bank economist.
'Though there are no immediate threats, being seen to be able to
defend ourselves against any bully is important to investors.'
Threat perceptions in Singapore include Malaysia, Indonesia and,
lately, terrorists. Further complicating defence issues are those two
larger neighbours' Chinese minorities. They tend to look upon
predominantly Chinese Singapore as an ultimate refuge.
When mobs began rampaging through Indonesia's Chinese communities in
1998, Singapore feared it might become the destination for literally
hundreds of thousands of Sino-Indonesians. The threat failed to
materialise, but not before the SAF began extensive preparations to
ward off any unacceptably large influx.
Meantime, Singapore continues its up-and-down relationship with
Malaysia, which supplies close to half the island's water. Singapore's
resultant sensitivity about water security is evident in a passage in
From Third World To First, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs.
In a blunt conversation with then Malaysian prime minister Mahathir
Mohamad, Mr Lee noted that Malaysia had guaranteed Singapore's water
supply. But if that guarantee were ever breached in 'a random act of
madness', he told Dr Mahathir, 'we would have to go in, forcibly if
need be, to restore the water flow'.
Prospects of such an armed conflict are extremely remote. But this
past weekend, war caught my attention - dramatic TV reports from Iraq
and a Sunday Times article on Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's concept
of 'the new type of soldier needed by the 'third-generation SAF' '.
Later in the morning, I visited the Fort Canning bunker. In the fort
commander's conference room, I watched wax images of British generals
re-enacting Singapore's 1942 surrender to the Japanese as the island
ran out of water and fuel.
I asked myself: For all Singapore's chutzpah, what really would be the
SAF's chances if war came?
Though clearly impressed by the SAF, author Huxley judges it to be
largely a citizen force, 'dependent for its personnel on essentially
acquiescent rather than enthusiastic conscripts and reservists'. The
fact that they have never been battle-tested, says Mr Huxley, leaves
us with the question: Are SAF personnel really warriors - or just
bureaucrats in uniform?
We won't really know until there really is a war.
But as a former war correspondent (Indochina, the Soviet-Afghan war),
Motivation in combat: The slogan of the US Military Academy at West
Point is 'Duty, Honour, Country'. The word sequence, with 'duty'
first, wasn't chosen idly. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed the
main source of battlefield courage was not so much the official
propaganda ('save the world from communism') or even patriotism. It
was duty to closest comrades, beginning with the squad and platoon.
SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know
of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the
same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve
unit.
What I saw in Vietnam leaves me with no doubt that duty to comrades
who are also their close friends will make their unit more than
formidable under fire.
Combat history: Happily brief. But it may be worth noting in the SAF's
only combat to date - the storming of a hijacked airliner at Changi in
1991 - its well-trained commandos shot dead all four Pakistani
terrorists within 30 seconds of entering the passenger cabin.
If I were someone looking for a serious fight with Singapore, I'd
ponder the two points above. The SAF gives the impression that it
would indeed be madness to test its preparedness.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
ignoramus
2004-04-18 14:18:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 05:27:31 +0800, "Bad Boy"
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
If Singapore is attacked and it doesn't necessarily has to be
Malaysia, it would not be because of her riches. It has to be
something else. If you don't know, I suggest you go take a look in
the mirror.

Besides, it is near impossible for an invading country to hold on to
the riches of its conquest these days. Even if it could, it would
probably be at a nett loss.
Post by Bad Boy
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Really? We don't feel it.
michael
2004-04-19 05:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Bad boy.
[deleted]

If ever there were a war between Malaysia and Singapore,
many Chinese in these 2 areas would emigrate en masse.

It is impossible for the majority in Singapore to survive
under an extremely hostile environment.
Her people are not Israelites.
This is not their god given land.

In the long run, the Malays will be the winner because
economics and demography will dictate so.

Deterrent is important.
However, the moment war breaks out,
Singapore may win all the battles but
loses the war.

regards,
michael ... ***@afn.org
Tuckfook
2004-04-19 09:03:37 UTC
Permalink
There will never be a war between Malaysia and Singapore. It would never be
allowed to get that far.

Before all that happens, if necessary, Malaysia would try to strangle all
the shipping lanes thereby isolating Singapore from the sea.

Before it is even suspected, Malaysia would poison all the water into
Singapore, not to death but to become incapable of hostile action.

Even well before that, Malaysian "spies" would infiltrate the Singapore
government and if necessary sabotage projects as and when they like.

Just a simple outline of action before all out action !

It can never go to all out war.

So everyone, KILL THIS THREAD, it's a waste of bandwidth and expanding the
ozone layer.
michael
2004-04-19 10:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tuckfook
There will never be a war between Malaysia and Singapore. It would never be
allowed to get that far.
Before all that happens, if necessary, Malaysia would try to strangle all
the shipping lanes thereby isolating Singapore from the sea.
How?
The Singaporeans have a military capability bigger and stronger than ours.
Post by Tuckfook
Before it is even suspected, Malaysia would poison all the water into
Singapore, not to death but to become incapable of hostile action.
How ?
Singapore runs their water plant in Johore.
Post by Tuckfook
Even well before that, Malaysian "spies" would infiltrate the Singapore
government and if necessary sabotage projects as and when they like.
LOL.

regards,
Post by Tuckfook
Just a simple outline of action before all out action !
It can never go to all out war.
So everyone, KILL THIS THREAD, it's a waste of bandwidth and expanding the
ozone layer.
Dave Baker
2004-04-19 10:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tuckfook
Even well before that, Malaysian "spies" would infiltrate the Singapore
government and if necessary sabotage projects as and when they like.
LOL.
One never knows - these spies have had plenty of practice in Malaysia! :-)

Dave

The email address used for sending these postings is not valid.
All replies to the group please.
Bad Boy
2004-04-19 12:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by michael
Post by Bad Boy
Only if the Malaysian missile is carrying a nuclear warhead.
Would Malaysia want to start a nuclear war ?
If it was carrying a conventional war head, then it is possible
that in a few hours half of the Malaysian peninsula will be
overrun by half a million highly trained troops from Singapore.
It is wrong to think that Singapore is a weak small red dot,
a fortress of riches to be attacked and plundered.
No. Singapore is a giant, a professional army in civilian cloth.
Singapore is deadly but friendly. Very deadly to its enemy
but friendly to its peaceful neighbours.
Bad boy.
[deleted]
If ever there were a war between Malaysia and Singapore,
many Chinese in these 2 areas would emigrate en masse.
It is impossible for the majority in Singapore to survive
under an extremely hostile environment.
Her people are not Israelites.
This is not their god given land.
In the long run, the Malays will be the winner because
economics and demography will dictate so.
Deterrent is important.
However, the moment war breaks out,
Singapore may win all the battles but
loses the war.
Very sensible posting.

Fights between brothers are never good.
Both parties will have a lot to lose, will have
to endure inhuman sufferings like those warring
nations in Africa, and have absolutely nothing to gain.

It is an idiot who would think that a missile will
destroy half of Singapore.

It is better to think positive, say on how can both
countries cooperate to improve the lives
of Malaysian and Singaporean.

Bad boy.
Post by michael
regards,
Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad
2004-04-20 04:13:44 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by michael
Deterrent is important.
However, the moment war breaks out,
Singapore may win all the battles but
loses the war.
Many thanks, Michael. We need this.
Post by michael
regards,
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...