Malaysia to choose F16 or Mig29
Othman Ahmad
Singapore wants some more F16, I heard vaguely on SBC(Singapore).
IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot of
accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will save
us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still bargain!
Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft.
I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the latest.
I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-down
radar which is better than F16(?).
Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet missiles,
or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It can
only carry bombs.
The advantage of F16 is in the Sidewinder missiles. But those missiles
are found in F5, hawks, and the other one( that keeps on falling down).
Surely we can put them on the Mig 29, after all sidewinder is smart, we do not
have to aim so accurately. Just fire!
These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
or "rough" technicians.
If Malaysia were to buy those VTOL harriers, at least 2, then we
will have even better air displays. Hopefully they will last until 2020.
How about Singaore? Why wont you buy the F15s?
--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
Bin Ong
>USA offers Malaysia 30 F16 at discount prices.
>Singapore wants some more F16, I heard vaguely on SBC(Singapore).
>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the latest.
>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-down
>radar which is better than F16(?).
> The advantage of F16 is in the Sidewinder missiles. But those missiles
>are found in F5, hawks, and the other one( that keeps on falling down).
>Surely we can put them on the Mig 29, after all sidewinder is smart, we do not
>have to aim so accurately. Just fire!
Not having read any recent updates on the capability, the advantages (re:
robustness, armament, electronics, etc) of the Mig29 vs F16 is more
academic than military. Intelligence grapevine is that Russian electronics
are couple yrs behind US :-). Butr I still think the advantage of the
F16 is that, it is battle-tested, proven, and decorated, while the Mig29...
???? Of course, hardware used against the F16 were mainly Russian-origin...
so maybe that don't really prove that the F16 is superior...
As for Sinapore buying more F16s, there was a recent article in the
Straits Times (o/s ed.) reporting that Singapoore will lease some from
the USAF for trg purpose, and later purchase new ones when they are
off the assembly line. Since both the US and Singapore had not publicly
published the type of electronics on Singapore's F16s, well, maybe
our F16s aren't top-of-the-line... :-(
>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
>or "rough" technicians.
> If Malaysia were to buy those VTOL harriers, at least 2, then we
>will have even better air displays. Hopefully they will last until 2020.
Beauty does not win wars, which I think is why you want these expensive
aircraft. Otherwise I think model planes, even remote-control ones
are certainly more economical.... and within reach of lotsa more people..:-)
>How about Singaore? Why wont you buy the F15s?
Really.. if we bought them, I wonder if M'sia wouldn't buy Mig31s...
Just kidding; we don't need 2 engines to get our butt in the air, and
scare intruders off anyway... if you are any good, any ol' plane would
do, really...
>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Bin Ong
Univ of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had to buy discounted products, you should really look for
alternatives............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sofjan mustopoh
g (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>USA offers Malaysia 30 F16 at discount prices.
>Singapore wants some more F16, I heard vaguely on SBC(Singapore).
>
>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
>
>Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot of
>accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will save
>us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still bargai
> Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft.
>
>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the la
>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-
>radar which is better than F16(?).
> Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
>armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet miss
>or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It
>only carry bombs.
> The advantage of F16 is in the Sidewinder missiles. But those missiles
>are found in F5, hawks, and the other one( that keeps on falling down).
>Surely we can put them on the Mig 29, after all sidewinder is smart, we
>have to aim so accurately. Just fire!
>
>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even t
>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially un
>or "rough" technicians.
> If Malaysia were to buy those VTOL harriers, at least 2, then we
>will have even better air displays. Hopefully they will last until 2020.
>
>How about Singaore? Why wont you buy the F15s?
>
>
>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
>
F15 and Mig 29 are in different class than F16, Both F15 and Mig 29
are air superiority fighter, and F16 fighter bomber more or less general
purpose.
Israel use 6 F16 as bomber and 6 F15 as their escort during the
bombing of Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor .
During Desert Shield and Desert Storm there are report of crack in
the F16 wing ,in a hard usage. ( Lots of hard G's manuver in a sustain
condition). F16 are design to be so manuverable and with all the engine
upgrade, F16 can exert G's more than either its frame or pilots can bear.
F15 however are the one that shot down Iraqi airplane that are brave
to take off. Even Saudi Arabia desert storm ace who shot down 2 Iraqi
migs use F15.
Mig29 however are not tested in the battle field yet, But boy o boy
that plane really can manuver, it can do back slide , Cobra.
Back slide = go straight up lower the power the plane slide down backward
cobra = point the plane nose up but the plane still move horizontally.
In need of cold cash maybe Republic of independent state (Former
Soviet union ) might offer Mig29 at bargain
Speaking about Sidewinder .It is not a real fire and forget missile
you still need avionic electronics in the plane to lock the target first
if i'm not mistaken.
But all of the above plane will be of no use if the country don't
have tracking and radar , at least a Hawkeye or AWACS. Iraqi in
Desert Storm have their radar shot to pieces thus have severe handicap
for their pilots. Allied force however have full advantage of Radar
AWACS . So sheer number of plane is useless. :)
Muskie
Sofjan Mustopoh
UK0...@ukpr.uky.edu
UK0...@mik.uky.edu
--
Sofjan Mustopoh
UK07802
" Better soon Than late "
Siong Heng Chan
>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
First of all, do you know that the Mig 29 plane is actually an old design?
Well, when I was younger, I was really interested in aeroplanes be it
commercial of fighters so I collected everything I could find on planes.
In one of the Airplane magazine (one of the 1990 issues), I found out that
the Mig 29 wasn't living up to my expectation. The first time the aircraft
was fully surveyed (the US had this chance when a Russian pilot defected to
the west via Japan in the 60's or 70's) it was found that the Mig 20 is
actually designed in the 50's. A lot of its equipments were out dated.
It is also found that the aircraft is not agile at all so it is almost
useless in dogfight. The only advantage the Mig 29 has is that it is
really fast, one of the fastest actually. Other than its speed, it is
certainly not in the class with many of the US fighters. It's only
mission is to locate target from long distance, fire hoping that the target
will be shot and turn back.
>Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot of
>accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will save
>us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still bargain!
> Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft.
Basically, there is nothing wrong with singled engined planes. The only
problem our airforce has is that the F5s are old! Malaysia made a BIG
Mistake when she bought the F5s. The F5s were actually used by the US
during the Vietnam war. One thing I don't understand is why in the world
did the Malaysian Government buy such an old batch of planes and almost
condemned by the US??????
>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the latest.
>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-down
>radar which is better than F16(?).
The above is crap! As I have said before, the Mig 29 design is OLD!
One more thing, their radars are the worst characteristic of the Mig 29.
Their radar is also following the design of the 50's. It is bulky, heavy
and generates a lot of heat. They aren't that powerful either
.
> Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
>armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet missiles,
>or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It can
>only carry bombs.
Of course the Mig 29 carries long range missiles. It just shoots them at long
distance and run. Certainly the F16s has more advantages.
>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
>or "rough" technicians.
Hey, Othman, we don't need to show off here. I feel our beloved country has
put in enough in their defence buget. The money would be better spent if it
were used in education and industry.
By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up? We Malaysians are peace
loving people. We are not going to have wars with everybody.
Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same class
as Othman here. We are all peace loving people. We DON'T LIKE WARS.
I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
Siong, Cmpt Sci, SFU.
ta...@isuvax.iastate.edu
>USA offers Malaysia 30 F16 at discount prices.
>Singapore wants some more F16, I heard vaguely on SBC(Singapore).
Instead of the discount, could we get one of those American made nuclear power
submarine that carries two dozens multiple war heads sea-launched nuclear
missiles as bonus. Now that certainly make Indonesia think twice before they
go shopping for their flying garbage cans(Scud).
ps. A life time supply of nuclear fuel for the submarine as extra bonus,
please Mr. President.
pss. Now I really get the true pix of George Bush's "thousand points of lite"
and truely understand what Bush meant by New World ORDER.
>
[Nuked Othman's craps about F16 and Mig 29 and machines of war]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Chong Siak Iowa State University Ames Iowa ta...@iastate.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Marvin Tay Eng Sin
>How about Singapore? Why wont you buy the F15s?
Do they come with Weekend COE's?
-Reg
(cleverly disguised as ma...@iti.gov.sg)
--
---
Marvin Tay Information Technology Institute Internet: ma...@iti.gov.sg
Computer National Computer Board Bitnet : MarvinTay@ITIVAX
and Comms Lab. 71 Science Park,Singapore (0511) Tel (O) :(65)-7720901
DanC
>USA offers Malaysia 30 F16 at discount prices.
Sometimes I wonder why Malaysia bothers spending money on $$$ military
gear when over 15% of the population is illiterate. Then there is the
"we have to use our natural resources to feed hungry mouths" thing.
I am sure the cost of 30 F16s will feed every hungry mouth in Malaysia
and will still have enough money left to be channeled into economic
development (such as education).
Oh well, I goofed - we are afraid of attacks from Singapore and
Indonesia, aren't we?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Chuah, BE (Elec) | "One Country, | The gunners: league
Te Whare Wananga O Waitaha | One People." - | champs 1992-1993!
Aotearoa. | Maori proverb. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pencangkul Matahari" email: ch...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Mig29 however are not tested in the battle field yet, But boy o boy
: that plane really can manuver, it can do back slide , Cobra.
: Back slide = go straight up lower the power the plane slide down backward
: cobra = point the plane nose up but the plane still move horizontally.
Interview with Non Eastern Bloc pilots who were invited to fly the Mig29
shows that that a/c is poor in human engineering. The pilot has to spend
lot of time struggle with the controls thus divert some of the attention
the pilot needs for target engagement.
:
: Speaking about Sidewinder .It is not a real fire and forget missile
: you still need avionic electronics in the plane to lock the target first
: if i'm not mistaken.
:
During the target acquisition phase, the missile gyro is slave to the
a/c's gyro. Once the pilot aligned his a/c to the target, the pilot
uncage the missile's gyro (so call lock-on) and the missile is ready
is guide itself base on the information gathered on it IR seeker.
: But all of the above plane will be of no use if the country don't
: have tracking and radar , at least a Hawkeye or AWACS. Iraqi in
: Desert Storm have their radar shot to pieces thus have severe handicap
: for their pilots. Allied force however have full advantage of Radar
: AWACS . So sheer number of plane is useless. :)
A very good example is the Israel and Syria air war (over the Barkca valley?)
where the israeli scored a 62-0 victory over the syrian Migs. One of
the decisive factor was that israel was able to jam the syrian Migs
radar using the Hawkeye and vector their own fighter in to do the
actual kill. One source said that the syrian fighter radar was jammed
the moment that a/c lift-off from the runway. So the pilot is as good as
blind (for me I'll rather pull the 0-0 seat level at the end of the runway :-)
In modern air war where fighting begins BVR (Beyond Visual Range), better
standoff capability is the winning edge.
Won Soon
--
VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY \ Internet: engp...@nuscc.nus.sg
Dept of Electrical Engineering \ Bitnet: ENGP...@NUSVM.bitnet
National University of Singapore \ Phone: (+65) 772 6319
10, Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 0511. \______________________________
Othman Ahmad
:
: Not having read any recent updates on the capability, the advantages (re:
: robustness, armament, electronics, etc) of the Mig29 vs F16 is more
: academic than military. Intelligence grapevine is that Russian electronics
: are couple yrs behind US :-). Butr I still think the advantage of the
electronics to Malaysia or even Singapore?
Whereas Russia knows that they are behind so do not mind giving their
best.
: F16 is that, it is battle-tested, proven, and decorated, while the Mig29...
Against tanks and Soviet obsolete bombers? Mig 29 aerodynmaics is even later
than F16 and F15.
: Straits Times (o/s ed.) reporting that Singapoore will lease some from
: the USAF for trg purpose, and later purchase new ones when they are
: off the assembly line. Since both the US and Singapore had not publicly
: published the type of electronics on Singapore's F16s, well, maybe
: our F16s aren't top-of-the-line... :-(
Even the engines may not be the top of the line. Whereas Russia has not such
problem.
I recommend Singapore take a look at Mig29. Howeve because of logistic
problems, maybe it is better to stick to F16, same models(?).
:
: >These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
: >german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
: >Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
: >or "rough" technicians.
: > If Malaysia were to buy those VTOL harriers, at least 2, then we
: >will have even better air displays. Hopefully they will last until 2020.
:
: Beauty does not win wars, which I think is why you want these expensive
: aircraft. Otherwise I think model planes, even remote-control ones
: are certainly more economical.... and within reach of lotsa more people..:-)
Which one you like to watch? Model airplanes or the real ones. I know which one.
The difference is 100 times. When I was a Farnborough, I was so excited.
The feeling was incredible.
After spending so much money, do you want to go to war immediately?
Surely not. Why don't we give it alternative uses? At least it did not waste
public money. How much do you think it costs the public money to conduct those
noise air exercises over NTU here?
It just frightens the children. May break our eardrums as well. Those
A4s are ugly to look at, and they do not do aerobatic flying, just straight
low-leve flying.
Instead of just flying uselessly, why don't they train as well as
entertain. I'm sure simulated dog fights or even simulated bombing runs and
defences againts those bombers are very attractive to watch.
However you must tell the public where it will be conducted and where
to watch, and the time. The place must be safe and good to observe. Across the
sea will be a nice one.
If you do it every week, people and toursits will like it, and do not
complain. You have the best of both worlds.
:
: >How about Singaore? Why wont you buy the F15s?
:
: Really.. if we bought them, I wonder if M'sia wouldn't buy Mig31s...
: Just kidding; we don't need 2 engines to get our butt in the air, and
You should read the articles in sci.military about the survivability of
F18 which has 2 engines even when bombing. The F16 are scared to close on the
targets, just bomb from a far distance.
: scare intruders off anyway... if you are any good, any ol' plane would
: do, really...
Have you heard of the Singapore F16 that crashed, pilot or engineer
error or not, a dual engine will surely help. It crashed because the engine
does not fire. If you have 2, you can still come back even if you make mistakes.
After all, most of the time these planes are use in peace time. The
attrition rate is high if you only have one engine as Malaysia has discovered
with F5 and A4. Malaysian technicians may not be as skilled as other
nations, but that is what we have. We cannot change it.
I pray that Malaysia will buy Mig 29, not for war only, but to save
tax payers money.
Even the perfectionist Singaporean make mistakes, don't they?
--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Othman Ahmad
:
: F15 and Mig 29 are in different class than F16, Both F15 and Mig 29
F15 is also a bomber. It can carry bombs and missiles, as well as those
anti satellite missiles.
: are air superiority fighter, and F16 fighter bomber more or less general
: purpose.
: Israel use 6 F16 as bomber and 6 F15 as their escort during the
F15 is more expensive so not worthwhile to carry bombs that can affect its
performance. Anyway, you always need some specialise escort, because the
F16 carrying bombs have lost their manoevrablility.
: bombing of Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor .
: During Desert Shield and Desert Storm there are report of crack in
: the F16 wing ,in a hard usage. ( Lots of hard G's manuver in a sustain
: condition). F16 are design to be so manuverable and with all the engine
: upgrade, F16 can exert G's more than either its frame or pilots can bear.
Its frame is made of alluminium and therefore heavy and subject to more
fatigue(if I'm still right).
: F15 however are the one that shot down Iraqi airplane that are brave
: to take off. Even Saudi Arabia desert storm ace who shot down 2 Iraqi
: migs use F15.
Using missiles at long range on Iraqi obsolete bombers.
:
: Mig29 however are not tested in the battle field yet, But boy o boy
Iraq never commit any Mig29 in battle, most are shot down on ground and
some escaped to Iran.
: that plane really can manuver, it can do back slide , Cobra.
: Back slide = go straight up lower the power the plane slide down backward
: cobra = point the plane nose up but the plane still move horizontally.
Because of its high power to weight ratio. The F16 is not as high
so cannot do such high angle of attack, in manoevres.
:
: In need of cold cash maybe Republic of independent state (Former
: Soviet union ) might offer Mig29 at bargain
:
: Speaking about Sidewinder .It is not a real fire and forget missile
: you still need avionic electronics in the plane to lock the target first
: if i'm not mistaken.
Maybe you are mistaken. Those are the early sidewinders. Now you can fire
while your enemy plane is approaching you.
Because missiles do not have wings, I doubt they can be as manoevrable
as an aeroplane.
:
: But all of the above plane will be of no use if the country don't
: have tracking and radar , at least a Hawkeye or AWACS. Iraqi in
If you are only defensive and have good fighter planes, you do not need
those radar.
The AWACs are used by an offensive team to detect where the fighters
are to shoot them down, or avoid them from far.
Of couse a defensive team can also use AWACS to determine where the
threats are and how best to allocate resources.
: Desert Storm have their radar shot to pieces thus have severe handicap
: for their pilots. Allied force however have full advantage of Radar
The handicap is severe for the SAM batteries, missiles as well as automatic
guns.
: AWACS . So sheer number of plane is useless. :)
They can just loiter at certain time, I'm sure the americans will come to
them. At least they have to drop their bombs.
If the Iraqis have 200 Mig29s and they commit them,
I'm sure USA will suffer heavy losses,
even if they have AWACs, 400 F16s. The damage to Iraq will not be so severe.
They only have 1 or 2 squadrons of Mig29 and they are stored in hangers.
I'm sure their pilots may not even know how to fly them, efficiently.
They have 200 planes, about 100 Mig21s, which could be deadly if committed,
but they do not even fly. Maybe they were caught on the ground, but that is
no excuse for not putting up a fight.
Maybe they just want to preserve their planes against weaker forces
like Iran.
Othman Ahmad
:
: Interview with Non Eastern Bloc pilots who were invited to fly the Mig29
: shows that that a/c is poor in human engineering. The pilot has to spend
: lot of time struggle with the controls thus divert some of the attention
: the pilot needs for target engagement.
It could be the lack of HUD. If you are new to an aircraft, surely you need
to fiddle more. It reminds me of Mac vs PCs. Once you are an expert, everything
is second nature. You can even judge speed and position from your gut feeling.
If you rely on those instrumentation, it may be too late.
However those Mig29 were old ones. Malaysia could get the latest
version, westernised versions.
: During the target acquisition phase, the missile gyro is slave to the
: a/c's gyro. Once the pilot aligned his a/c to the target, the pilot
: uncage the missile's gyro (so call lock-on) and the missile is ready
: is guide itself base on the information gathered on it IR seeker.
You may be out of date. Those are old sidewinders. The latest one have
fast and wide acquisiton angle. You can fire at an incoming aircraft.
That is the secret success of the Harrier verses the Mirage III of the
Argentinian navy. Of course, the Mirages were heavy with missiles so cannot
manoevre.
:
: A very good example is the Israel and Syria air war (over the Barkca valley?)
: where the israeli scored a 62-0 victory over the syrian Migs. One of
Most of them are bombers. From an analysis of the Syrian Airforce, they
tend to commit their bombers to threats. Having the AWACs helps in identfying
concentration of aircraft and overwhelm them with fighters at your choosing
angle of attack.
: the decisive factor was that israel was able to jam the syrian Migs
: radar using the Hawkeye and vector their own fighter in to do the
: actual kill. One source said that the syrian fighter radar was jammed
: the moment that a/c lift-off from the runway. So the pilot is as good as
: blind (for me I'll rather pull the 0-0 seat level at the end of the runway :-)
It enabled the Israel bombers to escape or jettison their bombs to be turned
into fighters.
I thought that the Arab pilots do not like dog fights, unlike Israel and
US pilots. They may not be well trained. Mig21 can hold its own against F4
phantom in the hands of Vietnamese/Russian pilots.
Their strategy like in Iraq, may be faulty.
: In modern air war where fighting begins BVR (Beyond Visual Range), better
: standoff capability is the winning edge.
I thought infra-red is not BVR. It is most effective in the sidewinders. Bigger
and longer range missiles are less effective against fighters especially
equipped with flares and iron dust.
BVR is mostly used by SAM, but they are not effective. Short range
missiles are better, as well as guns.
BVR was just dreams and I do not think they can ever replace the
manoevrability of fighters, unless the missiles look and behave like tiny
fighters, but it will make them too expensive.
Won-Soon Lau
: engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
: :
: : Interview with Non Eastern Bloc pilots who were invited to fly the Mig29
: : shows that that a/c is poor in human engineering. The pilot has to spend
: : lot of time struggle with the controls thus divert some of the attention
: : the pilot needs for target engagement.
:
: It could be the lack of HUD. If you are new to an aircraft, surely you need
: to fiddle more. It reminds me of Mac vs PCs. Once you are an expert, everything
: is second nature. You can even judge speed and position from your gut feeling.
: If you rely on those instrumentation, it may be too late.
brain-washing to "human" engineer their pilots.
: : During the target acquisition phase, the missile gyro is slave to the
: : a/c's gyro. Once the pilot aligned his a/c to the target, the pilot
: : uncage the missile's gyro (so call lock-on) and the missile is ready
: : is guide itself base on the information gathered on it IR seeker.
:
: You may be out of date. Those are old sidewinders. The latest one have
: fast and wide acquisiton angle. You can fire at an incoming aircraft.
: That is the secret success of the Harrier verses the Mirage III of the
: Argentinian navy. Of course, the Mirages were heavy with missiles so cannot
: manoevre.
I was just explaning the launch sequence. You reminded me that I'm out of
date so I better get my brother to get me this summer's aviation journel.
:
: I thought that the Arab pilots do not like dog fights, unlike Israel and
: US pilots. They may not be well trained. Mig21 can hold its own against F4
: phantom in the hands of Vietnamese/Russian pilots.
A figther pilot cannot say he doesn't like to dog-fight because it is his
job to do so. Dog-fighting is like arts, you need imagination and practice.
Syrian pilots lack either one or both.
:
: I thought infra-red is not BVR. It is most effective in the sidewinders. Bigger
Sidewinder is a close range missile but IR passive detection is not limited
to close range.
-Won Soon
sofjan mustopoh
du writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.1...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>, eoa...@ntuix.ntu.a
.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>>USA offers Malaysia 30 F16 at discount prices.
>>Singapore wants some more F16, I heard vaguely on SBC(Singapore).
>
power
>submarine that carries two dozens multiple war heads sea-launched nuclea
they
>go shopping for their flying garbage cans(Scud).
>
>ps. A life time supply of nuclear fuel for the submarine as extra bonus,
> please Mr. President.
>
>pss. Now I really get the true pix of George Bush's "thousand points of
> and truely understand what Bush meant by New World ORDER.
>>
>[Nuked Othman's craps about F16 and Mig 29 and machines of war]
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Chong Siak Iowa State University Ames Iowa ta...@iastate.edu
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Nuclear submarines ??????
So they can get stuck in Malaka strait ?????
Damnn this is getting serious
Muskie
sofjan mustopoh
writes:
>eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>
>
>>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibre
>>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
>
>First of all, do you know that the Mig 29 plane is actually an old desig
?
>Well, when I was younger, I was really interested in aeroplanes be it
>commercial of fighters so I collected everything I could find on planes.
>In one of the Airplane magazine (one of the 1990 issues), I found out th
t
>the Mig 29 wasn't living up to my expectation. The first time the aircr
ft
>was fully surveyed (the US had this chance when a Russian pilot defected
to
>the west via Japan in the 60's or 70's) it was found that the Mig 20 is
>actually designed in the 50's. A lot of its equipments were out dated.
>It is also found that the aircraft is not agile at all so it is almost
>useless in dogfight. The only advantage the Mig 29 has is that it is
>really fast, one of the fastest actually. Other than its speed, it is
>certainly not in the class with many of the US fighters. It's only
>mission is to locate target from long distance, fire hoping that the tar
et
>will be shot and turn back.
>
>>Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot o
>>accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will sav
>>us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still barga
n!
>> Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft.
>
>Basically, there is nothing wrong with singled engined planes. The only
>problem our airforce has is that the F5s are old! Malaysia made a BIG
>Mistake when she bought the F5s. The F5s were actually used by the US
>during the Vietnam war. One thing I don't understand is why in the worl
>did the Malaysian Government buy such an old batch of planes and almost
>condemned by the US??????
>
>>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the l
test.
>>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look
down
>>radar which is better than F16(?).
>
>The above is crap! As I have said before, the Mig 29 design is OLD!
>One more thing, their radars are the worst characteristic of the Mig 29.
>Their radar is also following the design of the 50's. It is bulky, heav
>and generates a lot of heat. They aren't that powerful either
>.
>> Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
>>armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet mis
iles,
>>or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It
can
>>only carry bombs.
>
>Of course the Mig 29 carries long range missiles. It just shoots them a
long
>distance and run. Certainly the F16s has more advantages.
>
>>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even
he
>>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes
>>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially u
der
>>or "rough" technicians.
>
>Hey, Othman, we don't need to show off here. I feel our beloved country
has
>put in enough in their defence buget. The money would be better spent i
it
>were used in education and industry.
>By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up? We Malaysians are pea
e
>loving people. We are not going to have wars with everybody.
>
>Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same
lass
>as Othman here. We are all peace loving people. We DON'T LIKE WARS.
>I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
>
>
>
>>--
>>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>>Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>>Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
>
>Siong, Cmpt Sci, SFU.
Mig 29 Fastest ?????????? Mig 29 not agile ?????
Mig 29 only zoom to target shoot and run ?????????
Are you talking about Mig 25 Foxbat or Mig 29 ??????
Back up what you said ??????
True Mig 25 the fastest interceptor plane there is Soviet claim
Mach 3.5 but lot of pilot doubt Mig 25 can do it with out destroying
its engine. true Mig 25 are almost a plane that travel straight line.
but Mig 29 ?? Wait a minutes i'll dig my Jane first to find out.
Muskie <Sofjan Mustopoh>
"Just another Indonesian watching Arm race in ASEAN "
sofjan mustopoh
n-Soon Lau) writes:
>sofjan mustopoh (smus...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Mig29 however are not tested in the battle field yet, But boy o b
y
>: that plane really can manuver, it can do back slide , Cobra.
>: Back slide = go straight up lower the power the plane slide down back
>: cobra = point the plane nose up but the plane still move horizontall
.
>
>Interview with Non Eastern Bloc pilots who were invited to fly the Mig29
>shows that that a/c is poor in human engineering. The pilot has to spen
>lot of time struggle with the controls thus divert some of the attention
>the pilot needs for target engagement.
>:
>: Speaking about Sidewinder .It is not a real fire and forget miss
le
>: you still need avionic electronics in the plane to lock the target fi
st
>: if i'm not mistaken.
>:
>During the target acquisition phase, the missile gyro is slave to the
>a/c's gyro. Once the pilot aligned his a/c to the target, the pilot
>uncage the missile's gyro (so call lock-on) and the missile is ready
>is guide itself base on the information gathered on it IR seeker.
>
>: But all of the above plane will be of no use if the country don'
>: have tracking and radar , at least a Hawkeye or AWACS. Iraqi in
>: Desert Storm have their radar shot to pieces thus have severe handica
>: for their pilots. Allied force however have full advantage of Radar
>: AWACS . So sheer number of plane is useless. :)
>
>A very good example is the Israel and Syria air war (over the Barkca val
ey?)
>where the israeli scored a 62-0 victory over the syrian Migs. One of
>the decisive factor was that israel was able to jam the syrian Migs
>radar using the Hawkeye and vector their own fighter in to do the
>actual kill. One source said that the syrian fighter radar was jammed
>the moment that a/c lift-off from the runway. So the pilot is as good a
>blind (for me I'll rather pull the 0-0 seat level at the end of the runw
y :-)
>In modern air war where fighting begins BVR (Beyond Visual Range), bette
>standoff capability is the winning edge.
>
>Won Soon
>--
>VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY \ Internet: engp...@nuscc.nus.sg
>Dept of Electrical Engineering \ Bitnet: ENGP...@NUSVM.bitnet
>National University of Singapore \ Phone: (+65) 772 6319
>10, Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 0511. \______________________________
Thanks For the folow up
Muskie
Smus...@nyx.cs.du.edu
UK0...@ukpr.uky.edu / UK0...@nk.uky.edu
Mike Dickerson
>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
This should probably go to sci.military, but here goes. The situation
is not quite as simple as you state.
First, the F16 is *not* in a class with the Mig23, except in the sense
that a Mig23 is in the same class as a P-51 Mustang. I wouldn't want
to be the Mig23 trying to fight the F16!
The Mig29 has one of the better airframes flying today. It is not a
fly-by-wire system, but is controlled by hydrolics, and manages to do
quite well for it. It is a slightly larger aircraft than the F16 but
no where near as large as the F15 or F14 (the F15 is an air
superiority fighter, the F14 is a naval interceptor that happens to be
able to dogfight reasonably if the need arises, but they are both big
aircraft). But make no mistake, the Mig29 has a great airframe.
The F16 is arguably the best dogfighter in the world today, the Mig29
notwithstanding. Even though the Mig29 has an outstanding airframe,
that does not make the airplane. The F16 has many, many more systems
which increase its combat effectiveness. For example, it can
integrate into other NATO systems such as AWACS (which is a *huge*
advantage), it has an interface which is designed to simplify the job
of the pilot and improve his situational awareness. The westerners
who have flown the Mig29 say that it does very well, but is not quite
as crisp handling as the F16, and it keeps the pilot much busier since
there are fewer electronic systems. It also lacks some of the things
required for good situational awareness in combat.
Then, the F16 is battle proven, while the Mig29 is not. And to your
question of whether Sidewinders can be put on a Mig29, the answer is
"no". The F16 also has significant ground attack capability, which
the Mig29 does not (yet) have, making it a dual role aircraft and
meaning you don't have to buy another aircraft for ground attack.
Granted the Mig29 *looks* cool. But so does the F5, the F15, and the
F22 (not yet available). You don't buy expensive aircraft based on
looks.
Malaysia needs to decide the mission of these aircraft (interception?
air superiority with ground attack capability?) and purchase the best
available plane based on this mission. The F16 is probably the best
choice available today for a lightweight air combat fighter with
ground attack capabilities.
/M
Heng Wei Osbert Tan
> I recommend Singapore take a look at Mig29. Howeve because of logistic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> problems, maybe it is better to stick to F16, same models(?).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Interesting, do you usually talk when you think, even if it's nonsensical ?
> After spending so much money, do you want to go to war immediately?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huh ???? you implicitly suggest that there IS a GOOG time to go to war ??
> Surely not. Why don't we give it alternative uses? At least it did not waste
> public money. How much do you think it costs the public money to conduct those ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> noise air exercises over NTU here?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It just frightens the children. May break our eardrums as well. Those
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> A4s are ugly to look at, and they do not do aerobatic flying, just straight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> low-leve flying.
> Instead of just flying uselessly, why don't they train as well as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> entertain. I'm sure simulated dog fights or even simulated bombing runs and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> defences againts those bombers are very attractive to watch.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> However you must tell the public where it will be conducted and where
> to watch, and the time. The place must be safe and good to observe. Across the
> sea will be a nice one.
> If you do it every week, people and toursits will like it, and do not
> complain. You have the best of both worlds.
Othman, you made my day, bozo couldn't have done it better, really.
I see that your thought process is somewhat different from most people. You
suggested having tourists around to watch air combat maneuver training, and
said that "A-4 scared the chicken" because all they do is "low level flying".
Hmmm...., I was wondering why you didn't suggest to Singapore AirForce to form
a flying circus, so they may earn some money to pay for their own expenses ?
On a second thought, why don't you suggest that to your own government, I am
sure they will appreciate your idea.
Not only you are clueless about what air combat maneuver training is, (dispite
of all those spy novels, and sci.military news group you've subscribed) you're
actually bold enough to post it to the newsgroup, albeit this is not rec.humor.
Have you even talk to any Singaporean, or any knowledge person, perhaps
exchanging views before posting your blurb ? or do you simply sit infront of
your keyboard and hammer out whatever comes first in your mind ?
Btw, if you take a closer at the Singapore aerial map, you will understand why
A-4 "scared the chicken" over NTU, and I didn't even know NTU raises chicken,
Ha Ha Ha ......
> Even the perfectionist Singaporean make mistakes, don't they?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If we missed by 1%, we still come up 99%, can you say the same thing about
others ?
-Osbert
--
_ _
---------------------------------ooo--U--ooo------------------------------------
fel...@cs.utexas.edu Standard disclaimer applies. My opinions are, simply mine.
fel...@natinst.com Down with racism. Down with imperialism.
Othman Ahmad
: First of all, do you know that the Mig 29 plane is actually an old design?
: Well, when I was younger, I was really interested in aeroplanes be it
: commercial of fighters so I collected everything I could find on planes.
: In one of the Airplane magazine (one of the 1990 issues), I found out that
: the Mig 29 wasn't living up to my expectation. The first time the aircraft
: was fully surveyed (the US had this chance when a Russian pilot defected to
: the west via Japan in the 60's or 70's) it was found that the Mig 20 is
: actually designed in the 50's. A lot of its equipments were out dated.
the fastest fighter in the world after 30 years at Mach 3.
It lasts because it uses solid stainless steel for sensitive parts.
:
: Hey, Othman, we don't need to show off here. I feel our beloved country has
: put in enough in their defence buget. The money would be better spent if it
: were used in education and industry.
Whether you like it or not, Malaysian government will spend a few billion
ringgit updating its aircraft. I do not have any say in this.
: By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up? We Malaysians are peace
Just like you when you were young, I love knowing about airplanes. Unlike you,
I have not overgrown that desire. Some younger posters may know more.
: loving people. We are not going to have wars with everybody.
:
: Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same class
: as Othman here. We are all peace loving people. We DON'T LIKE WARS.
: I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
Maybe you just leave the vietnamese and chinese take our oilfields away just
like that.
Or being massacred like the Bosnian muslims.
My opinion about war strategies are entirely differenct and controversial,
as usual. It however solves our education and industry problems at the
same time. Maybe another thread. See you in 2 weeks time.
I'm going back to SABAH to see my family.
Limsoon Wong
Hi:
Please pardon my ignorance, but I am intriqued by the
differences between "interceptor, "air superiority
fighter", and "dog-fighter". Can a kind soul enlighten
me with some explanations? In particular, what does
an "air superiority fighter" do? I can guess the function
of the other two, but this one....
Limsoon Wong.
Kelvin Goh
>si...@fraser.sfu.ca (Siong Heng Chan) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>:
>: By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up? We Malaysians are peace
>Just like you when you were young, I love knowing about airplanes. Unlike you,
>I have not overgrown that desire. Some younger posters may know more.
>: loving people. We are not going to have wars with everybody.
>:
>: Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same class
>: as Othman here. We are all peace loving people. We DON'T LIKE WARS.
>: I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
>Maybe you just leave the vietnamese and chinese take our oilfields away just
>like that.
> Or being massacred like the Bosnian muslims.
Hey ! Chan never mentioned anything about Vietnamese, Chinese or Muslims.
Naughty ! Naughty ! Still the same old Othman.
>My opinion about war strategies are entirely differenct and controversial,
>as usual. It however solves our education and industry problems at the
>same time. Maybe another thread. See you in 2 weeks time.
> I'm going back to SABAH to see my family.
Yipee ! No "Othman-postings" for two weeks but on the other hand, no humor
from him, too ! Pray that your family hasn't disowned you !
>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
Great to be back from a break....
CHEE TAN
>
> Malaysia needs to decide the mission of these aircraft (interception?
> air superiority with ground attack capability?) and purchase the best
> available plane based on this mission. The F16 is probably the best
> ground attack capabilities.
>
You are right ... if only Bush is going to sell M'sia the latest model of
F16, i.e. Model C or D. But I don't think Bush will be so generous ...
base on he only agree to sell Taiwan 150 F16-A/B .. IMO, I don't think
M'sia has any chance to get model C/D at all. Instead to get a second rate
machine (The radar system on model A/B is s**k !!), Mig 29 might be a better
choice.
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Hi:
e.g. F5, Mig-25. A point-interceptor is one which doesn't
has the endurance to loiter in the sky and wait for the
enemy fighter. Russians are good in making them.
air superiority fighter -- fly to the enemy airspace/territory and shoot
down their a/c so as to gain air superiority.
(Dare you take-off or I'll kick your butt out of
the sky).
e.g F15, one model of Tornado.
dog-fighter -- general term for fighter which uses short-range/line-of-sight
weapons (sidewidner, 20mm cannon) to engage enemy fighter.
Itself also has good maneuverability to evade enemy persue.
e.g. F-16, Mig-21
-WS
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Then, the F16 is battle proven, while the Mig29 is not. And to your
: question of whether Sidewinders can be put on a Mig29, the answer is
: "no". The F16 also has significant ground attack capability, which
: the Mig29 does not (yet) have, making it a dual role aircraft and
: meaning you don't have to buy another aircraft for ground attack.
According to my source who specialised in aircraft weapon systems,
sidewinder requires no terminal guidance from the launch aircraft therefore
there is no reason why it cannot be integrated into the Mig29. What is
really needed is to integrate the lock-on signal to the pilot headphone.
Upon hearing the lock-on sound, the pilot simply push the button and
the missile will do the rest of the job.
Pangestu Alim
Singapore, mainly). The actual need for Singapore's defence is better
intelligence. Having such a small landscape, naturally it is relatively easy for
an enemy to blockade her sea route or land route. Thus, she'd better be in the
good side of either Indonesia or Malaysia. Having better intelligence will allow
her to prevent any surprise attack. No matter what anybody may say, a surprise
attack, no matter how superior Singapore military might is, will spell doom for
her. How many chemical bombs (which, I believe Indonesia and Malaysia has the
capability of building) do you think one need to snuff out 90% of Singaporeans
in the middle of the night?
Beng Ting
>
>You are right ... if only Bush is going to sell M'sia the latest model of
>F16, i.e. Model C or D. But I don't think Bush will be so generous ...
Read his lips, no F-16.
Read his leadership, oh boy! He is cheap!!
Five thousand years ago, Moses said:
"Park your camel, pick up your shovel, mount your ass, and
I shall lead you to the Promised Land."
Five thousand years later, Franlin Roosevelt said:
"Lay down your shovel, sit on your ass and
light up a camel: This is the Promised Land."
Today, Bush will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick you
in the ass, and tell you there is no Promised Land.
-Extracted from rec.humor
(w/o permission)
> [stuff deleted]
>
Cheers
------
\\\|||///
. =======
/ \| O O |
\ / \`___'/ Beng-Tak Ting
# _| |_ be...@cae.wisc.edu
(#) ( )
#\//|* *|\\
#\/( * )/ Newton's Law of Selective Gravity
# ===== "All objects must fall so as to do the most damage"
# ( U )
# || ||
.#---'| |`----.
`#----' `-----'
>
>
>
>
>
Won-Soon Lau
: Guys, guys, guys, you are all missing the point (for those speaking of
Having some form of early warning has always been part of Singapore defence
strategy. If you follow Singapore's news closely you would know our defence
outline. We are quite capable to provide surveillance within a 500 km radius.
Mine sweeping and ASW capability has been added recently. Speaking of
surprise attack, the citizen has been participating in the civil defence
training in which they know how to react during emergency. How do you
stage a surprise attack? By air? I can name you two airfields which are
within their combat radius from Singapore. One is located in Kuantan and
the other is somewhere in Sumatra. With these 2 air-fields covered, the
probability becomes very small. Everyone is worry about chemical attack.
And it is perfectly possible that iraqi is the supplier of some of these.
If Israel can provide every citizen with a gas mask do you think we cannot
do so when the situation arises? At any one time, there are 300k to half a
million foreign workers in Singapore. What do you think will the reaction be
from their home country of such an surprise attack? Anyway, I frankly think
that you're new to military operations. You stage an surprise attack to
neutralise the enemy's military power not to use that for man-slaugther.
To sum it all, military defence is just one arm of our Total Defence strategy.
Whatever you think of now is nothing new to our defence strategists.
"Oh shit, that little green man flashing on the TV is going to burn my weekend."
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>Having some form of early warning has always been part of Singapore defence
>strategy. If you follow Singapore's news closely you would know our defence
>outline. We are quite capable to provide surveillance within a 500 km radius.
>Mine sweeping and ASW capability has been added recently. Speaking of
>surprise attack, the citizen has been participating in the civil defence
>training in which they know how to react during emergency. How do you
>stage a surprise attack? By air? I can name you two airfields which are
>within their combat radius from Singapore. One is located in Kuantan and
>the other is somewhere in Sumatra. With these 2 air-fields covered, the
>probability becomes very small. Everyone is worry about chemical attack.
>And it is perfectly possible that iraqi is the supplier of some of these.
>If Israel can provide every citizen with a gas mask do you think we cannot
>do so when the situation arises? At any one time, there are 300k to half a
>million foreign workers in Singapore. What do you think will the reaction be
>from their home country of such an surprise attack? Anyway, I frankly think
>that you're new to military operations. You stage an surprise attack to
>neutralise the enemy's military power not to use that for man-slaugther.
>To sum it all, military defence is just one arm of our Total Defence strategy.
>Whatever you think of now is nothing new to our defence strategists.
The above article just goes to prove how "KIA-SU" Singaporeans are. Tis
funny how Singaporeans have this phobia of being attacked while Malaysians
could care less about doing so. Oi..wake up and smell the teh-o, lahh!!
If y'all get too naughty, we'll just raise the Causeway, and y'all
might just end up neighbours with New Zealand. Kiwipore? Naahhh... ;)
Won-Soon Lau
:
: The above article just goes to prove how "KIA-SU" Singaporeans are. Tis
: funny how Singaporeans have this phobia of being attacked while Malaysians
: could care less about doing so. Oi..wake up and smell the teh-o, lahh!!
: If y'all get too naughty, we'll just raise the Causeway, and y'all
: might just end up neighbours with New Zealand. Kiwipore? Naahhh... ;)
"Kia-Su" you might say, but the older generation of Singaporean learned
their lessons from the Japanese occupation and the Indoneasia-Malaya
confrontation. Where were you then? And now, you are within the
security embrace of America. You couldn't be bother what's happening
at home. If your country is attacked, you'll be given "refugee" status
and continue to drink your teh-o. For your fellow countrymen, they
can alway find a place to hide and food to eat. But what if we're attacked
or our life-line threathened, the possibility is always there, who are we to
become then? Another wave of "boat-people"? Where women get rape by some
fishermen. You might be glad to see that happens but not me and a lot of
other Singaporean.
Andrew, don't be so sure of yourself. With the revival of all these
fundamentalism, do remember where you're from. Hope you'll continue
to enjoy you teh-o.
cia...@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Fainborough (UK). On display are some of the world's most
sophisticated aircrafts.
So why limit your choice to only either the F16 or Mig29? There
are lots of other aircrafts to choose from.
#----------------------------------#-------------------------------------------#
| W.H.Watt # JANET: |
| Dept. of Accounting & Finance # w.h....@uk.ac.strath.vaxa |
| University of Strathclyde # Rest of the World: |
| Glasgow # w.h....@vaxa.strath.ac.uk |
| United Kingdom # |
#----------------------------------#-------------------------------------------#
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>:
>: The above article just goes to prove how "KIA-SU" Singaporeans are. Tis
>: funny how Singaporeans have this phobia of being attacked while Malaysians
>: could care less about doing so. Oi..wake up and smell the teh-o, lahh!!
>: If y'all get too naughty, we'll just raise the Causeway, and y'all
>: might just end up neighbours with New Zealand. Kiwipore? Naahhh... ;)
>:
>"Kia-Su" you might say, but the older generation of Singaporean learned
>their lessons from the Japanese occupation and the Indoneasia-Malaya
>confrontation.
And I say that y'all are still living in the generation of yesteryears.
Please, the situation then and now is completely different. Malaysia has
more to lose than gain by attacking Singapore today. Do you really think
we'll bomb the hell outta Orchard Road when our relatives might happen to be
shopping nearby? Sheeshhh...
>Where were you then? And now, you are within the
>security embrace of America. You couldn't be bother what's happening
>at home.
What I and us, Malaysians, can't be bothered about is attacking Singapore.
Read my lips!!! What has my being in America got to do with anything? I'm
reiterating the fact that people in Malaysia could not care less and y'all
are "kia-su" to death! Besides, talking about the security embrace of
America, isn't that why y'all have Big Brother put a base there?
So what else are y'all so touchy about?
I just get so irked when people like you bad-mouth Malaysia like we're
some hostile country who's trying to attack another country. We're
peace loving and teh-o loving kinda people, lah...just more relaxed
and less "kia-su".
> If your country is attacked, you'll be given "refugee" status
>and continue to drink your teh-o. For your fellow countrymen, they
>can alway find a place to hide and food to eat. But what if we're attacked
>or our life-line threathened, the possibility is always there, who are we to
>become then? Another wave of "boat-people"? Where women get rape by some
>fishermen. You might be glad to see that happens but not me and a lot of
>other Singaporean.
>
Errr...try not to get too emotional will ya? Raped by Malaysian fishermen,
I presume? Shhessshhh...
>Andrew, don't be so sure of yourself. With the revival of all these
>fundamentalism, do remember where you're from. Hope you'll continue
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You don't mean "these (Islamic) fundamentalism", do you? If so, I have
nothing else to say to you.
>to enjoy you teh-o.
Bin Ong
Nah, we ain't so 'kia-su' as trying to tell you M'sians how 'ulu'
and holding on to the kampung boy syndrome. We afraid of being attacked?
C'mon, M'sia only added a calvary (armor) arm to their military in the
mid-late 80s? I don't know why, but a good guess is that, since
M'sia is more primary rainforest than developed, jungle training is more important than urban warfare training. And raising the causeway? Aw, shucks, hate
to think of all the businesses folding up in JB, esp the gas stations. Then again, maybe we'll just keep our banks and CPF blacker than ever.....
Bin Ong
bin...@uiuc.edu
Univ of Illinois
Osbert Tan
>
>
> What I and us, Malaysians, can't be bothered about is attacking Singapore.
> Read my lips!!! What has my being in America got to do with anything? I'm
> reiterating the fact that people in Malaysia could not care less and y'all
> are "kia-su" to death! Besides, talking about the security embrace of
> America, isn't that why y'all have Big Brother put a base there?
> So what else are y'all so touchy about?
>
Now, you don't mean to generalize ALL Singaporeans do you ? Would you
like to ENUMERATE ALL those Singaporeans that you PERSONALLY know AND
consider kia-su, so as to avoid being lamented as bigot for such gross
generalization ? See, I don't automatically assume you are one either.
-Osbert
p.s. Why kids always have to bring their adults involve when they fighting ?
let them fight their own war ! tsk, tsk.
Pangestu Alim
(Won-Soon Lau) writes:
> Having some form of early warning has always been part of Singapore defence
> strategy. If you follow Singapore's news closely you would know our defence
> outline. We are quite capable to provide surveillance within a 500 km
radius.
> Mine sweeping and ASW capability has been added recently. Speaking of
> surprise attack, the citizen has been participating in the civil defence
> training in which they know how to react during emergency. How do you
> stage a surprise attack? By air? I can name you two airfields which are
> within their combat radius from Singapore. One is located in Kuantan and
> the other is somewhere in Sumatra. With these 2 air-fields covered, the
> probability becomes very small. Everyone is worry about chemical attack.
> And it is perfectly possible that iraqi is the supplier of some of these.
> If Israel can provide every citizen with a gas mask do you think we cannot
> do so when the situation arises? At any one time, there are 300k to half a
> million foreign workers in Singapore. What do you think will the reaction be
> from their home country of such an surprise attack? Anyway, I frankly think
> that you're new to military operations. You stage an surprise attack to
> neutralise the enemy's military power not to use that for man-slaugther.
> To sum it all, military defence is just one arm of our Total Defence
strategy.
> Whatever you think of now is nothing new to our defence strategists.
>
Personally, I myself am an Indonesian who had the privilage of studying in
Singapore for 7 years. Given my added access to a more liberal library and media
system than Singapore, I can assure myself that I am at least not as blind to
military strategist as you might like to think. First of all, the main concern
that I did have is coming from Malaysia (sorry bud!). Just think about spreading
50 or so short range tactical missile in some little forest clearing in Johore
Bahru. Of course, Mahathir could buy SCUDS at wholesale price from Saddam, but
yet they may all splash to the sea. No, what I am talking about naturally needs
a more accurate guidance than that (to hit Singapore, heh, heh, heh!). Actually,
even a G-5 kind of atillery pieces with a little modification on the ammunition
part would be sufficient. Hell, if Malaysians really wanted Singapore, they
could conquer it within a week (guaranteed!). The only thing that is stopping
them now is the possible international repercussion of that kind of action.
Furthermore, as long as they obtain a lot of benefits from Malaysia-Singapore
trade, why the hurry?
Speaking of surprise attack, it wouldn't be a surprise if the attack was known
to the Singapore now, would it? How effective would civil defence be then
(taking the scenario of a chemical attack). Remember, never discount the
possibility of a surprise attack and suffer the initial defeat like the Israel
did in the Yom Kippur War, Singapore cannot afford that! 500km surveillance
radius is not enough as it only detects moving objects and those not covered by
any obstacles. This surveillance is totally useless against forest covered
weapons. Thus human surveillance must be put at utmost emphasis.
Lastly, the scary thing about Singapore, again is its small size. A terrorist
could just smuggle in a barrel or two of chemical weapon material, label it as
HCl or something, slip it in with another 50 barrels and load it up a truck.
Smuggle it past the causeway and explode it somewhere near Orchard Rd (taking
note of the wind direction, of course!)
Give you something to think about doesn't it?
Kelvin Goh
>af...@yfn.ysu.edu (Andrew Tan) writes:
This is getting fun ! If you "ain't so 'kia-su'", why the heck is the
S'pore government spending so much on F-16' ? If Malaysia wanted to
attack, they would have sent a few surface to surface missles (whole-
sale SCUDS from Iraq or from Russia is a good idea) into Ochard RoaD
and blow every building into South China Sea.
I still prefer to live in a city in where there are lots of trees
around the city, rather than being choked by pollution in a concrete
jungle. Anyone disagrees ?
Keep up the humour !
Edmund Chia
>
> >Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
> >:
> >: The above article just goes to prove how "KIA-SU" Singaporeans are. Tis
> >: funny how Singaporeans have this phobia of being attacked while Malaysians
> >: could care less about doing so. Oi..wake up and smell the teh-o, lahh!!
> >: If y'all get too naughty, we'll just raise the Causeway, and y'all
> >: might just end up neighbours with New Zealand. Kiwipore? Naahhh... ;)
(stuff deleted)
> And I say that y'all are still living in the generation of yesteryears.
> Please, the situation then and now is completely different. Malaysia has
> more to lose than gain by attacking Singapore today. Do you really think
> we'll bomb the hell outta Orchard Road when our relatives might happen to be
> shopping nearby? Sheeshhh...
(stuff deleted)
> What I and us, Malaysians, can't be bothered about is attacking Singapore.
> Read my lips!!! What has my being in America got to do with anything? I'm
> reiterating the fact that people in Malaysia could not care less and y'all
> are "kia-su" to death! Besides, talking about the security embrace of
> America, isn't that why y'all have Big Brother put a base there?
> So what else are y'all so touchy about?
>
> I just get so irked when people like you bad-mouth Malaysia like we're
> some hostile country who's trying to attack another country. We're
> peace loving and teh-o loving kinda people, lah...just more relaxed
> and less "kia-su".
(stuff deleted)
Andrew has got it half right. I don't believe that Singapore is in danger
from Malaysia. Nevertheless, could anyone, including Andrew give a guarantee
that Singapore will NEVER be in danger from Malaysia. Take Singaporean-Indonesian
relations for example, 27 years ago, we had our own 'cold war' in the confrontasi.
At that time, we had Malaysia, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand backing us, else
we might have been just another island among the 13,000+ that is Indonesian. Who's
to say that 27 years from now, relations between Singapore and Malaysia wouldn't
change. Or Malaysia itself might change - an internal conflict within Malaysia and
among Malaysians could spread to and threaten Singapore. Afterall, as Andrew has
pointed out many of us have relatives on both sides of the border.
The point to note is that were Singapore ever to be invaded, it would have to be
by Indonesia and Malaysia OR through Indonesia and Malaysia. Singapore's close
relations with both Malaysia and Indonesia is a tacit recognition of this fact.
IMHO, Singapore's armed forces(land, sea and air) has two roles. One is to make
it costly in lives and military equipment to invade Singapore - to serve as a
deterrent. Even, if we do eventually fall to an enemy which is too strong, at
least we were not taken cheaply. The second role is to 'assist' either Malaysia
or Indonesia to withstand an agressor from 'outside' the region, e.g. Vietnam,
China & Japan were such threats in the past. Afterall, any threat to Malaysia
or Indonesia is likey to be a threat to Singapore too. Nor would it be proper
to let our neighbours bear the burden of our defense without contributing our
own strength to the effort.
Finally, a thought on all the talk on Migs and F16s. Has anyone considered the fact
that if an enemy aircraft reaches the island, shooting it down might cause as much
damage to the city as a bomb. Consider the effect if our air-force shot down 10
planes over Toa Payoh and that the enemy pilots tried to be considerate and attempted
to crash on empty spaces. IMHO, any air defense of Singapore has to be at sea or over
Malaysian/Indonesian air-space.
Edmund
John Whale
Of course ... the question is ... Why bother???????????
I mean ... Not that Malaysia hasn't the capability to attack Singapore ... but
what the hell for? What's there in Singapore that Malaysia needs?
If Malaysia do that just for the hell of it ... why not attack Thailand,
Vietnam and then Laos?
I would like to see that happen ... Malaysia has NO chance whatsoever to attack
Thailand ... no way in hell Malaysia will win if war started between the two
countries.
Thailand will just eat the whole of Malaysia up for main-course.
In other words, the military capability of Malaysia is not that great.
John Whale.
-. .-
_..-'( )`-.._
./'. '||\\. (\_/) .//||` .`\.
./'.|'.'||||\\|.. )o o( ..|//||||`.`|.`\.
./'..|'.|| |||||\`````` '`"'` ''''''/||||| ||.`|..`\.
./'.||'.|||| ||||||||||||. .|||||||||||| ||||.`||.`\.
/'|||'.|||||| ||||||||||||{ }|||||||||||| ||||||.`|||`\
'.|||'.||||||| ||||||||||||{ }|||||||||||| |||||||.`|||.`
'.||| ||||||||| |/' ``\||`` ''||/'' `\| ||||||||| |||.`
|/' \./' `\./ \!|\ /|!/ \./' `\./ `\|
V V V }' `\ /' `{ V V V
` ` ` V ' ' '
"VAMPIRES!"
Won-Soon Lau
: Personally, I myself am an Indonesian who had the privilage of studying in
: Singapore for 7 years. Given my added access to a more liberal library and media
: system than Singapore, I can assure myself that I am at least not as blind to
: military strategist as you might like to think. First of all, the main concern
Can you find classified information in a public library?
: that I did have is coming from Malaysia (sorry bud!). Just think about spreading
: 50 or so short range tactical missile in some little forest clearing in Johore
: Bahru. Of course, Mahathir could buy SCUDS at wholesale price from Saddam, but
: yet they may all splash to the sea. No, what I am talking about naturally needs
: a more accurate guidance than that (to hit Singapore, heh, heh, heh!). Actually,
: even a G-5 kind of atillery pieces with a little modification on the ammunition
: part would be sufficient. Hell, if Malaysians really wanted Singapore, they
: could conquer it within a week (guaranteed!). The only thing that is stopping
: them now is the possible international repercussion of that kind of action.
: Furthermore, as long as they obtain a lot of benefits from Malaysia-Singapore
: trade, why the hurry?
Now, you're starting to fantasize. Short-range missile, SCUD, why not
nuclear warhead. Surely one of them is enough to flatten the entire
Singapore. There has always been some mutual understanding between
the ASEAN nations not to buy weapon such that it will threaten the
existence of others.
Field artillery for surprise attack. That's the first time I heard of.
The G-5 can fire up to 38 km with the base-bleed round. But do you know
what is the 50 percent hit probability radius of a 155mm shell after flying
that distance? more than 1 km!!! And how long does it take us to return
the first round to the fire-base? That's classified information but we
are capable of doing it and of course to suffer from the same accuracy problem.
But that's good enough to neutralise the fire.
To conquer a country, you need to send ground troops into that country.
Then you must out-number the defending troops by at least 2 to 1.
Number wise, our reservists out number the Malaysian land force.
Those might be reservists but haven't they trained hard during the
active service. And reservist training is no easy matter these days.
A recent survey showed that 9 out of 10 of the male respondents believed
that we can defence ourself without any external help. The female
respondents show slightly worst result at 70 percents mainly because
they don't know what we do for active and reserve training. The positive
thinking is a very important factor in social and psychology defence.
Natural obstacle we have the Straits of Johor, the closest point is more
than a kilometer away and the only land crossing is the causeway.
Following what Andrew said, we just brow it into dust. How do they cross
then? Can the Indoneasian do so? It takes a lot of co-ordinations and
resources to mount an amphibious attack. I really doubt the Malaysian
army can carry that out as they specialised in jungle warfare and the
Indoeasian soldier in killing their own people. So, don't ever think that
Singapore is a piece of cake like what Kuwait was to Saddam. A bee maybe
small but it stings. I got stung by honet and I assure you that sensation
can make you remember it for life.
:
: Speaking of surprise attack, it wouldn't be a surprise if the attack was known
: to the Singapore now, would it? How effective would civil defence be then
: (taking the scenario of a chemical attack). Remember, never discount the
: possibility of a surprise attack and suffer the initial defeat like the Israel
: did in the Yom Kippur War, Singapore cannot afford that! 500km surveillance
: radius is not enough as it only detects moving objects and those not covered by
: any obstacles. This surveillance is totally useless against forest covered
: weapons. Thus human surveillance must be put at utmost emphasis.
How do you know that we aren't prepare for some surprise? Politicians are
well known for changing their mind fast. Civil defence is to prepare the
citizen to react clamly and not to panic in case of emergency. It also
let those going to war know that their family is taken care of well.
Whether it is 500 or 1000 km is not an important issue. What is important
is to have early warning against potential threats. Hiding a tank division
in the forest can do no good. It needs to get to road for action. Anyway,
Malaysia doesn't has a strong armour force, just some Scorpions and Condors.
How do we know that your country landed some paratroopers in Johor in a
joint exercise with the Malayisan army last year? They got to about
30 km from Singapore. Of course, we took that quite seriously and got
some armour units on standby. You only knew that was an exercise
when it is over and the troops have gone home.
:
: Lastly, the scary thing about Singapore, again is its small size. A terrorist
: could just smuggle in a barrel or two of chemical weapon material, label it as
: HCl or something, slip it in with another 50 barrels and load it up a truck.
: Smuggle it past the causeway and explode it somewhere near Orchard Rd (taking
: note of the wind direction, of course!)
:
Why are the terrorists doing it? Ask yourself. Why would Singapore become
the target of terrorists? For the sake of killing of innocent people?
There are easiler ways. Just detonate a cooking gas cylindar in a high rise
glass building during lunch hours and the glass fragments will be sufficient
to kill those passer-by below.
Won-Soon Lau
The discussion on the political and historic background of the region was
very well done. Thanks Edmund. Military defense is a mean to safe-guard
a nation's _own_ interest. The destiny of the nation depends on it.
The first step to it is to identify the potential threats and plan
your course of actions against these threats. This is a dynamic situation
so a balance must always be kept in order to prevent someone from taking a
chance.
Now the technical part. Since the enemy a/c approach route is not known
to you until you detect it on your radar. Then your priority is to decide
on the interception course based on the enemy approach. So it is not easy
to do it at a location of your choice. For any two nations at war, the
first priority is to gain air superiority. You can either shoot down
all the enemy planes or neutralise the airfields. The second mean is
the preferred one in most situations. This is most clearly demostrated
during the Gulf war.
Won-Soon Lau
R I Soosay
>resources to mount an amphibious attack. I really doubt the Malaysian
>army can carry that out as they specialised in jungle warfare and the
>Indoeasian soldier in killing their own people. So, don't ever think that
>Singapore is a piece of cake like what Kuwait was to Saddam. A bee maybe
>small but it stings. I got stung by honet and I assure you that sensation
>can make you remember it for life.
As a Malaysian, I can't believe your attitude. All countries
should consider their own defence seriously, but I think you
Singaporeans take it a little too far. Firstly, Singapore is very
different form Kuwait as it has no natural resources. Anyone taking it
over will be wasting their time as its wealth is largely due to its
people and all that will be destroyed. Secondly, it is Malaysia's 2nd
largest trading partner and that as well as the effects on investment in
any time of conflict will hurt our pockets. Thirdly, the Malay dominated
government will not be very pleased adding 2 mil. Chinese to the
population of Malaysia.
I can't help but feel that the threat of a Malaysian /
Indonesian 'bogeyman' is more a result of PAP hype to encourage
'Singaporeanness' and prevent the racial politics that preoccupy us in
Malaysia, as well as to justify their heavy-handed Orwellian policies.
-R Soosay
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, ra...@castle.ed.ac.uk (R I Soosay) says:
>engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
>
>
>>resources to mount an amphibious attack. I really doubt the Malaysian
>>army can carry that out as they specialised in jungle warfare and the
>>Indoeasian soldier in killing their own people. So, don't ever think that
>>Singapore is a piece of cake like what Kuwait was to Saddam. A bee maybe
>>small but it stings. I got stung by honet and I assure you that sensation
>>can make you remember it for life.
>
> As a Malaysian, I can't believe your attitude. All countries
>should consider their own defence seriously, but I think you
>Singaporeans take it a little too far. Firstly, Singapore is very
>different form Kuwait as it has no natural resources. Anyone taking it
>over will be wasting their time as its wealth is largely due to its
>people and all that will be destroyed. Secondly, it is Malaysia's 2nd
>largest trading partner and that as well as the effects on investment in
>any time of conflict will hurt our pockets. Thirdly, the Malay dominated
>government will not be very pleased adding 2 mil. Chinese to the
>population of Malaysia.
>
> I can't help but feel that the threat of a Malaysian /
>Indonesian 'bogeyman' is more a result of PAP hype to encourage
>'Singaporeanness' and prevent the racial politics that preoccupy us in
>Malaysia, as well as to justify their heavy-handed Orwellian policies.
>
>-R Soosay
>
Well said R. Soosay. That is precisely what I'm trying to say about the
state of "kia-su"ness in Singapore. It's amazing how touchy some people
are when others can't be bothered about them ... tsk! tsk!
Well, what do you expect from people who always likes to compare
WHO'S BALLS ARE BIGGER.
Kok-Yong Tan
>It could be the lack of HUD. If you are new to an aircraft, surely you need
>to fiddle more. It reminds me of Mac vs PCs. Once you are an expert, everything
>is second nature. You can even judge speed and position from your gut feeling.
It's true that one has to fiddle around if one is unfamiliar with an aircraft.
As a pilot, I can tell you that judging speed and position by gut feeling is
not reliable, not in the small planes that I fly and certainly not in the fast
jets that the military flies (the time provided to react is incredibly small.)
--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, | My words are my own:
Fixed Income Analytics Group, | My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch, | Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, | Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315. | - K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: ky...@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
7504...@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan
Oh? Perhaps you're new to this forum but I distinctly remember a half year or
more back when one particular Malaysian from MIT (whose name I shall refrain
from uttering) mentioned that perhaps a first strike might be in order since
Singapore was supposedly arming itself to the teeth. Admittedly, most sane
Malaysians could not be bothered to attack Singapore but you have the
occasional rabid "eliminate-the-Yellow-Peril" adherent. Who knows when one of
these might just happen to be flying a jet? A couple of thousand pounds of
Jet-A fuel, even without other types of armament, can make quite a bang, you
know...
Pangestu Alim
(Won-Soon Lau) writes:
> Can you find classified information in a public library?
Hmm... gives you something to think about, doesn't it? Just a hint: equip
yourself with a 486 and a modem (preferably highspeed), some knowledge of
you-know-what, the world is yours to explore!
> Now, you're starting to fantasize. Short-range missile, SCUD, why not
> nuclear warhead. Surely one of them is enough to flatten the entire
> Singapore. There has always been some mutual understanding between
> the ASEAN nations not to buy weapon such that it will threaten the
> existence of others.
Wake up bud! Nuclear stuffs are highly restricted, even the guidance &
detonation device is special. Once you buy one of them (since I don't think any
of the ASEAN countries are able to produce them as yet), you'll be watched by
the Big Brother over here!
> Field artillery for surprise attack. That's the first time I heard of.
> The G-5 can fire up to 38 km with the base-bleed round. But do you know
> what is the 50 percent hit probability radius of a 155mm shell after flying
> that distance? more than 1 km!!! And how long does it take us to return
> the first round to the fire-base? That's classified information but we
> are capable of doing it and of course to suffer from the same accuracy
problem.
> But that's good enough to neutralise the fire.
Bud, bud, bud! I am beginning to question whether you are somewhere near
Singapore at all. Remember where is the heartbeat of Singapore? Near the center
of the island right? How long does it take to lob 10 shells of chemical
ammunition from a single attillery piece over from Malaysia? Let's say it is 30
minutes (boy, are those Malaysians slow, but cheer up guys, you are making the
surprise attack, remember?)? Given the situation, in the middle of the night,
without any gas mask on, how many Singaporeans do you think will survive?
>
> To conquer a country, you need to send ground troops into that country.
> Then you must out-number the defending troops by at least 2 to 1.
> Number wise, our reservists out number the Malaysian land force.
> Those might be reservists but haven't they trained hard during the
> active service. And reservist training is no easy matter these days.
> A recent survey showed that 9 out of 10 of the male respondents believed
> that we can defence ourself without any external help. The female
> respondents show slightly worst result at 70 percents mainly because
> they don't know what we do for active and reserve training. The positive
> thinking is a very important factor in social and psychology defence.
> Natural obstacle we have the Straits of Johor, the closest point is more
> than a kilometer away and the only land crossing is the causeway.
> Following what Andrew said, we just brow it into dust. How do they cross
> then? Can the Indoneasian do so? It takes a lot of co-ordinations and
> resources to mount an amphibious attack. I really doubt the Malaysian
> army can carry that out as they specialised in jungle warfare and the
> Indoeasian soldier in killing their own people. So, don't ever think that
> Singapore is a piece of cake like what Kuwait was to Saddam. A bee maybe
> small but it stings. I got stung by honet and I assure you that sensation
> can make you remember it for life.
As I said, given the scenario I painted above, there'll be no reservists to
count on, is there? As for the Indonesians, I agree wholly with you, they can't
do it as yet.
> How do you know that we aren't prepare for some surprise? Politicians are
> well known for changing their mind fast. Civil defence is to prepare the
> citizen to react clamly and not to panic in case of emergency. It also
> let those going to war know that their family is taken care of well.
> Whether it is 500 or 1000 km is not an important issue. What is important
> is to have early warning against potential threats. Hiding a tank division
> in the forest can do no good. It needs to get to road for action. Anyway,
> Malaysia doesn't has a strong armour force, just some Scorpions and Condors.
> How do we know that your country landed some paratroopers in Johor in a
> joint exercise with the Malayisan army last year? They got to about
> 30 km from Singapore. Of course, we took that quite seriously and got
> some armour units on standby. You only knew that was an exercise
> when it is over and the troops have gone home.
You just won't admit the danger, would you? or are you trying to be stupid?
remember, what Sun-Tzu said: know thyself & know thy enemy. What better way to
do the latter than having more human-based intelligence (i.e. spies! which by
the way, is what my first proposal is all about)
> Why are the terrorists doing it? Ask yourself. Why would Singapore become
> the target of terrorists? For the sake of killing of innocent people?
> There are easiler ways. Just detonate a cooking gas cylindar in a high rise
> glass building during lunch hours and the glass fragments will be sufficient
> to kill those passer-by below.
Remember that Singapore is still the odd one out of the near vicinity. Just a
few factors: high income per capita, majority non-Muslim, more Westernized, ..
well, you are a U student, you should know, right? As for the motive of the
terrorists, why do you think people label them as terrorist in the first place?
They don't need a reason, all they need is a cause (eg to rid the region of
Satanic western influence, etc. those kind of bullshit)
Andy Tenka
[stuff about ground attack needed to conquer a country, 2 to 1, etc]
What if both Malaysia and Indonesia stop supplying water to Singapore, hold a
naval blockade against her for 3 months, and then send in their commandos with
fresh water supply. Would they still need a ratio of 2 to 1 to conquer
Singapore?
Andy Tenka
>
>Now the technical part. Since the enemy a/c approach route is not known
>to you until you detect it on your radar. Then your priority is to decide
>on the interception course based on the enemy approach. So it is not easy
>to do it at a location of your choice. For any two nations at war, the
>first priority is to gain air superiority. You can either shoot down
>all the enemy planes or neutralise the airfields. The second mean is
>the preferred one in most situations. This is most clearly demostrated
>during the Gulf war.
>
>Won-Soon Lau
But how is Singapore going to get supply of basic necessities if the war last
more than a few months? Does Singapore have stron enough a Navy to rupture
a naval blockade by Malaysia? Does Singapore have water purification plan
to convert sea water into fresh water? Does Singapore have big enough energy
reserve for a prolonged war? Does Malaysia really need to send its Air Force?
sofjan mustopoh
edu (Andy Tenka) writes:
>In article <1992Sep16.1...@nuscc.nus.sg> engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (
on-Soon Lau) writes:
>
>[stuff about ground attack needed to conquer a country, 2 to 1, etc]
>
>What if both Malaysia and Indonesia stop supplying water to Singapore, h
>naval blockade against her for 3 months, and then send in their commando
>fresh water supply. Would they still need a ratio of 2 to 1 to conquer
>Singapore?
I thought Singapore has their reserve water resevoir. ?
At least i remember that i was shown by my friends when i was
in Singapore.
To end this uselless Childish fight as to who can win a war
no body want to fight.
Consider this. Indonesia has NO TERITORIAL AMBITION over Singapore.
and neither does Malaysia.
If in the event of war all civillian of singapore(reservist ?)
are to fight this lead to one more dilemma. Since the civillian bear
arm and fight, they will be consider appropriate target .
Now consider if the enemy( I don't say either Indonesia or Malaysia)
consider they can bomb or shoot at anything. Which side will have
more casualties. (
There is one small country i know of that consistently beat off the
attacker, namely Israel. But Israel has luxury that singapore don't
1. Land to retreat and regroup.
2. Nuclear capabilities as deterent (Nobody know for sure how many
or what kind. )
3. Strong country backing. (U.S.A)
4. Zealous people. that strongly believe in existense of their motherland
5. Soldier that are not only weekend warrior but continuosly train in
battle field.
Now Singapore can request to buy nuclear capbilities but this
equal to calling for preemptive attack.
The best way to defend singapore is build and maintain a good relation
and understanding with all ASEAN country. No defense is better than
a block of uniting countries. Sure you can argue that allied and J.Stalin
do that once in pre WW II but Hitler still make war. (Remember Hitler and
Stalin non aggresion pact ) but again do you see any war maniac in
power either in malaysia or indonesia.
Botom line best way to defend Singapore is over the horizon. not on
Orchad road or Sentosa island.
p.s : About the 2 to 1 advantage. that is for old war. if the atacker
pound you enought ,they sure don't need that much of soldier.
But then what is this war suppose to achieve. ????
Muskie
Sofjan Mustopoh :) Smile
UK0...@ukpr.uky.edu :) Contact lens smile
8) Glasses smile
|) Chinese smile !
Heng Wei Osbert Tan
> 4. Zealous people. that strongly believe in existense of their motherland
You were doing fine until this line, let's say a lot of Singaporean will
disagree.
-Osbert
Won-Soon Lau
:
: But how is Singapore going to get supply of basic necessities if the war last
: more than a few months? Does Singapore have stron enough a Navy to rupture
: a naval blockade by Malaysia? Does Singapore have water purification plan
: to convert sea water into fresh water? Does Singapore have big enough energy
: reserve for a prolonged war? Does Malaysia really need to send its Air Force?
Can Malaysia sustains a war lasting a few months? Does Malaysia has a navy
strong enough to carry out a naval blockade. Does Malaysia really need to
send its Air Force? What Air Force?
-WS
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Wake up bud! Nuclear stuffs are highly restricted, even the guidance &
: detonation device is special. Once you buy one of them (since I don't think any
: of the ASEAN countries are able to produce them as yet), you'll be watched by
: the Big Brother over here!
Isn't it the same for chemical weapons.
:
: Bud, bud, bud! I am beginning to question whether you are somewhere near
: Singapore at all. Remember where is the heartbeat of Singapore? Near the center
: of the island right? How long does it take to lob 10 shells of chemical
: ammunition from a single attillery piece over from Malaysia? Let's say it is 30
: minutes (boy, are those Malaysians slow, but cheer up guys, you are making the
: surprise attack, remember?)? Given the situation, in the middle of the night,
: without any gas mask on, how many Singaporeans do you think will survive?
You made a wrong assumption. Why don't you visit Orchard road in the middle
of the night and see what's there.
:
: As I said, given the scenario I painted above, there'll be no reservists to
: count on, is there?
:
A wrong assumption will not lead to a right answer.
:
: You just won't admit the danger, would you? or are you trying to be stupid?
: remember, what Sun-Tzu said: know thyself & know thy enemy. What better way to
: do the latter than having more human-based intelligence (i.e. spies! which by
: the way, is what my first proposal is all about)
:
Oh I'm trying very hard to be stupid so that I can understand what you said.
If human-based intelligence is all that might, why did the US keep on sending
the KH into the space.
: Remember that Singapore is still the odd one out of the near vicinity. Just a
: few factors: high income per capita, majority non-Muslim, more Westernized, ..
: well, you are a U student, you should know, right? As for the motive of the
: terrorists, why do you think people label them as terrorist in the first place?
: They don't need a reason, all they need is a cause (eg to rid the region of
: Satanic western influence, etc. those kind of bullshit)
That is a psychopath not a terrorist.
Won-Soon Lau
:
: What if both Malaysia and Indonesia stop supplying water to Singapore, hold a
: naval blockade against her for 3 months, and then send in their commandos with
: fresh water supply. Would they still need a ratio of 2 to 1 to conquer
: Singapore?
You need more now.
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
>
> You made a wrong assumption. Why don't you visit Orchard road in the middle
> of the night and see what's there.
I did, I did. Was there during the 89 (or was it 90?) Swing... Not
bad, not bad at all... Very efficient cops too. And all those sharp shooters
with the high power rifles too. They commandered the balcony (and room too, I
suppose) opposite the one I was staying in. If only there's a Malaysian Swing
too... (Goyang?? :) :)) *sigh*
Oh well, ciao.
-Tai
Won-Soon Lau
It is just your personal opinion that the Indonesia and Malaysia has
no teritorial ambition over Singapore. I do not think that your view
represents the view of both governments.
In the event of war, the side which has prepared for it will suffer
less casualties.
Your comparison of Singapore to Israel is going to make the matter worse.
No doubt we learn from them but we don't compare our situation here to their.
Singapore do has some luxury the israeli don't has. First of all we are
not surrounded by enemy nations, we need not go to war any moment. Second,
we enjoy marginal economic success which also benefits the neighbouring
countries.
Battle field experience is not a decisive factor in winning a war. Did the
majority of the US soldiers participated in the gulf-war has any battle
experience? Some of them were not even born during the Vietnam war era.
On the other hand, what happened to the battle hardened republican guards?
Of course, you can attribute much of the allied success to their superior
air power.
Forging good relations among the ASEAN nations is just one step in
maintaining peace in the region. Defence in many cases, is still a
bargining tool. At present, both Malaysia and Indonesia has a stable
government. But, you can't be sure of that ten years down the road.
Already, there are some party in Malaysia wanted to convert it into a
Islam state. What if they succeeded in doing so sometime in the future?
What are there going to do next? Annex Singapore?
:
: p.s : About the 2 to 1 advantage. that is for old war. if the atacker
: pound you enought ,they sure don't need that much of soldier.
Then why did US sent over a million troopes to the gulf? Saddam only
has about half that amount in the front line (mostly "green" troopes too).
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>Can Malaysia sustains a war lasting a few months? Does Malaysia has a navy
>strong enough to carry out a naval blockade. Does Malaysia really need to
>send its Air Force? What Air Force?
>
Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
But then, who am I to say...I'm not one who likes to compare WHO'S BALLS
ARE BIGGER.
However if you insist, what would y'all do IF Malaysia and/or Indonesia
decides to stop supplying y'all with water. We might not have an air force
but we certainly do hold the keys to the water tap at your house, dude.
Attack us then? Hah....!!
Instead of all these arrogant and aggressive talk, why not channel your
efforts to more productive discussions, eh? Or are you just a born paranoid?
ATAN
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
[munchies]
>
> However if you insist, what would y'all do IF Malaysia and/or Indonesia
> decides to stop supplying y'all with water. We might not have an air force
> but we certainly do hold the keys to the water tap at your house, dude.
> Attack us then? Hah....!!
Actually, I believe that in event of a surprise attack by the
Singaporean govt, they will be able to take over a part of Johor (at least the
part that holds the keys...!!) Of course whether they can hold it or not is an
entirely different matter. And the M'sian govt will certain expect something
from them if they did decide to lock the "water tap".
>
> Instead of all these arrogant and aggressive talk, why not channel your
> efforts to more productive discussions, eh? Or are you just a born paranoid?
I think the Singapore govt prefers not to negotiate from a position of
weakness. Probably that's why they spend so much on military stuff for the
"weekend soldier". (Wish I could get my hands on a night scope... *sigh* :) :))
Ciao.
-Tai
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, us...@memstvx1.memst.edu () says:
> Actually, I believe that in event of a surprise attack by the
>Singaporean govt, they will be able to take over a part of Johor (at least the
>part that holds the keys...!!) Of course whether they can hold it or not is an
>entirely different matter. And the M'sian govt will certain expect something
>from them if they did decide to lock the "water tap".
Oh no. You have just branded Singapore as the aggressor. I doubt our Mr Lau
will be too happy with your statement.
But then, following your analogy, if you lend me your Mercedes Benz and
decide not to lend me the car anymore, I have the absolute right to come
steal it? Should I go and stockpile my armaments of screwdrivers and wire
cutters now? What cock and bull are you talking about?
>
> I think the Singapore govt prefers not to negotiate from a position of
>weakness. Probably that's why they spend so much on military stuff for the
>"weekend soldier". (Wish I could get my hands on a night scope... *sigh* :) :))
Perhaps there is nothing to negotiate about? Hmmm...a very good research topic
on transboundary natural resources and the application of game theoretic
issues.
ATAN
> Ciao.
>
>-Tai
>
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
: Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
from Malaysia.
: But then, who am I to say...I'm not one who likes to compare WHO'S BALLS
: ARE BIGGER.
:
Oh. You need to have them to compare.
: Instead of all these arrogant and aggressive talk, why not channel your
: efforts to more productive discussions, eh? Or are you just a born paranoid?
:
Tell that to Andy also and go take a cold shower.
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
>: Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
>Why not talk about the air we breath then. Surely the wind blow them across
>from Malaysia.
Do I detect a tinge of sarcasm here, Lau?? Please don't forget to include
Indonesia too. Afterall, wasn't it the Indoneasian forest fires that
had y'all breathing dirt for a few weeks?
In short, whatever the neighbouring countries do will affect us one
way or another. So why can't you accept the fact that the leaders in
our communities realize the effects of living peacefully as neighbours
instead of going to war against one another. It is through suspicious
and childish minds like yours that ill-feelings are bred....(and you consider
yourself from the OLDER generation? Seems to me like you have lotsa growing
up to do). And pleeeease, please do not start resminising about your good ol'
days with the Japanese Occupation. As I've said before, that's history.
>
>: But then, who am I to say...I'm not one who likes to compare WHO'S BALLS
>: ARE BIGGER.
>:
>Oh. You need to have them to compare.
>
Kia-su/kia-si-ism at its very best. I got. You no got.
>: Instead of all these arrogant and aggressive talk, why not channel your
>: efforts to more productive discussions, eh? Or are you just a born paranoid?
>:
>Tell that to Andy also and go take a cold shower.
So anyone who doesn't agree with you should go take a cold shower? Or should
I say, anyone who's not Singaporean should go take a cold shower?
Grow up, boy.
Won-Soon Lau
:
:
: > Actually, I believe that in event of a surprise attack by the
: >Singaporean govt, they will be able to take over a part of Johor (at least the
: >part that holds the keys...!!) Of course whether they can hold it or not is an
: >entirely different matter. And the M'sian govt will certain expect something
: >from them if they did decide to lock the "water tap".
:
: Oh no. You have just branded Singapore as the aggressor. I doubt our Mr Lau
: will be too happy with your statement.
There is no need to call for such aggressive actions. I'm sure there are
other alternatives. In the first place, why brought up this issue. Johor
supplying unprocessed water to Singapore also benefit the johorian because
we sold the purified water back to them at a price below our cost.
(Something like it takes us $0.20 to process 1 m^3 of water but sell it
at $0.05 to johor.)
: But then, following your analogy, if you lend me your Mercedes Benz and
: decide not to lend me the car anymore, I have the absolute right to come
: steal it? Should I go and stockpile my armaments of screwdrivers and wire
: cutters now? What cock and bull are you talking about?
:
Having water to drink and food to eat is basic *human-rights*.
P.S. You're beginning to be sensible, but what made you blew your top on that
last sentence.
TAN GIM WEE
:
:
: >Can Malaysia sustains a war lasting a few months? Does Malaysia has a navy
: >strong enough to carry out a naval blockade. Does Malaysia really need to
: >send its Air Force? What Air Force?
: >
:
: Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
: Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
: But then, who am I to say...I'm not one who likes to compare WHO'S BALLS
: ARE BIGGER.
:
: However if you insist, what would y'all do IF Malaysia and/or Indonesia
: decides to stop supplying y'all with water. We might not have an air force
: but we certainly do hold the keys to the water tap at your house, dude.
: Attack us then? Hah....!!
:
: Instead of all these arrogant and aggressive talk, why not channel your
: efforts to more productive discussions, eh? Or are you just a born paranoid?
:
:
: ATAN
Hey, talk about being paranoid. Who are you to say that Singapore is
kiasu just because we put in the effort to build up a creditable
defense? As for comparing who's balls are bigger, I do detect thinly
veiled threats against Singapore on this net, which Malaysians sometimes
like to do. Anyway, do you know what it is like to have to give up 30
months of your life to learn how to defend your country? If you do,
then perhaps you would think differently.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Tan Gim Wee
EE Dept, NUS
internet: eng2...@nusunix3.nus.sg
bitnet: eng2...@nusvm.bitnet
"Born to inspire, Destined to perform."
TAN GIM WEE
not going to war, hey, we are in full support of peace over here in
Singapore. However, I would refute the statement about Singapore being
kiasu in terms of defense. Look at it this way, if we were really KS,
then we would have bought the best and lastest weapons that money can
buy. But the fact is that we haven't. We are not KS in this, and that's
why we bother at all to upgrade old weapon systems instead of buying new
ones, which would be much easier. Going back to the original issue about
the F16, well it is a great plane. It can play multiple roles and thus
offer great flexibility and hence is a cost-effective defence system.
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>There is no need to call for such aggressive actions. I'm sure there are
>other alternatives. In the first place, why brought up this issue. Johor
>supplying unprocessed water to Singapore also benefit the johorian because
>we sold the purified water back to them at a price below our cost.
>(Something like it takes us $0.20 to process 1 m^3 of water but sell it
>at $0.05 to johor.)
Isn't this what I have said all along since day one ??? Shheeeshhh...
READ MY LIPS: The fact that both Malaysia and Singapore are
benefiting from trades with each other will not bring the two
parties to war...let alone make Malaysia attack Singapore or vice-versa.
Your paranoia of Malaysia attacking Singapore is thus baseless!!!
I certainly do not know how else to make this clearer to you.
Either you do not want to believe it or you just don't care to. Duh!
>: But then, following your analogy, if you lend me your Mercedes Benz and
>: decide not to lend me the car anymore, I have the absolute right to come
>: steal it? Should I go and stockpile my armaments of screwdrivers and wire
>: cutters now? What cock and bull are you talking about?
>:
>Having water to drink and food to eat is basic *human-rights*.
>
>P.S. You're beginning to be sensible, but what made you blew your top on that
> last sentence.
In other words, you agree with me that if you're the owner
of the Mercedes, I do not have the rights to come steal the car if
you decide not to lend me the car anymore? Similarly, Singapore does not
have the rights to the water owned by Malaysia??? ^^^^^^^^
ATAN
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, eng2...@nusunix3.nus.sg (TAN GIM WEE) says:
>Hey, talk about being paranoid. Who are you to say that Singapore is
>kiasu just because we put in the effort to build up a creditable
>defense?
I have no problems whatsoever with Singapore building up a credible
defense system. The Asian region can enjoy the positive externality
for all I care.
However, I do have a problem when people like Lau come into the picture
and advocate the notion of Malaysia attacking Singapore...hence the
defense buildup. If you had followed this thread closer, you'd
have come to the same conclusion as myself.
>As for comparing who's balls are bigger, I do detect thinly
>veiled threats against Singapore on this net, which Malaysians sometimes
>like to do.
Examples...examples...examples ??? Who are you to say that Malaysians like to
thinly veil their threats against Singapore on this net? If you are about to
bring up my stance on Malaysia's water rights, lemme assure that I have a
rebuttle for you.
ATAN
Marvin Tay Eng Sin
> Andrew Tan writes:
>>
>> However if you insist, what would y'all do IF Malaysia and/or Indonesia
>> decides to stop supplying y'all with water. We might not have an air force
>> but we certainly do hold the keys to the water tap at your house, dude.
>> Attack us then? Hah....!!
Sigh, I guess we'll just have to live on beer.
> Actually, I believe that in event of a surprise attack by the
>Singaporean govt, they will be able to take over a part of Johor (at least the
>part that holds the keys...!!)
You mean Mercinta (sp) and the Seafood Restaurants? If any of you guys
are going over soon, could you get some of those "compatible" parking coupons for me?
-Reg
cleverly disguised as:
--
---
Marvin Tay Information Technology Institute Internet: ma...@iti.gov.sg
Computer National Computer Board Bitnet : MarvinTay@ITIVAX
and Comms Lab. 71 Science Park,Singapore (0511) Tel (O) :(65)-7720901
Won-Soon Lau
:
:
: >Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
: >:
: >: Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
: >: Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
:
: >Why not talk about the air we breath then. Surely the wind blow them across
: >from Malaysia.
:
: Do I detect a tinge of sarcasm here, Lau?? Please don't forget to include
: Indonesia too. Afterall, wasn't it the Indoneasian forest fires that
: had y'all breathing dirt for a few weeks?
First, you brought up the water supply threat and now saying that it is so
easy to choke us just by setting some indoneasian island (how about Batam ;-)
on fire. In all, you're implying that Singapore is like a small ant and
can squash to death whenever the Big-brothers feel like doing so. Isn't
that's what in your mind?
Do you think we Singaporean can feel safe with you people having this kind of
thought on your mind? While it is impossible to deny another person from
such thought. Surely we can make that people to give it a bit more thinking
before trying to convert that thought to reality. And how do we do that?
By action. But such action becomes an act of "KS-nism" to you. Come on man,
you're just as equally sarcastic as me.
: In short, whatever the neighbouring countries do will affect us one
: way or another. So why can't you accept the fact that the leaders in
Like cutting off water supply and burning an island. Right?
: our communities realize the effects of living peacefully as neighbours
: instead of going to war against one another. It is through suspicious
While that is true but the definition of "living peacefully" differ from
person to person. What's wrong with a suspicious mind? A right degree
of suspicion will let you be aware of what's happening around you. The
chances that you'll be caught off-guard is slimer then.
: >
: >: But then, who am I to say...I'm not one who likes to compare WHO'S BALLS
: >: ARE BIGGER.
: >:
: >Oh. You need to have them to compare.
: >
:
: Kia-su/kia-si-ism at its very best. I got. You no got.
You got it wrong. Kia-su-ism came from competition. You have. I must have
better. If you don't have, where did my Kia-su-ness come from?
Ain't you afraid of "si" (death). Surely I'm kia-si.
BTW why do you like "COMPARE BALLS"? Don't you think it is very uncomfortable
to carry two big Ding-Dong around.
Won-Soon Lau
:
: Isn't this what I have said all along since day one ??? Shheeeshhh...
: READ MY LIPS: The fact that both Malaysia and Singapore are
: benefiting from trades with each other will not bring the two
: parties to war...let alone make Malaysia attack Singapore or vice-versa.
: Your paranoia of Malaysia attacking Singapore is thus baseless!!!
: I certainly do not know how else to make this clearer to you.
: Either you do not want to believe it or you just don't care to. Duh!
:
has said? For personally I don't think that Malaysia will attack Singapore
given the current situation. But no one can predict the future, can you?
:
: In other words, you agree with me that if you're the owner
: of the Mercedes, I do not have the rights to come steal the car if
: you decide not to lend me the car anymore? Similarly, Singapore does not
: have the rights to the water owned by Malaysia??? ^^^^^^^^
Owning a car is not a "human-right". (Maybe some days it will be when
human developed weak-limbs.) Whereas drinking and eating are.
Of course the big question is how to uphold this right. Mind you that
water has always been a sensitive topic between Singapore and Malaysia
government.
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>:
>: In a previous article, engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) says:
>:
>: >Andrew Tan (af...@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote:
>: >:
>: >: Tough talk from someone who's probably drinking water from Malaysia and
>: >: Indonesia, eh? I probably won't be so arrogant if I were you, babe.
>:
>: >Why not talk about the air we breath then. Surely the wind blow them across
>: >from Malaysia.
>:
>: Do I detect a tinge of sarcasm here, Lau?? Please don't forget to include
>: Indonesia too. Afterall, wasn't it the Indoneasian forest fires that
>: had y'all breathing dirt for a few weeks?
>:
>First, you brought up the water supply threat and now saying that it is so
>easy to choke us just by setting some indoneasian island (how about Batam ;-)
>on fire. In all, you're implying that Singapore is like a small ant and
>can squash to death whenever the Big-brothers feel like doing so. Isn't
>that's what in your mind?
>
>Do you think we Singaporean can feel safe with you people having this kind of
>thought on your mind? While it is impossible to deny another person from
>such thought. Surely we can make that people to give it a bit more thinking
>before trying to convert that thought to reality. And how do we do that?
>By action. But such action becomes an act of "KS-nism" to you. Come on man,
>you're just as equally sarcastic as me.
Sheeeeshhh...what water supply threat and what threat to choke Singapore????
I was merely stating the fact that whatever happens to neighbouring countries
(i.e. Spore, Msia, Insia) there would be effects on each other. It was
jus a freakin example, dude !!!
Point out to me which part of my post did I suggest threatening you with
the water supply and choking y'all by burning Indonesia. Grow up, boy...
if Indonesia wants to attack Spore, do you think they will burn their
land to do choke y'all? What type of new warfare has your National
Service taught you??? Haaa...Haaa...Haaaa.....yeah right. Imagine this,
when the artillery captain shouts, "FIRE", HE REALLY MEANT IT LITERALLY.
I think that just sums it up when you talk about paranoaia. Enuf said.
>
>: In short, whatever the neighbouring countries do will affect us one
>: way or another. So why can't you accept the fact that the leaders in
>
>Like cutting off water supply and burning an island. Right?
>
>: our communities realize the effects of living peacefully as neighbours
>: instead of going to war against one another. It is through suspicious
>
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE POST MORE CAREFULLY BEFORE SHOUTING "FIRE", YA?
Some less than holy mind might get the wrong idea to errr..uuumm..you know.
>: Kia-su/kia-si-ism at its very best. I got. You no got.
>
>You got it wrong. Kia-su-ism came from competition. You have. I must have
>better. If you don't have, where did my Kia-su-ness come from?
>
>Ain't you afraid of "si" (death). Surely I'm kia-si.
>
>BTW why do you like "COMPARE BALLS"? Don't you think it is very uncomfortable
>to carry two big Ding-Dong around.
OK-lah, you win, lah. I "penat" to argue with you any further.
Sheeeessshhh...I still can't get over your new conventional
warfare. Haa...Haaaa..will think of more ways how to attack Singapore with
these methods and let you know.
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, af...@yfn.ysu.edu (Andrew Tan) says:
>>: Do I detect a tinge of sarcasm here, Lau?? Please don't forget to include
>>: Indonesia too. Afterall, wasn't it the Indoneasian forest fires that
>>: had y'all breathing dirt for a few weeks?
>>:
>>First, you brought up the water supply threat and now saying that it is so
>>easy to choke us just by setting some indoneasian island (how about Batam ;-)
>>on fire. In all, you're implying that Singapore is like a small ant and
>>can squash to death whenever the Big-brothers feel like doing so. Isn't
>>that's what in your mind?
>OK-lah, you win, lah. I "penat" to argue with you any further.
>Sheeeessshhh...I still can't get over your new conventional
>warfare. Haa...Haaaa..will think of more ways how to attack Singapore with
>these methods and let you know.
Heyy, Lau...got one more method for you. Instead of Indonesia burning their
islands/forests on fire to choke y'all, how about lining the population
(you know they have zimillions of people) up near the beaches and all
FART at the same time? Are you all ready to face the consequences? Gas masks
ready???
>>Do you think we Singaporean can feel safe with you people having this kind of
>>thought on your mind?
No, I don't think you Singaporean[s] can feel safe with these FARTING
people having this kind of thoughts on their minds.
That's all I have to say.
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
Back when this topic first started, I forwarded a copy of this to my
friend for his opinion as he is another of those "plane" maniacs :) Anyway,
here's his reply (sorry it's a bit late, but he just had a weeks vacation)
Hopefully we will have more discussions on this instead of some "no I
am not flaming" flames cluttering up the net.
-----begin info mail-----
>>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.
IMO, M'sia should go for the Mig 29s. The Mig 23 is obsolete, but the Su27 is
in the same class as the F16 (light tactical fighter), not the Mig23. The Mig
31 is in the same class as the F15, not the Mig 29. Mig 29 and the Su27 and
quite similar...somewhere between the F16 and F15.
>First of all, do you know that the Mig 29 plane is actually an old design?
>Well, when I was younger, I was really interested in aeroplanes be it
>commercial of fighters so I collected everything I could find on planes.
>In one of the Airplane magazine (one of the 1990 issues), I found out that
>the Mig 29 wasn't living up to my expectation. The first time the aircraft
>was fully surveyed (the US had this chance when a Russian pilot defected to
>the west via Japan in the 60's or 70's) it was found that the Mig 20 is
The guy took a Mig 25 to Japan, not a Mig 29. Mig 29 wasn't even in service
then... The Yanks took the Mig 25 apart, examined it, and then reassembled the
whole thing and sent it back to the soviets. The pilot got millions in gold...
>actually designed in the 50's. A lot of its equipments were out dated.
>It is also found that the aircraft is not agile at all so it is almost
>useless in dogfight.
Huh ? This guy must be a real amateur. The Mig 29 can outfly (meaning out-
maneuveur) almost any Western combat aircraft. It is NOT useless. It can launch
godzillions of missiles at you miles away, so the Yanks no longer have this
superiority. And it has Look Down Radar, I think. Meaning, you can't hide in
the gorund clutter (ie mountains, etc). I don't think the design was in the
50s. Even so, all fighter planes have a conception to maiden flight time of
about 15 - 20 years. Heck the F117 Stealth fighter is already 15 years old,
and we think it's great and all that.
>The only advantage the Mig 29 has is that it is
>really fast, one of the fastest actually. Other than its speed, it is
>certainly not in the class with many of the US fighters. It's only
The predominant US fighters today - F16, F15, F/A 18 and F14.
The Mig 29 is a tough match for ANY of them. In fact, the Yanks are so scared
that they have a new prototype in the air, the YF22.
>mission is to locate target from long distance, fire hoping that the target
>will be shot and turn back.
ALL fighter pilots would LOVE to have this scenario....this guy must have
watched too much Top Gun crap. *I* would have launched all the Phoenix missiles
from about 80 - 100 miles away and look at the blips on the radar screen
disappear one by one.....
>>Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot of
>>accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will save
>>us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still bargain!
>> Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft.
RMAF is damned poor, where got money to get 2 squadrons ????
>Basically, there is nothing wrong with singled engined planes. The only
>problem our airforce has is that the F5s are old! Malaysia made a BIG
>Mistake when she bought the F5s. The F5s were actually used by the US
>during the Vietnam war. One thing I don't understand is why in the world
>did the Malaysian Government buy such an old batch of planes and almost
>condemned by the US??????
Hey, the F5e is one of the most maneuvuerable (damn spelling) aircraft in the
world. Too bad it's too slow, it's too light and it ain't got no firepower.
>>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the latest.
>>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-down
>>radar which is better than F16(?).
>
>The above is crap! As I have said before, the Mig 29 design is OLD!
This guy deserves to be flamed till well-done !
>One more thing, their radars are the worst characteristic of the Mig 29.
>Their radar is also following the design of the 50's. It is bulky, heavy
>and generates a lot of heat. They aren't that powerful either
Well, try saying that when the Mig's missiles slam into you when your radar
doesn't even show the Mig on the screen yet !!!!!
>> Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
>>armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet missiles,
>>or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It can
>>only carry bombs.
Precisely. And the F16 can only carry small bombs, but that's beside the point.
>Of course the Mig 29 carries long range missiles. It just shoots them at long
>distance and run. Certainly the F16s has more advantages.
This guy is narrow minded and has watched too many gung-ho top gun movies. THAT
is EXACTLY what all modern air to air combat is about. Fire and forget !!!!!!
Does his dad has some shares in General Dynamics (the co that makes F16s) or
something !!!!?????? Jeez !!!!!
>>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
>>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
>>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
>>or "rough" technicians.
It is a better plane than Tornadoes. It is cruder, but it sure as hell more
efficient.
>Hey, Othman, we don't need to show off here. I feel our beloved country has
>put in enough in their defence buget. The money would be better spent if it
>were used in education and industry.
>By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up? We Malaysians are peace
>loving people. We are not going to have wars with everybody.
>
>Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same class
>as Othman here. We are all peace loving people. We DON'T LIKE WARS.
>I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
Well, we simply CAN'T have wars with anybody....we can't afford it even if we
WANT to have wars with anybody. This bozo sure speaks straight from the heart
without passing through the CPU first............
-----end info mail-----
Well, hope this stimulates more discussion.... <heh heh heh> Ciao
you'll.
-Tai
Mee Teng
Malaysia if there is a war between the two countries. :)
Kok-Yong Tan
>Andy Tenka (te...@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>:
>: What if both Malaysia and Indonesia stop supplying water to Singapore, hold a
>: naval blockade against her for 3 months, and then send in their commandos with
>: fresh water supply. Would they still need a ratio of 2 to 1 to conquer
>: Singapore?
>You need more now.
Well, it has been the standard military belief that for decisive victories,
attacking armies need a 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender. I think this has
been the case for some time and not just currently.
--
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan, | My words are my own:
Fixed Income Analytics Group, | My bosses know naught.
Merrill Lynch, | Wherever they're sown,
World Financial Center, North Tower, | Just I should be sought.
New York, NY 10281-1315. | - K. Y. Tan, 5 Feb 1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: ky...@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
7504...@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan
>: few factors: high income per capita, majority non-Muslim, more Westernized, ..
>: well, you are a U student, you should know, right? As for the motive of the
>: terrorists, why do you think people label them as terrorist in the first place?
>: They don't need a reason, all they need is a cause (eg to rid the region of
>: Satanic western influence, etc. those kind of bullshit)
>That is a psychopath not a terrorist.
Nowadays, there is very little to distinguish a psychopath from a terrorist
except, perhaps, that the terrorist has more toys that go "bang."
TAN GIM WEE
Won Soon, I agree with u!
--
---------------------------------------------------------
sofjan mustopoh
Won soon lau
you have a lot of logic flaw. you refute my point in defense of
Singapore with the law of "I told you so"
First you said singapore has luxury of surounded by hostile country
ready for a war . ?? Then why you keep using the malaysia,indonesia
scenario.
Second. You said Iraqi soldier a battle proven and US army are not(green
you said). you totaly discount the air bombing and the strive for
air superiority by Allied forces as for the 2 to 1 soldier
advantage.
2.1 US soldier are and can't be considered green. US army are
c
constantly training for a scenario. while doing it they revising
their procedures. even during desert shields a large number of
soldier are put throught retraing in chemical warfare. near
my school in Anniston Alabama. "it was hell" that is the comment
made by the soldier who just come out and eat in the restaurant
i worked.
Most Tank crew go to tank training again in desert in Nevada and
California. to brush up their skill.
As you know most aircraft pilot station in carrier are used to
periodic training. and the top pilot of navy are sent to "TOP GUN"
school(Like the movie top gun" .
and to said american soldier are green are just a over
simplification.
America learn a lot from Vietnam. and using it to their advantage
so to said that lots of soldier haven't born yet at the time of
Vietnam is true. But how about the general. Commanding general.
General Collins Powell,General Norman Shwarzkopft .
It is true that the grunt(foot soldier) execute the war but it is
the top brass that conducting the war.
To prove my point that if you pound enemy enought you don't need the size
advantage to invade. Speed ,Mobility and cordination with air power are
crucial.
In Desert Storm Iraqi didn't have air cover at all by the time of
invasion by allied. teir comunication and logistic line are contanly
bomb and cut off.I saw in CNN about how underfed are Iraqi soldier are
when they surender. Because of constant bombing the already low moral
e , of iraqi soldier got lower hence most of them giving only low
resistance. Except The republican guard .
In Desert storm you don't see a bunch of guy yelling charge and chrge
enemy line using size advantage. What you see is 24 Hours of constant
bombing to soften the enemy before out flanking them and trap them.
thus the doctrine 2 to 1 and charge , are not use.
Now back to Singapore. As i have said if every men are reservist and
at the event of war are armed and ready to fight .Enemy would consider
every male civilian are indeed a legitimate military target.
Invasion of Singapore wolud require an amphibious operation
which would be very difficult. considering singapore size. But how
about bombing. since all male are consider a soldier t,that could be
taken
as "you can bomb any where". the casualties would be very high for
singaporean. picture a war just like in Sarajevo (Yugoslavia) in
singapore. where no body gain ground but civiliabn suffer horribly.
that is not the kind of war Singaporean want. isn't it as matter of fact
no Singaporean want a war isn't it.
Now considering why in the world Indonesia or Malaysia want to invade
Singapore . Unless Both country rule by a Megalomaniac .the war might
never happen. First the is no natural resouces in Singapore to fight for
as for Singapore economic wealth. well what would it be worth after
months of war for the invading country. Singapore are more valuable
for malaysia and indonesia as it is Now.
As i recall there are agreementhat in the event of war singapore
can use Indonesia airfield some where in sumatra. this outline
the doctrine of Asean defense . Asean country should act as one.
not a separate country fighting for herself.
And lastly
*******************************************************************
I regret posting are statement that implying Israeli are mre zealous
in defending their country .
I have no intention in implying Singaporean are less zealous.s
with this post erratum i take back the potentially offensive posting
.
Thanks.
Muskie
UK0...@mik.uky.edu
Me Mann
>I doubt Andrew Tan would would be very comfortable in
>Malaysia if there is a war between the two countries. :)
>
I doubt he would know what's comfortable. Wonder if he is writing from
the pschiatric asylum in the St. Elizabeth Hospital. Youngstown. OH 8)?
To clap you need two hands buddy. But then, I am not sure what he says
have any weight. In his country he has no say really, at least not much
up to now. Rest assure that those people who are in control in his
country are more cordial at least up to now, agree?
-Me Mann
Andrew Tan
Oooo...provoking me into starting a war of words between countries, ya?
Wahhh Liauu....smart, leh u.
ATAN
Andy Tenka
>
> To prove my point that if you pound enemy enought you don't need the size
> advantage to invade. Speed ,Mobility and cordination with air power are
> crucial.
> In Desert Storm Iraqi didn't have air cover at all by the time of
> invasion by allied. teir comunication and logistic line are contanly
> bomb and cut off.I saw in CNN about how underfed are Iraqi soldier are
> when they surender. Because of constant bombing the already low moral
> e , of iraqi soldier got lower hence most of them giving only low
> resistance. Except The republican guard .
>
starve Iraqi ground troops. I don't think Singapore has the same capability
to cut-off Malaysian logistic line (again, in case of war). That's why I am
curious why Singapore hasn't build a sea water purification plant.
Edmund Chia
>
>
> In a previous article, af...@yfn.ysu.edu (Andrew Tan) says:
(stuff deleted)
> Heyy, Lau...got one more method for you. Instead of Indonesia burning their
> islands/forests on fire to choke y'all, how about lining the population
> (you know they have zimillions of people) up near the beaches and all
> FART at the same time? Are you all ready to face the consequences? Gas masks
> ready???
What happens when the wind suddenly blows the wrong way? What a horrible way to die.
Edmund
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
> experts of the net. By the way, to the person who believes that Singapore
> could take Johor in a surprise attack, wouldn't you also think that Malaysia
> could take Singapore in a surprise attack also?
Hi,
That would be me, I believe. But if you reread my followups again, you
will note that I said that they could take *A PART* of Johor, not the whole
thing. I suppose I should have been clearer on that. I also didn't think
they will be able to hold on to it. Of course that is just my opinion.
Remember, there is at least one army camp (Kluang) in Johor just far north
enough that Singapore won't be able to take it.
Regarding your question, no, I don't think Malaysia can take Singapore
in a surprise attack. In an attack you will need troops. Think about the
racial composition of the army personnel in Singapore and Malaysia. Imagine
them smuggling themselves into the "enemy" state. Which would be easier to
accomplish? I highly doubt if either side will attempt to invade via the
crossway. Might get stuck in a traffic jam... :) :) And I don't think we have
enough of those amphibious vehicles.
Secondly, there's the population to consider. Remember, most males in
Singapore know at least basic hand to hand combat, and have had at least 1.5
years of combat training. Can you say the same thing about the M'sian
population? Hard to invade when the population can fight back effectively.
And remember, this is the "thing" that they have been training for.
Of course, I do think that both the army strategists know of these
already, and have work around methods, in case the need arises... (NOTE: I am
*NOT* advocating war, I am just saying I think they are prepared!)
Ciao.
-Tai
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
> off water supply, how would Singapore sustain herself in war? This is assuming
Probably water rationing, stopping industrial usage (except for war
related stuff, of course) of water, and start damming up all the fresh water
sources for their water purifiers. Might even consider reusing sewage. For
ex, in some of those new-fangled "energy saving" homes, they reuse the water
that goes down the kitchen sink for flushing toilet. And that water is reused
(without the solid waste) once or twice again, before it goes to one of those
"organic decomposers" which, incidentally, also supplies gas (methane) for
cooking.
> ratio of attacker to defender. And also, logistic will be a big problem in
> such an invasion, as someone else already mentioned (forgot who it was, but
^^^^^^
You really should try harder to remember. And yes, you can flame me if
I forget you in the future... :) :)
> he was saying that both Indonesia and Malaysia don't have the capability
> in invading Singapore because of logistic. I assumed the same holds for
^^^^^^^
Don't do that. Remember, it makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Check
with that person first. Remember, Joe Dwight got flamed for making so many
assumptions...
> Singapore against Malaysia. Of course, this goes against Lau(?) who says that
^^^
Nope, it's me, TAI.
> Singapore could take Johor in a surprise attack, but I disgress).
Not the whole thing, not the whole thing. Probably can take the water
supply lines tho. And for every day they can keep it open, they can keep the
war going for another 2 or 3 days.
> I think I am asking legitimate questions, and I hope I will get good answers.
Well, I hope there are good enough for you. If anyone can point out
logic flaws or wrong assumptions (heh heh) in my arguments, do let me know.
Ciao.
-Tai
Heng Wei Osbert Tan
First, a Malaysian asked a hypothetical question "how can Singaporean defence themselves if Malaysia were
to cut off their water supply", then a second Malaysian speculated "they will take a part of Johor", and
the third one jumped in " You Singaporean are sooooo Kia-Su". The forth, unforturnately, a Singaporean,
got lured and confused, started screaming murder on the net. While the rest of the world, set around and
smiled.
-Osbert Tan
--
_ _
---------------------------------ooo--U--ooo------------------------------------
fel...@cs.utexas.edu Standard disclaimer applies. My opinions are, simply mine.
fel...@natinst.com Down with racism. Down with imperialism.
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
>
> First, a Malaysian asked a hypothetical question "how can Singaporean defence themselves if Malaysia were
Are you sure?
> to cut off their water supply", then a second Malaysian speculated "they will take a part of Johor", and
Definitely not the second. Maybe the third or fourth... :) But then
these first 2 are discussing. Not murder or kiasu... :) Defense is a highly
sensitive issue, with lots of people thinking that if you even *gasp* discuss
it, war will happen. I, on the other hand think that if the population doesn't
have *ANY* idea of the defense capabilities of their motherland, they are going
to be in trouble if anything happens. Look at history. Humans have been
fighting for how many umpteenth years already? Look at WW1 and WW2, and more
recently, the Iraq and Bosnia situations. I think we are very lucky that we
live in a very stable region. However, didn't China send a couple of soldiers
to the Spratlys??
> the third one jumped in " You Singaporean are sooooo Kia-Su". The forth, unforturnately, a Singaporean,
> got lured and confused, started screaming murder on the net. While the rest of the world, set around and
> smiled.
You sure about the last bit? I thought lots of people were getting
fed-up of the flame war... I know I was... Nearly entered my killfile.
Ciao.
-Tai
LEE CHEE HOE
: With regards to what Andrew has to say about peaceful coexistence and
Othman Ahmad
te...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Andy Tenka) writes:
: With all due respect to Andrew, I have to point out that I was the first person
: who brought up the water supply thing into discussions. At the time, the
: discussion was about how Singapore would defend herself from Malaysia using
: her air superiority, large number of reservists, etc. I joined the discussion
: by merely asking a simple, honest, legitimate question about how Singapore would
: respond to a water boycott from Malaysia and/or Indonesia. After all, in case
: of war, Malaysia would not be supplying water to Singapore anymore.
Andy you could be one who have never lived in a tropics with 100 inches of
rain per year.
asean is not a desert. Water is no big problem as long as you just
want drinking water.
In case of draught that may last 3 months, the reserve lake at McRichie
(?) may be sufficient to feed Singaporeans. I remember when I was in Sempurna
without any consumable water, we depend on rain water for our cooking and
drinking water. We have large drums to store the water.
It is just as excuse by these young Singaporeans to justify their hard
national service in offensive operations in the jungle to secure their
water source so that they can wash their cars, have shower baths, swimming
pools and call these as basic necessities.
Maybe I should start another thread called:
War: Malaysia vs Singapore
:
: My question was primarily directed to the people who had claimed that they were
: more knowledgable than others on military strategy stuff. So, once again, how
: would Singapore defend herself if Malaysia cut-off the water supply, and then
: launch an attack against Singapore. Tell me, tell me, oh great strategic
: experts of the net. By the way, to the person who believes that Singapore
Obviously you only have raw soldiers in the net despite having gone through
their resevist. THEy should be taught about strategies and how to think rather
than raw physical exercises.
: could take Johor in a surprise attack, wouldn't you also think that Malaysia
: could take Singapore in a surprise attack also?
I'm sure the military commands of both countries had known about
all the possibilities, it is just these "hot blooded young Singaporeans",
who had been left ignorant.
--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
Rene Madsen
> In article <1992Sep16....@nuscc.nus.sg> engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
> >
> >Now the technical part. Since the enemy a/c approach route is not known
[boring war stuff deleted]
>
> [more boring war stuff deleted]
Is there a war coming up in S'pore?
If not why not stop this negative discussion, or at least move it to
some warloving newsgroup such as talk.politics or rec.guns ? ;-)
-Rene
--
Rene Madsen
Unix Systems Support/Dev.
mad...@okys.infoserv.com
Candy Lee
In a previous article, eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) says:
>It is just as excuse by these young Singaporeans to justify their hard
>national service in offensive operations in the jungle to secure their
>water source so that they can wash their cars, have shower baths, swimming
>pools and call these as basic necessities.
Somehow I find it hard to DIS-agree with Othman on this issue.
> I'm sure the military commands of both countries had known about
>all the possibilities, it is just these "hot blooded young Singaporeans",
>who had been left ignorant.
Ditto.
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>Internet Email: eoa...@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>Bitnet Email: eoa...@ntuvax.bitnet
--
Edmund Chia
>
> In article <1992Sep23.1...@nuscc.nus.sg> engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
(stuff deleted)
> My question was primarily directed to the people who had claimed that they were
> more knowledgable than others on military strategy stuff. So, once again, how
> would Singapore defend herself if Malaysia cut-off the water supply, and then
> launch an attack against Singapore.
If Malaysia ever cut-off Singapore's water supply and Singapore has no
alternate source of water, either from its own reserves or from Indonesia; Singapore
would have two options. One would be to attack and TRY to take Johor immediately,
and K.L., if possible. The other option would be to surrender.
If the first option is chosen, Singapore has the 'advantage' of about 55,000 regualar
troops and some support aircraft, ready to move and already in 'position' in Singapore
city itself(where else could they be). It could also probably mobilise about 250,000 reservist
in about 48 hours(maybe less), and lots of civil defence personnel to get old people, women
and children, etc into the MRT shelters, and to collect supplies, etc. Malaysia has about 80,000
regulars, but I suspect that most of these would be stationed north instead of South as the Thai
border would be more likely to be 'disturbed' than the one down south. Malaysia also has a larger
air-force and a navy(S'pore has something it calls a navy but which would more like an 'anti-priracy'
force). It would be a no-win situation for both parties. Singapore could hurt Malaysia very badly in
early stages of any hostilities, but would probably hurt itself even more in the long run. As for Malaysia,
as many netters have pointed out, the best that it could hope for is an economically shattered piece of
rock which used to be Singapore.
As for the second option, it raises some interesting issues(IMO). One of which is "Will Singaporeans
fight for their country? - whether against a direct threat to Singapore or as part of a coalition of S.E.Asian
nations against an external threat." The other issue is integration or rather re-integration with Malaysia.
I remembered(with shame) an article after the 'breakfast knife and fire-cracker hijack' of the SIA flight
from K.L. in the S.T. which interviewed 20 S'poreans. These men and women were asked if they would
acknowledge their identity as Singaporeans if asked by a hijacker. This survey was conducted in the context
of U.S. nationals being identified and singled out for ill-treatment by terrorists. 19 of the 20 interviewed
gave an "it depends" type answer. Only 1, a 19 year old Malay girl(who should receive some sort of award)
said that she would admit to her citizenship regardless of the consequences. If this survey was a valid sample
of Singaporean 'loyalty' then the willingness of 95% of Singaporeans to satnd-up for their country against the
odds is suspect. So the issue is not so much how many tanks or F16s or reservists Singapore has but whether
or not Singaporeans will fight on with trishaws, broken bottles, etc against any threat to its sovereignty. Or will
they simply join the swelling tide of refugees in search of better lands and better pay in other countries.
The other issue concerns Malaysia wanting Singapore. In 1965, it didn't want Singapore. In 1992, it still doesn't
want Singapore(except maybe as a 'punching bag' in the Malaysia cup). However, there is always still the possibility
of re-integration through peaceful or violent scenarios(as suggested in some postings). There are great
similarities in culture, interests, history, etc. However, two BIG obstacles stood in the way of integration in 1965,
and one suspects they still remain. One is the issue of ethnic numbers, and the Chinese majority in Singapore.
The other is the issue of revenue from Singapore - would K.L. have discretion over the use and allocation of
such revenue. Other latent issues are differences in political systems - Singapore opted for multi-cultural political
parties while Malaysia is inclined towards communal representation through parties.
Finally, to those who worry about the sensitivity of these issues, let me end by saying that friends can engaged
in insult and disagreement without taking offense. In fact, friends thrive on friendly insults and disagreement.
And it is hoped that Singaporeans and Malaysians are good friends.
Edmund
sofjan mustopoh
" LATE BREAKING NEWS "
Just receive from Indonesian news agency "Antara"
Malaysia and Indonesia has jointly starting the operation
"Hantam saja " in invading Singapore.
First sortie has flown over Singapore to deliver its ordinance
it has been reported that most of the bomb fall on orchard road.
Lucky Plaza and Mount Elizabeth hospital are in a state of destruction.
Meanwhile Singapore prepare to counter attack. it has been a hectic
day for reservist reporting back to their station. (Hope fully some still
remember their code name . Just imagine watching tv and there it is
"Rosegarden report to Juong Depot " )
Student of the three countries who studying abroad are taking
matter to their own hands by fighting on the street of L.A, San Diego,
San Francisco, Portland oregon, Chicago,Dallas, Cleveland ohio,NY,
Atlanta Georgia, Melbourne Aus, Sydney, Perth, etc.....
Woon soon Lau, Andy Tenka, ATAN, Othman,Sofjan Mustopoh and any
body who response to posting Defense of Spore are drafted by their
countries. since they know a little about anything in the war.
Refugee from Singapore started sailling out from the island.
it is not yet confirm about the Pirate on the sea.
By this time China and Vietnam ( Ha ha ha ha ha :) ) offer to be
middle man in negotiating a peace accord ( again ha ha ha ha );
prince Norodom Sihanouk and Imelda marcos and ex Phillipines's president
Madam Aquino are travelling to warring countries offering peace.
By this time Woon Soon Lau wake up sweat all over and realize
this is only a "NIGHTMARE ON NETNEWS "
If you ever get down to this line you'll already hit your head and
laught.
Lightened up guys and gal. this is only a partial conclusion
to our discussion.
Any body offering more conclusion are welcome.
***************************************************
If you still don't get it his is a JOKE !!!! :) |)
Sofjan mustopoh
UK0...@mik.uky.edu
us...@memstvx1.memst.edu
>
> " LATE BREAKING NEWS "
> Just receive from Indonesian news agency "Antara"
>
> Malaysia and Indonesia has jointly starting the operation
> "Hantam saja " in invading Singapore.
All right!!! Finally, we are going to take over Singapore! The day is
nigh (neigh if you are a horse, or even if you just like to horse around).
> First sortie has flown over Singapore to deliver its ordinance
> it has been reported that most of the bomb fall on orchard road.
Damn. Hey, I wanted to do some shopping there. I wish those generals
would be more careful in their choice of targets. After all, what is there to
loot if you bomb Orchard Road?
> remember their code name . Just imagine watching tv and there it is
> "Rosegarden report to Juong Depot " )
Made worse by the fact there is no Juong Depot... :) :) It's Jurong!!
>
> Woon soon Lau, Andy Tenka, ATAN, Othman,Sofjan Mustopoh and any
> body who response to posting Defense of Spore are drafted by their
> countries. since they know a little about anything in the war.
I want to fly the Mig-29, I want to fly the Mig-29!!
>
> By this time Woon Soon Lau wake up sweat all over and realize
> this is only a "NIGHTMARE ON NETNEWS "
Damn (again?) Does this mean we are all figments of his imagination??
<touch myself> I feel quite solid....
> If you ever get down to this line you'll already hit your head and
> laught.
Nope. Wrong on both counts. Laughed from the beginning. And didn't
hit my head.
> Lightened up guys and gal. this is only a partial conclusion
> to our discussion.
> Any body offering more conclusion are welcome.
>
Well, no conclusion, but here's a joke from LIFE in rec.humor.
---begin paraphrased joke---
The new recruit was sent to training camp and he trained on wooden
implements, and finally was sent to the front. The sergant handed him a stick
and said, "This is a gun, go out and shoot all the enemy soldiers."
"But sarge, this is just a stick," protested the private.
"Just point it at the enemy and go bangety bang bang and you will get
him," said the sarge.
"But what if he gets to close to shoot?" asked the private.
"Just turn the stick around and go stabbety stab stab," replied the
sarge. "Come on, trust me."
And so our brave soldier went to the war front. He reached the
battlefield and started going bangety bang bang, thinking that his has to be
the stupidest way to die. To his surprise, soldier after soldier fell beneath
his stick. He then tried stabbety stab stab, and more soldiers fell. Finally
only he was standing. As he stood surveying his territory, he noticed a lone
enemy moving towards him. Bangety bang bang. Nothing happened. Stabbety stab
stab. Nothing happened. He tried it over and over again, but nothing
happened. The lone soldier kept advancing. The enemy soldier just stomped
over him.
As he laid there dying, he heard the enemy soldier going "tankety tank
tank"
---go read life in rec.humor---
Ciao.
-Tai
Kui Yu Chang
LEE CHEE HOE
:
: " LATE BREAKING NEWS "
: Just receive from Indonesian news agency "Antara"
:
: Malaysia and Indonesia has jointly starting the operation
: "Hantam saja " in invading Singapore.
:
: First sortie has flown over Singapore to deliver its ordinance
: it has been reported that most of the bomb fall on orchard road.
: Lucky Plaza and Mount Elizabeth hospital are in a state of destruction.
: Meanwhile Singapore prepare to counter attack. it has been a hectic
: day for reservist reporting back to their station. (Hope fully some still
: remember their code name . Just imagine watching tv and there it is
: "Rosegarden report to Juong Depot " )
Sorry to have to dampen your warring spirit, but there is such things
as a Republic of Singapore Air Force. And should that fail, we still
have I-Hawks, Rapiers and RBS 70 Anti Air Artilleries and 30mm Anti
Aircraft Guns.
P.S. why would the SAF recall its reservists to a Bus Interchange in
Jurong !!??!!???
: Student of the three countries who studying abroad are taking
: matter to their own hands by fighting on the street of L.A, San Diego,
: San Francisco, Portland oregon, Chicago,Dallas, Cleveland ohio,NY,
: Atlanta Georgia, Melbourne Aus, Sydney, Perth, etc.....
Singapore students are not that rowdy please ..... Malaysian and
Indoesian students, they can speak for themselves (as in this posting).
: Woon soon Lau, Andy Tenka, ATAN, Othman,Sofjan Mustopoh and any
: body who response to posting Defense of Spore are drafted by their
: countries. since they know a little about anything in the war.
:
You mean the Malaysians and Indonesians are experienced? That's news!
Which wars have they fought in? The war in East Timor and the struggle
between Kelantan and K.L.?
:
:(stuff deleted)
***************************************************
: If you still don't get it his is a JOKE !!!! :) |)
:
Can you joke on some other matters than defence of a nation !! Very
sensitive you know !
n'toni Lee
National University of Singapore
School of Building and Estate Management
Andrew Tan
In a previous article, bem3...@nusunix1.nus.sg (LEE CHEE HOE) says:
>sofjan mustopoh (smus...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>:
>: " LATE BREAKING NEWS "
>: Just receive from Indonesian news agency "Antara"
>:
>: Malaysia and Indonesia has jointly starting the operation
>: "Hantam saja " in invading Singapore.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Hee...heee...I like this.
[munchety-munch]
>You mean the Malaysians and Indonesians are experienced? That's news!
>Which wars have they fought in? The war in East Timor and the struggle
>between Kelantan and K.L.?
No...no...the war against chewing-gum and the war against pissing
in ya own elevators.
>:(stuff deleted)
>
> ***************************************************
>: If you still don't get it his is a JOKE !!!! :) |)
>:
>Can you joke on some other matters than defence of a nation !! Very
>sensitive you know !
At times like these, I wonder if Y'ALL really take things written in this
newsgroup to the word, or Y'ALL "try to be patriotic" and hope Goh Chok
Tong happens to subscribe to this newsgroup too.
>n'toni Lee
>National University of Singapore
>School of Building and Estate Management
I.C. Number? Passport number? Telephone number? Bra size number?
Quite hard for Premier Goh to bestow you "Sir" n'toni Lee without these
information.
Kok-Yong Tan
> Second. You said Iraqi soldier a battle proven and US army are not(green
> you said). you totaly discount the air bombing and the strive for
> air superiority by Allied forces as for the 2 to 1 soldier
>advantage.
> 2.1 US soldier are and can't be considered green. US army are
> constantly training for a scenario. while doing it they revising
>their procedures. even during desert shields a large number of
>soldier are put throught retraing in chemical warfare. near
>my school in Anniston Alabama. "it was hell" that is the comment
>made by the soldier who just come out and eat in the restaurant
> i worked.
>Most Tank crew go to tank training again in desert in Nevada and
>California. to brush up their skill.
>As you know most aircraft pilot station in carrier are used to
>periodic training. and the top pilot of navy are sent to "TOP GUN"
>school(Like the movie top gun" .
>and to said american soldier are green are just a over
>simplification.
>America learn a lot from Vietnam. and using it to their advantage
>so to said that lots of soldier haven't born yet at the time of
>Vietnam is true. But how about the general. Commanding general.
>General Collins Powell,General Norman Shwarzkopft .
>It is true that the grunt(foot soldier) execute the war but it is
>the top brass that conducting the war.
I don't want to fuel the "who will invade whom" argument but I thought I'd just
clarify what is meant by "green." Someone who is considered a "green soldier"
is someone who has never had someone else shoot at them in anger. Training
doesn't count because the aim of training is not to injure the trainee. Having
bullets flying at you, some of which might have your name on it, is a totally
different proposition. It is much more frightening than training because in
training, you KNOW that the trainers are NOT trying to kill you. In war, you
KNOW that the other side IS trying his/her very best to kill you. Mere
semantics, you might say, but ask any combat veteran (i.e. someone who has
served as a combatant in a war zone) and he/she will tell you that there IS a
major psychological difference. You tend to fight very differently if you
have, say, a 50:50 (or more) chance of dying (when in a war situation) as
compared to a 1:99 (or less) chance of dying (when in a training situation.)
> To prove my point that if you pound enemy enought you don't need the size
> advantage to invade. Speed ,Mobility and cordination with air power are
> crucial.
> In Desert Storm Iraqi didn't have air cover at all by the time of
> invasion by allied. teir comunication and logistic line are contanly
> bomb and cut off.I saw in CNN about how underfed are Iraqi soldier are
> when they surender. Because of constant bombing the already low moral
> e , of iraqi soldier got lower hence most of them giving only low
> resistance. Except The republican guard .
> In Desert storm you don't see a bunch of guy yelling charge and chrge
> enemy line using size advantage. What you see is 24 Hours of constant
> bombing to soften the enemy before out flanking them and trap them.
> thus the doctrine 2 to 1 and charge , are not use.
The "doctrine 2 to 1" is not for charging an enemy. No modern general "charges
an enemy." It would be suicide. Actually, it is more a 3:1 ratio which is
necessary to assure victory. This ratio is needed due to the "natural"
attrition due to war operations: soldiers falling ill, breaking some appendage,
dying from friendly fire, dying from enemy fire, incapacitated by heatstroke,
etc. This is standard military doctrine that you can find in any textbook on
the subject (I believe West Point publishes a couple of studies that are
available in some bookstores.)
> Now back to Singapore. As i have said if every men are reservist and
> at the event of war are armed and ready to fight .Enemy would consider
> every male civilian are indeed a legitimate military target.
Invasion of Singapore wolud require an amphibious operation
> which would be very difficult. considering singapore size. But how
> about bombing. since all male are consider a soldier t,that could be
>taken
> as "you can bomb any where". the casualties would be very high for
singaporean. picture a war just like in Sarajevo (Yugoslavia) in
> singapore. where no body gain ground but civiliabn suffer horribly.
> that is not the kind of war Singaporean want. isn't it as matter of fact
> no Singaporean want a war isn't it.
True but those available for military service would not be in the cities by
that time. Only non-combatants. Bombing them would only make the combatants
even more angry and willing to do anything. I agree that a Sarajevo-like war
with indiscriminate attacking would be disastrous. But from what can be seen
with air-raid drills, etc, Singapore seems to be also readying itself for such
eventualities, not that it is immediately likely.
> Now considering why in the world Indonesia or Malaysia want to invade
> Singapore . Unless Both country rule by a Megalomaniac .the war might
> never happen. First the is no natural resouces in Singapore to fight for
> as for Singapore economic wealth. well what would it be worth after
> months of war for the invading country. Singapore are more valuable
> for malaysia and indonesia as it is Now.
Again, true. Most of the financial reserves are not in-country anyway, or can
be quickly cabled overseas. Outside of a natural deep-water harbour (which may
not be so deep after a war, what with sunken shipping), there is nothing to
fight over. Singapore's resources are its skilled labour (which is extremely
mobile, if you'll pardon the double-meaning... :-) )
As i recall there are agreementhat in the event of war singapore
> can use Indonesia airfield some where in sumatra. this outline
> the doctrine of Asean defense . Asean country should act as one.
> not a separate country fighting for herself.
I don't know about the agreement but I agree with your sentiments.
HUANG SUNG CHING
>
> " LATE BREAKING NEWS "
> Just receive from Indonesian news agency "Antara"
>
> Malaysia and Indonesia has jointly starting the operation
> "Hantam saja " in invading Singapore.
> First sortie has flown over Singapore to deliver its ordinance
> it has been reported that most of the bomb fall on orchard road.
> Lucky Plaza and Mount Elizabeth hospital are in a state of destruction.
>
they take off and head for Singapore airspace.
> Meanwhile Singapore prepare to counter attack. it has been a hectic
> day for reservist reporting back to their station. (Hope fully some still
> remember their code name . Just imagine watching tv and there it is
> "Rosegarden report to Juong Depot " )
I think you have underestimated the Reservists in Singapore, they have
very impressive mobilization exercises. In a few hours, Singapore can
mobilise several thousand troops, I forgot the actual number. As for
counter attack, Singapore has also fighters based in Thailand, New Zealand,
Phillipines and Brunei. It would be a major mistake to attack Singapore in
any ways.
Won-Soon Lau
: Heyy, Lau...got one more method for you. Instead of Indonesia burning their
: islands/forests on fire to choke y'all, how about lining the population
: (you know they have zimillions of people) up near the beaches and all
: FART at the same time? Are you all ready to face the consequences? Gas masks
: ready???
No need gas mask lah... We just prepare a large quantity of bottle stoppers
and you know where these things will go to ;-)
-WS
--
VLSI DESIGN & CAD LABORATORY \ Internet: engp...@nuscc.nus.sg
Dept of Electrical Engineering \ Bitnet: ENGP...@NUSVM.bitnet
National University of Singapore \ Phone: (+65) 772 6319
10, Kent Ridge Crescent. Singapore 0511. \______________________________
Won-Soon Lau
:
: First you said singapore has luxury of surounded by hostile country
: ready for a war . ?? Then why you keep using the malaysia,indonesia
: scenario.
hostile countries.
:
: ( stuffs about US soldier's training deleted )
: In Desert storm you don't see a bunch of guy yelling charge and chrge
: enemy line using size advantage. What you see is 24 Hours of constant
: bombing to soften the enemy before out flanking them and trap them.
: thus the doctrine 2 to 1 and charge , are not use.
In a well dugged-in position, constant bombing can only harass the
enemy psychologically but physical demage is not likely to be great.
Even the 155mm gun cannot cause enough demage to a fortified objective to
render it defenceless. You still need foot soldiers to comb the objective
and take the enemy one by one. When the allied troopes did the flanking,
they did not take the enemy all in one go. Therefore, there is always an
advantage in term of number. The republican guards were deceived by the
gun fire from the coast and moved forward to reinforce thereby leaving them
in the open. If they have not moved, it wouldn't be a 100 hours
ground war. Don't take my statement as pro-iraqi, the only common thing
between them and me is the word "guards".
:
: Now back to Singapore. As i have said if every men are reservist and
: at the event of war are armed and ready to fight .Enemy would consider
: every male civilian are indeed a legitimate military target.
Then you need a very smart bomb that can identify who is male and
who is female. Definitely not an easy thing to do.
: Invasion of Singapore wolud require an amphibious operation
: which would be very difficult. considering singapore size. But how
: about bombing. since all male are consider a soldier t,that could be
: taken
: as "you can bomb any where". the casualties would be very high for
I don't want to go over it again in which you say "Bomb Singapore" and I
reply with "How? With what?" and another one will say use VX gas or
"durian rain" or whatever.
: singaporean. picture a war just like in Sarajevo (Yugoslavia) in
: singapore. where no body gain ground but civiliabn suffer horribly.
: that is not the kind of war Singaporean want. isn't it as matter of fact
: no Singaporean want a war isn't it.
No, this is not that kind of war we want if we ever need to fight it. But
I can assure you that it will be very short and decisive. We are too small
to fight a prolonged war. Just one blow is just about what we can give.
I don't know how it will be delivered but I can assure you that the force
is not going to be light.
:
: Now considering why in the world Indonesia or Malaysia want to invade
: Singapore . Unless Both country rule by a Megalomaniac .the war might
: never happen. First the is no natural resouces in Singapore to fight for
: as for Singapore economic wealth. well what would it be worth after
: months of war for the invading country. Singapore are more valuable
: for malaysia and indonesia as it is Now.
A lot of time, you don't need a good reason to start a war. Neither do
you need a Megalomaniac as the head of a state to do so. Remember when
china invaded Vietnam in 1978(?). They did it because they wanted to
"punish" the vietnamese. Do you consider that a good reason?
:
: As i recall there are agreementhat in the event of war singapore
: can use Indonesia airfield some where in sumatra. this outline
: the doctrine of Asean defense . Asean country should act as one.
: not a separate country fighting for herself.
:
No such agreement that I'm aware of. Closest is a firing range jointly
managed by both air forces.
Kok-Yong Tan
{stuff deleted}
> In case of draught that may last 3 months, the reserve lake at McRichie
Really? I didn't know that the liquid floating in MacRitchie Reservoir was
draught beer. I'll keep this in mind when the next drought hits!!! :-)
{other stuff deleted}
>It is just as excuse by these young Singaporeans to justify their hard
>national service in offensive operations in the jungle to secure their
>water source so that they can wash their cars, have shower baths, swimming
>pools and call these as basic necessities.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just to discuss what the SAF is capable of. I've
never been fond of my two and a half years of NS purgatory (thought it a
massive waste of time.)
>Maybe I should start another thread called:
>War: Malaysia vs Singapore
Hey, it's a free world.
> I'm sure the military commands of both countries had known about
>all the possibilities, it is just these "hot blooded young Singaporeans",
>who had been left ignorant.
Most of us who can cogitate also come to the same conclusion and possibilities.
Sometimes, national fervour can be rather blinding.
Kok-Yong Tan
>In article <KYTAN.92S...@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com> ky...@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep21....@nuscc.nus.sg> engp...@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:
>>
>>>Andy Tenka (te...@en.ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>>>:
>>>: What if both Malaysia and Indonesia stop supplying water to Singapore, hold a
>>>: naval blockade against her for 3 months, and then send in their commandos with
>>>: fresh water supply. Would they still need a ratio of 2 to 1 to conquer
>>>: Singapore?
>>
>>>You need more now.
>>
>>Well, it has been the standard military belief that for decisive victories,
>>attacking armies need a 3:1 ratio of attacker to defender. I think this has
>>been the case for some time and not just currently.
>>
>>
>See, this is the kind of answer I like. I wish we had more people like
>Kok-Yong in the net, who stick to the issue in discussions.
Uh...thank you.
>Anyway, I still have one question unanswered. I know that complete
>air superiority of the allied forces brought an easy victory against
>the elite Iraqi Republican Guards. But then, I think that air superiority
>alone doesn't bring victory. A good utilization of this advantage is also
>very important. In the Gulf War, for example, the allied forces used their
>air superiority to starve the Republican Guards by cutting their supply line
>for months, and then the allied ground troops moved in. I still remember
>watching on TV how the Iraqi troops begged for food from the allied forces.
True enough. However, the Iraqi "behind-the-scenes" powerplays which gave the
Republican Guards the best of equipment and food and left the regular Iraqi
sorely depleted was a factor too. If I'm not wrong the ones who begged for
food where the non-Republican Guards. Saddam was very quick to save his elite
troops and left his regular troops as cannon fodder.
>My question is, how would Singapore use her air superiority against Malaysia?
>And also, if Malaysia try to starve the whole Singapore populations by cutting
>off water supply, how would Singapore sustain herself in war? This is assuming
>that Singapore could not occupy Johor, considering that it would take a 3:1
>ratio of attacker to defender. And also, logistic will be a big problem in
>such an invasion, as someone else already mentioned (forgot who it was, but
>he was saying that both Indonesia and Malaysia don't have the capability
>in invading Singapore because of logistic. I assumed the same holds for
>Singapore against Malaysia. Of course, this goes against Lau(?) who says that
>Singapore could take Johor in a surprise attack, but I disgress).
Okay, I'll try to stick strictly to the topic from a military, non-patriotic
point of view. In most cases logistics is only a problem if the lines of
supply are extremely extended and difficult to protect. In most cases,
detection of an enemy supply convoy with sufficient friendly forces (i.e. air
forces, ground forces, whatever) able to reach it is usually sufficient to doom
that convoy. With Malaysian and Indonesian bases so close, it all depends on
their detection capability. Of course, they will have to filter out civilian
traffic from military traffic. Admittedly, while it is heinous to have
civilians being attacked, from a defenders point of view, it's a propaganda
coup and also causes the attacker to waste precious ammunition.
I think Singapore plans for a...um...water supply problem by
hoping to rely on the reservoir system as a stopgap (though not long term)
measure. For the long term, Singapore has then got two options:
1. Rely on diplomacy to smooth things over.
2. Rely on world opinion (considering the water pipeline was built
with World Bank money) if diplomacy fails.
3. Carry out offensive operations in the name of survival if the
above two options fail.
I have a feeling that the above listing is also the preferred order of action,
with the third option being a distant third.
Both Indonesian and Malaysian logistical problems are solvable with the
Indonesian problem a wee bit more difficult than the Malaysian one due to the
fact that it's very difficult to hide a supply/escort vessel amongst all that
flat water. Also, everything would then be concentrated on ships--A rather
large target to hit and when it goes boom, all it carries goes boom (or gurgle)
with it. Malaysia has it easier with her jungle cover. If the roads to and
from Johor were bombed to unuseability and constantly watched, it makes life
more difficult for a Malaysian resupply operation but not impossible. Worse
comes to the worst, Malaysia could use humans with pack animals or bicycles to
carry supplies to front line troops, spreading them out over the jungle so that
airborne attacks would only destroy a small portion of the supply convoy.
The Singapore side only has its efficient road network (after all, Singapore is
essentially "botak" or denuded of natural cover.) This makes for quick
movement of materiel to the front but terrible in terms of cover. This leads
us the air superiority question. To destroy a Singaporean convoy on the way to
the front, the enemy has to use either air power or artillery. The former is
supposedly more accurate (depending on the quality of the pilots--I'm NOT
saying anything about whose pilots are better: it's just an objective point on
my part.) If Singapore can use its air force to achieve air superiority and
suppress enemy aircraft and artillery, then the enemy can only watch
impotently. An artillery piece in the 155mm class has an approximate range of
25 miles, so that rules out Indonesia doing it.
As for the possibility of a Singaporean success in a surprise attack on Johor,
it depends on how alert Malaysian troops are. What Singapore could take in an
attack could not possibly be held for long. Malaysian troops could retreat
into the jungle and then regroup with reinforcements coming from up north.
Singaporeans, as you've seen, tend to be paranoid and the constant military
exercises for reservists, even to the point of burning some weekends/weekday
nights doesn't alleviate this feeling. Singapore tends to keep constant watch
on its airspace and I wouldn't be surprised if side-looking radar is being used
to keep track of movements of ground-based armaments. Singapore also has a
rather rapid call-up system already in place. Whether Malaysia has one is
unknown but its off-duty troops probably are not concentrated, say, in the
Johor area. Whatever happens, Malaysia has time and land area to retreat,
regroup and then carefully plan a response.