From: kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: Defense of S'pore; was about F16 & Mig29
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:14:56 GMT
	<1992Sep24.152554.10663@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Organised?  Here?  Hahahahahahahaha.....

In article <1992Sep24.152554.10663@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smustopo@nyx.cs.du.edu (sofjan mustopoh) writes:

> 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.

--
===============================================================================
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: kytan@fia.dmg.ml.com (Merrill Lynch)
	  75046.256@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean