Singapore has no ability to decimate enemy's capacity due to size of country. It takes 30 mins to reach KL. Furthermore their military assets are likely widely scattered. Finally country is covered with vegetation.
Also, I seriously doubt if we can have much of a surprise. The cards dealth are such that both sides have good intelligence right up the command chain - just a fact of life. That reduces the advantage of surprise.
US has best assets and even they together with NATO could not stop Libyan military from strafing and bombing rebel cities for weeks if not months. Mind you Libya is desert like and military assets can easily be picked from sky. US has best signal jamming capability but that is great against anti aircraft assets. But could not stop smaller artillery pieces.
Yes we can destroy strategic assets like some command and control, airfields, aircraft in the first hours. But that does not stop them from destroying our basic infrastructure. Small mobile MLRS, artillery pieces and long range missiles will make mince meat of our infrastructure.
As for a drawn out war, they can move back to their kampong plots with their small gensets and well water and wait out years. Meanwhile Singapore cannot tahan 6 months. Our weakness is ourselves. Malaysian know that and hence they need not invest in "first strike" capabilty. In a way what we have is airforce. With land forces (NS men) we will be bogged down in Johor and the Malaysian response will be fierce (the whole invading bumi land idea etc etc).
Once power is gone, HDB flats without operational lifts will be nightmare.
Will US come sailing to help and be seen as siding against a Muslim country? Just go see Syria. China? I can see them opening up country to ethinic Chinese to move to. After all China can easily absorb 1M Chinese refugees. But they will not fight a war after all Singapore is not their territory.
In short, our military spending is like building a shiny bank HQ with huge safes. Gives people confidence but just see US Twin towers - in a conflict it will all crumble very quick. But then it is important for the shiny building because it makes investors feel confident (banks know that too).
However it makes for good politics to talk about conflicts when there cannot be one because the price is too high.
Bro, you completely misunderstood what is first strike capability.
It does not mean first to shoot. In a first strike capability, you decimate your enemy's capacity to launch any attack for weeks and possibly by months. Its a well organised plan where you knock out everything that is important out. It's means an airforce with no planes, no radar, no military high command, extensive jamming of signals, no deployment capability etc.
"First Strike" is not two words put together, it carries a distinct meaning militarily and politically. Also closely aligned with "Pre-emotive"You are confusing a surprise attack with first strike. You can spot a country's philosophy of first strike by their excessive acquisition of airforce and highly mobile deployment capability assets. There is only 2 countries that fall into this category - is Israel and Singapore. It's is an expensive proposition.
Let me draw an analogy - you and your neighbour staying in landed property have an argument over cars being parked. Such scenarios involve throwing of insults, the occasional punch-ups and damage to your property. Lets assume there is no local law enforcement and courts similar to countries fighting. In first strike capability, your neighbour comes home from work to find his entire house burnt down, including his family. He is not only homeless, it will take a long while before he can function meaningfully.
It has nothing to do with you throwing the first punch when he is not looking.
