-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
MALAYSIA FUCKS SINGAPORE: Price of water sold to Singapore 'ridiculous'; to renegotiate deal
- Thread starter 555
- Start date
arbitrarily and summarily deleted
Last edited:
Any exchanges on these peripheral points will lead to a prolonged and unnecessary arguments which you are seeking. So let's deal with the first base issue, i.e. what I said earlier and that is: Singapore cannot and will not survive a war. It will be destroyed within the first few hours of an outbreak of a war, if not earlier. This is since all its residents, foreign and local, will be fighting with each other in order to be the first to leave the country even before the first shot is fired. All the other peripheral issues such as unneccessarily high defence expenditure, stem from this point that I made.
Those in the know and those who are not hallucinating on drugs, and those with their head firmly grounded in reality know this too. My simple message to the brainless and juvenile jingoists, and to those who live in their delusional make believe world as well as to those who have yet to realise that Rambo is not real but is a fictional character in a fictional movie is: Good luck. Save some money and buy yourself a personal ambulance.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes it's purely hypothetical whether we'll survive or not. Nonetheless, cutting defence spending to zero would be a fantasy, so the question is how much/little is the right amount to spend.
Very much agree, Rambo and Hollywood have really screwed with our perception of war.
there's already a game changer that is being used over and over again more numerous times than conventional means for the last couple of decades. while "big battles" wait for months or years to develop, the use of this tech in swarming numbers can be employed right away, 24 by 7 using rotating squadrons, and can develop constant battles and battlefronts all over the map, anywhere within its range, including deep behind enemy lines. it's about time sg embraces cutting edge tech in using a combo of ai and human remote-control for swarming any would-be adversary with armed drones. it's a much more effective deterrent, more precise, dynamic and responsive force, less headcount-intensive, lower maintenance and more cost-effective force multiplier. for a cuntry like sg to spend billions on conventional aircraft, choppers, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, corp level manpower, and to still think that war is fought with massive combat divisions taking land and holding ground is grossly disproportionate to her (human) resources and (lack of) geographical depth. yes, the saf currently have drones in her orbat, but they are not employed as the main deterrent and or defensive/offensive force. the day when a regional "militarily backward" or lower-defense-spending cuntry adopts massive drone armies, air forces, and undersea forces using off-the shelf tech at pennies to a dollar in cost, sg can kiss her so called technological superiority goodbye. all those decades of expensive military buildup can be upended today with an army of teenagers playing and operating millions of starcraft drones from the safety of networked bunkers spread all over a vast geography of redundant data centers and radio transceivers. no need extensive airstrips/runways nor camps/barracks and hangars/storage for huge targets.
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/03/05/armed-drones-changing-conflict-faster-anticipated/
MARCH 5, 2018
Armed drones changing conflict faster than anticipated, Stanford scholar finds
Evolving drone technology will enable countries to make low-cost but highly credible threats against states and groups that do not possess drones, Stanford political scientist Amy Zegart found in new research.
BY CLIFTON B. PARKER
Could the mere threat of using an armed drone ever coerce an enemy to change their behavior – without attacking them?
Evolving drone technology will allow countries to make low-cost but highly credible threats against states and groups that do not possess drones, Stanford political scientist Amy Zegart found. (Image credit: iStock / Everlite)
Yes, says Stanford political scientist Amy Zegart, who argues in a new research paper that countries that simply possess deadly, armed drones could change an adversary’s behavior without even striking them. Zegart is the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and co-director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
“Armed drones are likely to offer coercion ‘windows of opportunity’ in at least one important circumstance: states that have armed drones confronting states that do not,” she said. “As wars grow longer and less conclusive, armed drones enable states to sustain combat operations, making threats to ‘stay the course’ more believable.”
Zegart believes that drone technology is becoming a more effective instrument to change a state’s behavior than yesteryear’s more costly option of using ground troops or large-scale military movements in war or conflict.
“Drones may be turning deterrence theory on its head,” said Zegart, referring to the cost-benefit calculation a potential aggressor makes when assessing an attack.
Zegart’s focus is on next-generation drones, which are essentially unmanned fighter jets and are currently in development. She is not examining the use of existing drones like quadcopters and Reaper and Predator unmanned aerial vehicles.
Foreign military officers surveyed
Zegart’s research is based on surveys of 259 foreign military officers conducted between 2015 and 2017. Participants were highly experienced foreign military officers who were attending classes at the National Defense University and Naval War College.
A drone is an unmanned aircraft that can be piloted remotely to deliver a lethal payload to a specific target.
“In situations where a coercing state has armed drones but a target state does not, drones make it possible to implement threats in ways that impose vanishingly low costs on the coercer but disproportionately high costs on the target.”
—AMY ZEGART
Today, Zegart said, many scholars are studying whether drone proliferation across the world could change the future of warfare.“But even here the focus has been the implications for the use of force, not the threat of force,” she said.
New drones are more lethal than ever, offering greater speeds, ranges, stealth and agility, according to Zegart. The U.S. is ahead, but not alone, in using drones. Nine countries have already used armed drones in combat, and at least 20 more are developing lethal drone programs – including Russia and China.
“It is time for a rethink” about drones, Zegart said. Technological advances will soon enable drones to function in hostile environments better than ever before.
“Drones offer three unique coercion advantages that theorists did not foresee: sustainability in long duration conflicts; certainty of precision punishment, which can change the psychology of adversaries; and changes in the relative costs of war,” she said.
Threats involving a high cost may be actually less credible than assumed, said Zegart. Her findings challenge the belief of “cost signals,” a military strategy where a country threatens another with a high-cost option, such as ground troops, which is intended to show resolve.
Drones may actually signal a nation’s resolve more effectively because – as a low-cost option – they can be part of an enduring offensive campaign against an enemy.
“The advent of armed drones suggests that costly signals may no longer be the best or only path to threat credibility,” she said. As wars grow longer and less conclusive, a particular country’s test of resolve becomes “more about sustaining than initiating action.”
“In situations where a coercing state has armed drones but a target state does not, drones make it possible to implement threats in ways that impose vanishingly low costs on the coercer but disproportionately high costs on the target,” Zegart said.
Combat, coercion
Zegart said that throughout history, whenever a new military technology emerges, adversaries have basically faced two choices – either concede or innovate to overcome the other side’s advantage.
“There is no reason to expect drones will be any different. The more that drones are used for combat and coercion, the more likely it will be that others will develop drone countermeasures,” she said.
New weapons often evolve technologically before “game-changing ideas” occur about how to use them, Zegart added. This was true of submarines before World War I, tanks after World War I, airplanes (which originally replaced surveillance balloons and were not used to drop bombs until 1911), and nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
“While physicists in the Manhattan Project developed the first atom bomb in just three years, it took much longer to develop the conceptual underpinnings of deterrence that kept the Cold War cold,” she said.
Drones raise important questions about the role of machines in decision-making during conflict, Zegart said. For example, much has been debated and written about the ethical and legal issues raised by U.S. drone strikes, the usefulness of drone operations against terrorist groups and whether the Pentagon or CIA should control and operate the drones.
Such questions are likely to grow more “numerous and knotty” as drones and other technologies evolve, she said.
Our generals are very confident that the SAF is a formidable force and will win in any conflict. Let the war begin.
The regular soldiers are breadwinners for their families and have higher ranks than NSMen and NSF.
Seriously, you think they will fight in the frontlines?
Yes it’s time like now with antagonistic other country leader like this that have proven defence spending is very worth it. Spend more!
Seriously it’s not a matter of ego but necessity to fight. I am sure Lky said war because of water and not ego too! And water treatment cost cheap or not who knows except the expert? Having bought water filters in jb, I would say they don’t cost cheap. Few hundred rm every few months for each tap or shower internal filter and few thousand rm for the external filter that supposed to last five years or maybe more. Work out to be two or three thousand rm each year.
I love the idiots still having the ego to act arrogant. If they cut all supply what can you do? The narcissism of beggars is amusing if it werent suicidal. Water filtration is some exclusive sjnkie tech now?
+1% gst to safeguard our water supply.
should i invoke your avatar instead of moniker?
I think this picture should be my avatar. hehehehhee
I rather have him as president than makcik,,,,he has spoken more for his people and for his state than the so called elected rulers,,,also at least he got Divine right to rule,,,makcik was appointed by some CAQ
It's all a matter of free market and supply and demand,water is an extremely precious resource in Singapore and will pay almost any price to ensure it's continued supply,the fact that lky is willing to go to war shows how ridiculous the situation is,u would rather risk thousands of lives and potentially tens of billions of dollars in a costly war then just to pay them a billion a year for 250 million gallons a day like we pay PAP?the water belongs to Malaysia,to relinquish the control of the water supply essentially giving it up for 3 sen per thousand gallon is a travesty and a threat to national interests.
If Malaysia is smart they should not honor the silly agreement,the financial loss far outweigh the benefits of honoring it.like dotard,mahartir should demand on sillypootians the immediate compensation and reparations for all financial losses incurred during the last 50 years of honoring the "agreement" an estimated 20 to 50 billion dollars adjusted for inflation and an immediate tariff to be imposed
Last edited:
30 sen per thousand gallon is a joke,we pay $2.61 per cm3 which is about $10.40 sgd per thousand gallon for tap water.
I suggest mudland hike the price of water to 10 Rm per thousand gallon.
Knowing our arrogance, we did not come in humble or even send a malay. Because, of course, a chink is the best candidate to deal. Or hissy fit vivian
at least she's well shaved. didn't know you love anal.I think this picture should be my avatar. hehehehhee
Similar threads
