Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

[ngatimozart]

This might be where India can come in handy (although I do not know the strength of its navy). I do know, however, that India has some form of industry, that people in at least one location (Alang, because of its shipbreaking) know something about how to build a ship or what goes into a ship, and that India happens to be in the right location and has plenty of shoreline (and labor). I can presume that India, if it doesn't already have a decent navy, can build one up within thirty years' time (at the most) (if it puts its mind to it). Know-how could probably be given to India to help it build a navy up, if it doesn't already have a good navy. Israel, I know, has a decent military. I am not entirely sure how big the Australian military is, and I'm a bit skeptical about Singapore, which is a city-state. (Remember Gdansk, 1939? It was overrun. So was Singapore, within a few years of then.) We can probably defend Singapore and Israel, but I'm not sure what happens if someone threatens nuclear attack against Singapore, Israel, or other tiny country. (I presume Monaco would be quickly destroyed in an atomic attack, anyhow...) :tomato Moreover, how much help would Singapore be able to provide NATO?

India would be a logical choice but not Israel. Israel is a Mediterranean nation and a nation that in NZs case would be more trouble than it is worth to have any alliance with. NZ has lucrative trade deals with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our govt would not jeopardise those for the sake of an alliance with Israel which would be of no benefit to NZ. Finally, there are no points of common interest between Israel and NZ in the areas of defence and foreign policy. I would not discount Singapore. They are part of the FPDA and their forces are of high calibre. The Singaporean forces are better equipped and have a higher sustainment level than those of my own country. The point is that there is no reason for NATO to expand into Asia and the Pacific and certainly no point for any alliances with Israel. Geographically there are no commonalities, politically too many liabilities and economically at the moment definitely no money.

 

[STURM]

India would be a logical choice but not Israel.

The Pacific Rim and the Indian Ocean will continue to be dominated by the USN but in coming years the seas will be shared with the China and India. For various strategic reasons, both countries, especially China, will increase their naval presence in these areas. China's biggest worry is that the bulk of its energy resources have to be shipped by sea all the way from the Middle East via the Melaka Straits. If the current trend continues and China's economy does not encounter any problems, it is very possible that China's navy will have more hulls in service than the USN in the near future. As China becomes more powerful and influential, economic and security ties that littoral states along the Indian Ocean have with China will evolve.

I am not entirely sure how big the Australian military is, and I'm a bit skeptical about Singapore, which is a city-state. (Remember Gdansk, 1939? It was overrun. So was Singapore, within a few years of then.) We can probably defend Singapore and Israel, but I'm not sure what happens if someone threatens nuclear attack against Singapore, Israel, or other tiny country. (I presume Monaco would be quickly destroyed in an atomic attack, anyhow...) :tomato Moreover, how much help would Singapore be able to provide NATO?

History does not always repeat itself and there are no serious external threats to either Israel or Singapore, nor are their neighbours, even if they wished to do so, capable of ''ove running'' Singapore or Israel.

 

[swerve]

... I'm a bit skeptical about Singapore, which is a city-state. (Remember Gdansk, 1939? It was overrun. So was Singapore, within a few years of then.) ...

Gdansk (which was then Danzig) had a mainly German population & a Nazi government. Only two points in the city resisted the German occupation. Most of the city welcomed it, & the city police force assisted the invading troops. One point was defended by 200 Polish troops & the other by armed Polish Post Office staff. They were outnumbered by well over 10:1, & even more outgunned.

Singapore in 1942 was surrendered when it was defended by a far larger force than that attacking it, & the attacking force was running short of supplies. The command of the defending forces was astonishingly incompetent. It had been outmanoeuvred by inferior forces when it tried to defend the mainland, & proved no better at defending the island.

Neither of these provides a good precedent for the defence of Singapore today. The 1941-2 campaign merely shows some mistakes to avoid.

 

[Rickyrab]

Gdansk (which was then Danzig) had a mainly German population & a Nazi government. Only two points in the city resisted the German occupation. Most of the city welcomed it, & the city police force assisted the invading troops. One point was defended by 200 Polish troops & the other by armed Polish Post Office staff. They were outnumbered by well over 10:1, & even more outgunned.

Singapore in 1942 was surrendered when it was defended by a far larger force than that attacking it, & the attacking force was running short of supplies. The command of the defending forces was astonishingly incompetent. It had been outmanoeuvred by inferior forces when it tried to defend the mainland, & proved no better at defending the island.

Neither of these provides a good precedent for the defence of Singapore today. The 1941-2 campaign merely shows some mistakes to avoid.

World War II was full of blunders on both sides: inadequately provided forces, mistakes in focus, goofs in hiring, firing, and trusting officers, and so on and so forth. Then there's what happens when people actually try to defend a city, such as what happened in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), in that war: Germans laid partial siege (which was effective at first but declined in effectiveness because Russians figured a way to get around the blockade), there was general famine, but the Russians dug into their trenches, and the lines held. The Germans then tried taking over a city after wrecking it (Stalingrad, aka Volgograd) - only to turn the battle into an ugly stalemate due to all of the obstacles in the ruins. In both cases, Russia had forces and industry that were elsewhere and could be produced and transported to the scene. A city-state such as Singapore would need allies in order to do that, or at least someplace where it could put forces and industry. However, it could turn a takeover attempt into a slugfest in the ruins, I guess.

 

[OPSSG]

I'm a bit skeptical about Singapore, which is a city-state. (Remember Gdansk, 1939? It was overrun. So was Singapore, within a few years of then.) We can probably defend Singapore and Israel... Moreover, how much help would Singapore be able to provide NATO?

@Rickyrab, doctrinally, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) does not intend to defend Singapore at the gates of the city, as it were and is capable and resourced for 'foward defence' of our country. Our thinking on defence is something that is not well understood by casual observers and often leads some misunderstanding. There are a few main points that new members taking part in this thread should note :-

1. The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) is the only tertiary air force in Southeast Asia (SEA). This means that it is an air force with the capability to detect, track and engage airborne targets that is a golden mile ahead of any other air force in SEA:

(i) The RSAF is the only air force in SEA with an operational AWAC squadron (the RSAF has operated 4 E-2Cs since 1987 and is in the process of inducting brand new G550 CAEWs), giving data-linked RSAF pilots unparalleled situational awareness at a time of war. Sunho Beck, writing in Aviation Week (1 Oct 2007) said that the G550 CAEW can detect fighter sized targets up to 370 km away and carries unique dual-band, phased-array radar with 2 L-band side antennas and 2 S-band end antennas which are connected to a common radar unit. The system software has been optimised by DSTA and the local defence industry. Further, Singapore is currently the only Asian country to participate in the F-35 program as a Security Cooperation Participant. I'm pretty sure that in the near future, the RSAF will have some capability to detect aircraft in our own inventory (and will probably keep silent about the RSAF's current detect, track and engage capabilities).

(ii) The RSAF has a KC-135R squadron (with 4 aircraft) and again, it is only the tanker squadron in SEA that have crews that have been deployed in a theatre of war (in support of the American led Operation Enduring Freedom). Between 2004 to 2008, the RSAF deployed KC-135R tankers (in 5 deployments for 3 month stretches each time) in support of coalition forces in Iraqi. Between 2004 and 2008, RSAF KC-135Rs offloaded 14 million pounds of fuel to more than 1,400 coalition aircraft in over 300 refuelling sorties. RSAF's KC-135Rs are valued coalition assets because they are equipped for boom refueling and probe-and-drogue refuelling (which means they can refuel all coalition aircraft, be it USAF, USN, US Marines and aircraft from other coalition countries).

(iii) The RSAF is again the only air force in SEA that is recognized by her partners as capable of conducting Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) missions and it also has a robust Electronic Warfare (EW) capability that is second to none in SEA. While it is well known that the RSAF regularly takes part in large force employment exercises like Red Flag but what is lesser known is that the RSAF also takes part in Green Flag exercises (which is SEAD oriented). Further, the F-15SGs are AESA radar equipped and are known to have internal EW systems (rumored to be the AN/ALQ-135M system manufactured by Northrop Grumman). BTW, the RSAF has not fully declassified its SEAD and EW capabilities, that's why this capability is not often described. For completeness, I should note that the RSAF's F-16s have been spotted carrying the AN/ALQ-131 podded radar jammers and F-5S carrying the EL/L-812/22 jamming pod.​

2. With full time detachments based in Australia (basic wings course), France (advanced jet training) and the US (for F-15SG and F-16C/D training), the RSAF's pilots certainly are trained to western standards. Each RSAF squadron has more actual flight hours and simulator hours than any other squadron in any other air force in SEA. I shall not bother to list the countries that RSAF pilots train with and against in Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) in various overseas exercises, as there are too many. IMHO, RSAF pilots have lots of DACT experience that can't be matched by other air forces in SEA. The RSAF is a little air force that can do quite a bit and I would recommend that new members watch this 2008 video below, for an overview of the RSAF:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhZN307evOs&feature=related"]RSAF 40th Anniversary Video - YouTube[/nomedia]​

3. I would like to add 3 sub-points on sortie generation for further consideration by fellow forum participants:

(i) With tanker support (from KC-135Rs and KC-130s) and 5 fighter squadrons (3x F-16C/D squadrons, 1x F-15SG squadron and 1x F-5S squadron - all 5 squadrons are BVR capable), the RSAF can potentially generate more sorties (with much more capable aircraft) than most other SEA air forces. With the largest defence budget in SEA (see next post below), Singapore does not have to choose between buying more fighters or AWACs.

(ii) With ST Aerospace providing competent technical support, the RSAF has a well maintained fleet, consequently, the RSAF's airpower generation command, is structured to out sortie generate any other air force in SEA. IMHO, total sorties generated (before attrition) is usually calculated with reference to the formula below:

Total sorties per day = fleet size x availability* x No. of sorties flown**.

eg. 1: RSAF Total Sorties per day = 99 x 0.8* x 4**
............................................... = 316.8

The above example is an indicative calculation that is not meant to be definitive (in fact, there's some under-counting of the RSAF fighter fleet). The calculation would depend on different assumptions* used by different members and in the above simple examples have not factored in fighters of 'allied' or partner countries.
​

(iii) Keep in mind that the RSAF's force structure is designed to enable it to provide over-match against two immediate regional air forces at the same time (for the SAF's concept of deterrence to work). So there's some basis for my point of view on sortie generation (biased though it may seem to be to foreigners). Here's a video of the RSAF's air power generation command converting a highway into a runway with RSAF aircraft taking off and landing:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnkNaF45BK0&feature=watch_response"]RSAF Exercise Torrent 2008 - HD - YouTube[/nomedia]​

4. The RSAF is also the largest and most advanced UAV operator in SEA. The RSAF is a operator of the Hermes 450 and the Searcher II UAVs (plus having the Heron 1 on order to replace the Searcher IIs). Recently, the SAF also deployed a 52-man Search II UAV team to Afghanistan, making the RSAF the air force with the most operationally experienced UAV teams and with the most advanced ISR capabilities in SEA.

5. In the last few years, the SAF has grown smaller. In fact, we have reduced the size of our air force (and even transferred 7 F-16A/Bs to Thailand), stood down some army units (infantry and artillery) reduced the duration of conscription and length of reserve cycles - because there is no peer threat. To give you an idea of how SAF sources for weapons - here's a limited list of countries that the SAF have bought weapons from, over the last few years:

(i) Swedish built submarines (Challenger and Archer class submarines) and mine sweepers (Bedok Class);

(ii) French designed Frigates (Formidable Class), French built Super Pumas & Cougars, the Life Extension Programme of RSN's Swedish built Bedok class mine countermeasure vessels performed by Thales and so on;

(iii) German made tanks (IBD evolved Leopard 2s for urban warfare, with the L44 gun), the M3 float bridges and the Lürssen designed Corvettes (Victory Class);

(iv) American aircraft like F-15SGs, F-16C/Ds, Apaches, Chinooks, KC-135Rs and Seahawk naval helicopters;

(v) Russian designed SAM missiles (Igla); and

(vi) Israeli supplied G550 CAEWs and the Barak missile system on the Victory Class vessels,​

making the SAF's supply network truly global. Having said the above, a reader can be forgiven in thinking that I'm happy with each and everyone of Singapore's arm's purchases. That is not the case. In actual fact, I have some concerns about capability gaps, deployability and sustainability due to platform age.

6. The SAF's efforts on behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan need to be specifically mentioned:

(i) From 2003 to 2008, 998 SAF personnel were sent to join the multinational forces to help in the task of rebuilding and restoring peace and stability in Iraq. This included 5 deployments of the Endurance Class vessels, 1 deployment of a C-130, 5 deployments of KC-135Rs and even some army officers as planners for coalition forces in Iraq.

(ii) With regards to ongoing deployments in Afgahnistan, the SAF continues to send rotations of the National Command Elements, military institutional trainers (in Kabul) and imagery analysts (in RC South, Kandahar), and as will sending medical teams to Oruzgan. Maj. Gen. James L. Terry, Division Commander of the 10th Mountain Division and Combined Joint Task Force – 10, responsible for the command and control of coalition military forces in RC-South which encompasses five of Afghanistan’s southern provinces, writes a Commendation Letter to Singapore's Chief of Army for Major Clarence Cai and Major Goh Pei Ming.​

I include this video on the Singapore Navy, which demonstrate one example of the SAF's consistent contribution at a time of crisis (be it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor Leste, CTF-151, relief operations in Indonesia & Thailand after the Dec 2004 Tsunami, relief operations after Hurricane Katrina and most recently relief operations in Christchurch, NZ):-

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8rrxjIjHlQ&feature=channel_video_title"]Go Beyond Horizons - YouTube[/nomedia]​

7. The SAF's declared mission statement is to "enhance Singapore’s peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy, and should these fail, to secure a swift and decisive victory over the aggressor". And I believe the SAF is resourced to carry out the mission statement. In fact, Trefor Moss, writing for Janes had on 18 Jan 2010 said:-

"The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) of 2010, by far the most advanced military force in Southeast Asia, are the outcome of a long-held policy of allotting defence up to 6 per cent of GDP. While defence spending has dipped below this level in recent years – it was 4.3 per cent in 2009, an allocation of SGD11.4 billion (USD8.2 billion) – this remains very high by regional standards. As the Indonesian defence minister recently lamented, Singapore (population less than five million) spends more on defence in real terms than Indonesia (population 230 million)... The SAF not only enjoy a clear capability advantage over other Southeast Asian militaries, but it is also now close to becoming the 'Third-Generation' armed force, which recent procurement and reforms have been designed to produce."​

Singapore in 1942 was surrendered when it was defended by a far larger force than that attacking it, & the attacking force was running short of supplies. The command of the defending forces was astonishingly incompetent. It had been outmanoeuvred by inferior forces when it tried to defend the mainland, & proved no better at defending the island.

Agreed. As WWII has shown, a good defence plan for Malaya (against the then external Japanese invasion from the north) from should start at the appropriate geographical choke point in Thai territory (see Appendix 2 for Map of the opening blows in the Pointer Monograph on page 64). The Imperial Japanese Army landed in Thai territory and proceed to march south. There is also a Pointer Monograph on the mistakes in the Malayan Campaign, including a chapter on operational art shortcomings by LTC (NS) Singh and I quote A/P Farrell from the Monograph below:

"The only conceivable scenario in which the 21st century SAF will be fighting on its own is the direct defence of Singapore itself in circumstances where Singapore’s allies are unwilling, or unable, to assist its defence. SAF operations in Cambodia and East Timor were part of larger multi-national efforts and we must assume this will remain the more likely scenario for a long time to come.

The defence and fall of Malaya and Singapore provide a stark if general warning in this respect. Defeat was probably unavoidable for the British Empire in Malaya after the fall of France in 1940, certainly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. But disaster, the rapid and humiliating collapse of the defence on the mainland, need not have happened.

One important reason why it did was the failure of the defenders, especially Malaya Command, to manage the inherent problems of fighting as a coalition. The frustration and pressure of retreat and defeat naturally magnified those problems. Inter- operability in all respects, including moral and psychological, spells the difference between victory and defeat in coalition operations. The SAF must learn to work effectively with foreign partners, just as they must learn to work with it. Finger pointing based on national differences, once started, can be impossible to stop."​

 

[OPSSG]

History does not always repeat itself and there are no serious external threats to either Israel or Singapore, nor are their neighbours, even if they wished to do so, capable of ''ove running'' Singapore or Israel.

Thanks for the kind words.

...I would not discount Singapore. They are part of the FPDA and their forces are of high calibre. The Singaporean forces are better equipped and have a higher sustainment level than those of my own country...

Thanks for the kind words.

Neither of these provides a good precedent for the defence of Singapore today. The 1941-2 campaign merely shows some mistakes to avoid.

Agreed.

A city-state such as Singapore would need allies in order to do that, or at least someplace where it could put forces and industry. However, it could turn a takeover attempt into a slugfest in the ruins, I guess.

To bring Rickyrab up todate, I would like to refer him to two additional sources, which might be of interest:

(i) Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore by Tim Huxley and published in 2000 (see link to my prior book review, here); and

(ii) the 2003 article by Sheldon W. Simon, quoted below and previously posted by me in another thread.​

NBR Analysis (Vo. 14, No. 2, Aug 2003) titled: "Theater Security Cooperation in the U.S. Pacific Command: An Assessment and Projection" by Sheldon W. Simon and I quote a small section of what he wrote and in particular, what he said about Singapore:

""Of America’s three closest Southeast Asian security partners, (Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines), only Singapore’s armed forces are sufficiently technologically proficient to interact with U.S. forces in a manner comparable to Japan, the ROK, and Australia...

Singapore’s defense concerns focus entirely on its own neighborhood. As a major international port and business center, maintaining freedom of the SLOCs and air routes is essential to the city-state’s prosperity. This core interest fits well with U.S. East Asian strategy... Moreover, Singapore is the only Southeast Asian military to have an active rapid deployment force, which operates in an integrated manner with the navy and air force...

While the city-state prefers U.S. defense technology because of its superiority and logistical advantages, Singapore also maintains a complex system of licensed production, assembly, and technology agreements with Britain, France, Italy, Israel, Thailand, Sweden, and Taiwan...

The United States has solidified its security ties to Singapore with a logistics facility, which provides a surge capacity during crises, and was used in Operation Enduring Freedom. Moreover, the new Changi Naval Base, with its deep-water capability, permits the berthing of U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Despite these close ties, Singapore is not completely satisfied with its U.S. defense relationship. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) desires full technology release on all systems it purchases. That is, Singapore wishes to have the right to modify U.S. technology to fit its own needs. Therefore, it is less concerned with maintaining interoperability with the United States than with integrating U.S. equipment into Singapore’s own armed forces doctrine...

At bottom, Singapore believes defense to be essentially its own responsibility. What it wants from the United States, therefore, is increased technology transfer to enhance its independent military capability. Singapore is more enthusiastic about multilateral anti-terrorist cooperation, though even along this dimension the city - state seems more comfortable sharing intelligence with the United States than its neighbors...

Protecting the Strait of Malacca where 1,100 supertankers pass eastbound annually is of great concern to Singapore. A terrorist incident could disrupt traffic simply by causing insurance rates to skyrocket... Terrorist groups have engaged in piracy according to the Malaysian Institute for Maritime Affairs. The MILF and Abu Sayyaf from the Philippines have attacked vessels in the Sulu Sea; and although some anti-piracy cooperation occurs among the littoral states, obstacles remain... This is a particular problem when pirates flee into Indonesian waters among that country’s thousands of islands..."​

To further our discussion, below is a list of the top 6 SEA countries ranked by their defence spending to provide context to this discussion. The defence spending data is from SIPRI*, the Total Fighter Fleet** size data is extracted from Flight International's Dec 2009, "World Air Forces" (keep in mind that this is not the most accurate of sources) and the #No. of Troops (active/reserve) are extracted from the IISS' "The Military Balance 2010".

1. Singapore
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 99
(i) F-16C/Ds = 60 (other sources suggest higher numbers)
(ii) F-15SGs = 4 (20 on order)
(iii) F-5S/Ts = 35 (see other source on Singapore F-5s by tail numbers)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 72,500 (active) and 312,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$182.23 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 3.9% to a high of 5.1% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$7,966 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$6,661 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$5,997 million (at constant 2008 prices)


2. Indonesia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 39
(i) F-16A = 7
(ii) Su-27/30 = 7 (3 on order)
(iii) Hawk 209 = 25

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 302,000 (active) and 400,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$539.37 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.0% to a high of 1.4% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,908 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$4,840 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,970 million (at constant 2008 prices)


3. Thailand
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 97
(i) F-16A/Bs = 50
(ii) F-5A/E = 47
(iii) Gripen C = 0 (other sources suggest that it is 6 +6 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 305,860 (active) and 200,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$263.97 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 1.1% to a high of 1.5% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,117 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$2,673 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,702 million (at constant 2008 prices)


4. Malaysia
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 59
(i) Su-30MKM = 18
(ii) F/A-18D = 8
(iii) MiG-29 = 10
(iv) RF-5E= 9
(v) Hawk 208 = 14

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 109,000 (active) and 296,300 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$192.95 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2.0% to a high of 2.6% (from 2000 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$4,078 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$3,691 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$2,122 million (at constant 2008 prices)


5. Vietnam
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 202
(i) MiG-21 = 146
(ii) Su-22 = 38
(iii) Su-27/30 = 18 (8 on order)

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 455,000 (active) and 5 million (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$92.43 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 2% to a high of 2.5% (data from 2003 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$2,073 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$1,370 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: No data shown in SIPRI database


6. Philippines
**Total Fighter Fleet in 2009 = 0
(i) S-211 = 13 (S211 is not classed as fighter aircaft, as its not even an AJT)
(ii) OV-10 =11 (ground attack and not usually classes as fighter aircaft)
[Note: I believe the actual working inventory may be lower]

#No. of Troops (active/reserve)..........: 120,000 (active) and 131,000 (reserves)
2009 GDP (nominal) .........................: US$161.19 billion (IMF data)
*Defence Spending as a % of GDP ...: Between a low of 0.8% to a high of 1.0% (from 2001 to 2008)
*2009 Defence Spending...................: US$1,424 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2004 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,275 million (at constant 2008 prices)
*2000 Defence Spending...................: US$ 1,270 million (at constant 2008 prices)

 

[Rickyrab]

Agreed.



To bring Rickyrab up todate, I would like to refer him to two additional sources, which might be of interest:

(i) Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore by Tim Huxley and published in 2000 (see link to my prior book review); and

(ii) the 2003 article by Sheldon W. Simon, quoted below and previously posted by me in another thread.​

Pretty interesting posts, although I don't know anything about Singapore's defense and military (I'm an urban planning student with an interest in transportation, and I've heard of Singapore's congestion pricing, but not its military).

That being said, I find the use of highways as runways to be interesting. I wonder if someone can think up a transportation route that uses a combination bus/airplane. (Of course, security would have to be tight as heck on any such American line, because it would have to be regulated as an airline, and thus the bus driver's "cockpit" would have to be walled off. Also, the lanes of a highway that accommodates such a vehicle would have to be wider and so would access road lanes. That might limit the utility of such a vehicle.)

Much of defense is transportation, which is where part of my interest in defense comes in: I figure that militaries would be good at the art of transportation.

Getting back to topic: Singapore seems like a good partner to me, in light of your information.

 

[OPSSG]

...Any way - this thread is for the discussion on whether other countries should join NATO. NATO by its name and treaty structure - should tell you that Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore are not eligible to join.

AFAIK, the 3 most capable military powers of the 5 countries listed at the start are Australia, India and Israel.

Japan's SDF is limited in the role it can perform because of its constitution.

Singapore is tiny - it has a population of 4 m, our defence budget (while big in ASEAN terms) is dwarfed by comparison to Australia, India or Israel. The bulk of our full time army is comprises of conscripts - they serve 2 years and then go back to civilian life. Only our navy and air force comprise of full time volunteers (at least the bulk of it). It takes close to a year for us to turn a battalion operational and ready for deployment - starting from basic military training. Even if we tried, how long can a deployment from Singapore last?

Any way our largest deployment to date was in Banda Aceh after the Dec 2004 Tsunami (click on this link for a free ebook on SAF's "Operation Flying Eagle" deployment).

Did you know that for a number of Singapore deployments - we actually had to deploy with NSmen volunteers? In other words, we need these NSmen (who are former conscripts back in civilian life taking a break from their day jobs) to go back to serve in the military just for a deployment.

So, IMHO, there is no need even to consider Singapore and Japan.

@Rickyrab, if you read the thread, back to my prior post in Nov 2008, you would know what my response was. My response remains unchanged. For historical and other reasons, Singapore is not keen to join a NATO like organisation and the act of doing so limit our country's usefulness given the current facilitative role we play in Asia. To understand, you will need to read up on why SEATO and the other attempts in forming regional organisations in Southeast Asia failed. Thereafter, you'll need to read up on ASEAN, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting, the East Asia Summit and the Shangri-La Dialogue, just to name a few of the current regional initatives.

My prior two posts was to demonstrate that Singapore can defend ourselves and is an active contributor. That will not change. You seem to have misunderstood the geopolitics of the region and IMHO you can't understand the region without understanding the history and geography of the region.

 

[Rickyrab]

@Rickyrab, if you read the thread, back to my prior post in Nov 2008, you would know what my response was. My response remains unchanged. For historical and other reasons, Singapore is not keen to join a NATO like organisation and the act of doing so limit our country's usefulness given the current facilitative role we play in Asia. To understand, you will need to read up on why SEATO and the other attempts in forming regional organisations in Southeast Asia failed. Thereafter, you'll need to read up on ASEAN, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting, the East Asia Summit and the Shangri-La Dialogue, just to name a few of the current regional initatives.

It's a bit of a tl;dr thing for me. (I was thinking of what I might want as a member of an alliance, not necessarily NATO, but of a generic alliance.)

My prior two posts was to demonstrate that Singapore can defend ourselves and is an active contributor. That will not change. You seem to have misunderstood the geopolitics of the region and IMHO you can't understand the region without understanding the history and geography of the region.

To be fair, I haven't paid attention to the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean area, and the sort of news that Americans are interested in abroad concern two things: large economies (such as China) and American military affairs (which were primarily focused in the Mideast, in Muslim territory northwest of India).

So what do I know about news/ geography/ politics in the Indian Ocean area?

-There is a large, mostly Muslim country, called Indonesia, which at times seemed close to breaking up.
-There was an economic crisis revolving around the Thai baht back in the 1990s which led to rioting (a pogrom?) in Jakarta.
-Indonesia terrorized East Timor for a number of years before being told to back off, and East Timor became a country (and one of the world's poorest nations per capita).
-There is a large international squabble going on over the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea.
-There is a mostly Muslim country called Malaysia that kicked out a city called Singapore for some reason or other a while back.
-There is a poor, mostly Muslim, often waterlogged country called Bangladesh, and a large, mostly Hindu, somewhat rambunctious, democracy called India, pretty much dominating the Indian Ocean by its size
-India has worries about Muslim countries, particularly Pakistan
-There are a bunch of Muslim countries which keep getting in trouble on the Indian Ocean's northwest flank. There are a bunch of poor African countries to the west. I know Somalia has been in a civil war for too long, and thus there's piracy as a result, but I hardly know anything about what the African coast is up to besides that.
- Indonesia has a particularly orthodox Muslim territory in its west called Aceh, which was deluged by the Boxing Day tsunami
-There are Buddhist countries in Southeast Asia (Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam), which got into trouble in the 1970s and 1980s, due to Communism in the case of the last three, and a military junta in the case of Burma. Burma was still under the junta last I looked and Vietnam was still Communist, but Cambodia was free (and I don't know about Laos). There was a genocide in Cambodia in the 70s due to Pol Pot.
-There's a wealthy country called Australia, occupying a whole continent, on the Indian Ocean's east flank, of Western cultural tradition (mostly because Westerners overran the natives back in the 18th and 19th century). It's an anglophone country and it likes to team up with New Zealand, of similar cultural heritage and language.
-There's an alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was involved with the American side in the Cold War. It opposed the Communist countries.
-Japan surrendered to the US in WWII and then became pretty much America's sidekick, with defense being constitutionally limited and typically involved in helping people in the wake of disasters.
-Colonial heritage in the Indian Ocean area: southeast Asia ->France, India and Burma -> Britain, Australia -> Britain, Singapore -> Britain, Indonesia -> Holland/the Netherlands, the Philippines ->USA, the Mideast (at various times and places)(largely) ->Turkey, France, and Britain, east Africa (largely) -> Britain, but some other countries also had territory.
-I know nothing about SEATO, and I have barely heard of ASEAN.

I don't know if any of this is wrong, but this is what I know. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Belesari]

Just my opinion but i think the entire NATO alliance needs to be rethought. Some nations give incredable amounts of money, men, and time into the alliance....others......not so much. And as many nations have begun to drasticly cut back their militaries one has to ask "is this alliance best for us considering that some of our allies refuse to do much at all even when they can use a military so strung out and ineffective?"

I think the US does need to seek a formal alliance with India, philippines, RoK, Japan and a few others including one of our best allies the Australians

Best not to consider my views on the UN. WHOLE nother post. :

 

[swerve]

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of NATO. It is not, & never has been, a general alliance, applicable to anything your country or any other member chooses to do. It was created solely to defend the home territories and waters of the members against aggression.

The USA insisted on that limitation. It didn't want to have any responsibility for assisting in the defence of the overseas territories of European countries. It has stood by & done nothing while some such territories have been invaded, & in other cases has provided weapons & logistics support (for payment), but made it clear that it would not fight.

There is no reason to complain if some NATO members don't do things that have nothing to do with the alliance. That's their right. The USA has the same right, & has exercised it several times.

There has only been one occasion when a NATO state has come under attack in circumstances where the NATO treaty could be invoked, & On that occasion the other members immediately offered whatever help was wanted, without waiting to be asked. I think you'll remember it: September 2001. That's what the treaty is for. It is not for wars of choice, such as Iraq.

The USA already has formal alliances with Australia, South Korea, Japan & some other non-NATO states. These alliances differ from case to case.

 

[OPSSG]

So what do I know about news/ geography/ politics in the Indian Ocean area?

South Asia and the Indian Ocean have its own security dynamics. And I'll leave that to members from that area to explain, if they are so inclined.

-I know nothing about SEATO, and I have barely heard of ASEAN.

I don't know if any of this is wrong, but this is what I know. Feel free to correct me.

Good, I appreciate the honesty. I'm glad that you admit that you don't know and another 1 or 2 long posts by me will not help change that, given the diversity of the region and its geopolitics. To have a meaningful exchange of ideas on the security dynamics of martime South East Asia (SEA) and mainland SEA, you need some backgound knowledge.

Edit: Ref links to various sources added

On 3 Nov 2011, the U.S.-ASEAN Strategy Commission produced a report called 'Developing an Enduring Strategy for Southeast Asia' (See Video: U.S.-ASEAN Strategy Commission Report Rollout). On 11 Nov 2011, the Asia Society added its considerable weight behind this call for a shift in priorities, with a report “U.S.-East Asia Relations, A Strategy for Multilateral Engagement.” These recommendations include:

(1) Recognize and prepare for a change in the U.S.-Asia relationship.
(2) U.S. engagement with Asia can and should continue to be deepened.
(3) Asian regionalism should be supplemented by efforts to engage more deeply with the U.S. and to avoid Asian triumphalism.
(4) U.S.-China ties are most important for the region, but others in Asia also have a stake.
(5) ASEAN can serve as a foundation.
(6) Recognize that integration on different economic and security issues will continue at different speeds in the region.
(7) A new U.S. diplomacy with ASEAN is needed.
(8) ASEAN must be more dynamic to offer regional leadership.

The two reports (especially the report released on 11 Nov 2011) and the 2011 ASEAN Annual Report produced by the ASEAN Secretariat would be good starting points to read so as to gain some background info. BTW, China is ASEAN's biggest trading partner, with two-way trade expected to surpass US$350 billion in 2011. regardless of what ASEAN does militarily, our economic interests in China will be devastated by any serious conflict between Beijing and Washington. This logic applies to all the Northeast Asian states, Australia and NZ whose economic capacity is fundamentally contingent on uninterrupted maritime and telecommunications flows – the first casualty of war in the Pacific and the South China Sea. See also the link to the May 2011 Joint Declaration of the ASEAN Defence Ministers, which includes the inauguration of the ASEAN Military Operations Informal Meeting(AMOIM), to enhance practical cooperation among defence forces within ASEAN.

The security dynamics of SEA, in turn, is different from the security dymanics of East Asia (China, Japan and Korea) and the Pacific (which in turn will affect SEA). You will need to read up much much more on Indonesia (as a key nation in ASEAN) and Malaysia for you to understand some of the important state actors in maritime SEA (that straddle a key maritime choke point - the Straits of Malacca and Singapore) and you'll also need to read up on Thailand and Vietnam to get a feel of traitional rivalries in mainland SEA.

In the face of pervasive strategic uncertainty stemming from sensitive relations among Southeast Asian neighbours as well as China’s growing power, and against a backdrop of regional security institutions... states in Southeast Asia and Australasia have persisted with efforts to enhance national military capabilities...

...Closer to home, the ‘Ambalat block’ off the coast of Borneo was an important focus of activity for the [Indonesian] navy. This maritime area is believed to have massive oil and natural gas potential, and a bilateral dispute with Indonesia reignited in mid 2009. Indonesian legislators accused the Malaysian navy and maritime enforcement agency of ‘violating Indonesia’s maritime boundary’ 19 times during May and June; in late May, there was a stand-off between Indonesian and Malaysian patrol vessels... Indonesian Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono said both sides had agreed to reduce their naval deployments in the disputed area in order to rein in bilateral tensions...

...In several Southeast Asian states, the armed forces have remained heavily committed to counterinsurgency operations, though not to the exclusion of efforts to improve external defence capabilities. In southern Thailand, the insurgency by ethnic Malay Muslim militants continued unabated, and insurgent activity increased again... the Thai armed forces continue to use their procurement funds to improve the country’s capacity for external defence, including establishment of a third cavalry (armour) division over the next decade in the country’s northeast.Concern over the need to deter regional threats has risen in the wake of border clashes with Myanmar in 2001-02 and with Cambodia in 2008-09... After confrontations with Cambodian forces in July and October 2008, there was a fresh clash in April 2009 which resulted in the deaths...

The Convention Military Balance 2010, page 382-385​

If you don't know why SEATO failed, then let's not waste each other's time and I'm not going to do the basics of geopolitics of these regions with you. Many thanks for the prior effort to post and I will exit from this conversation at this juncture.

“We did not phase out SEATO in order to set up another one”.

Carlos Romulo,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1973 to 1984)
Philippines​

 

[Armoredpriapism]

South Asia and the Indian Ocean have its own security dynamics. And I'll leave that to members from that area to explain, if they are so inclined.



Good, I appreciate the honesty. I'm glad that you admit that you don't know and another 1 or 2 long posts by me will not help change that, given the diversity of the region and its geopolitics. To have a meaningful exchange of ideas on the security dynamics of martime South East Asia (SEA) and mainland SEA, you need some backgound knowledge. This in turn is different from the security dymanics of East Asia and the Pacific (which in turn will affect SEA). You will need to read up much much more on Indonesia (as a key nation in ASEAN) and Malaysia for you to understand some of the important state actors in maritime SEA (that straddle a key maritime choke point - the Straits of Malacca and Singapore) and you'll also need to read up on Thailand and Vietnam to get a feel of traitional rivalries in mainland SEA.

If you don't know why SEATO failed, then let's not waste each other's time and I'm not going to do the basics of geopolitics of these regions with you. Many thanks for the prior effort to post and I will exit from this conversation at this juncture.

It's wrong to discourage dialogue on this forum. It would have been incredibly helpful if OPSSG had given us the basics of geopolitics of this region as that's kind of what this whole thread is about. Though that wasn't the case I still hope this thread doesn't die. The whole point of this is for all of us to better understand the thread topic by bouncing ideas off each other and vetting them, so keep it up!
If Southeast Asian countries are actually wondering if they'd be better off with NATO-like alliances they might look at the looming regional power eclipsing their capabilities and consider what political and economic freedoms from the Soviet Union NATO gave to Western European countries during the cold war and since. An alliance would offer protection from the likely event of Chinese or Indian threats and bullying more than military aggression.

 

[OPSSG]

It's wrong to discourage dialogue on this forum. It would have been incredibly helpful if OPSSG had given us the basics of geopolitics of this region as that's kind of what this whole thread is about. Though that wasn't the case I still hope this thread doesn't die. The whole point of this is for all of us to better understand the thread topic by bouncing ideas off each other and vetting them, so keep it up!

If Southeast Asian countries are actually wondering if they'd be better off with NATO-like alliances they might look at the looming regional power eclipsing their capabilities and consider what political and economic freedoms from the Soviet Union NATO gave to Western European countries during the cold war and since. An alliance would offer protection from the likely event of Chinese or Indian threats and bullying more than military aggression.

[Mod Edit: Then you get very low level participation. Some level of background reading is necessary. We do not cater to children and if there is one more post at this sort of level, where the content is bordering nonsense, the Mod Team will consider closing this thread.

As you will notice, the Mod Team has had to issue a few warnings and ban a few participants in this thread. Two Mods are currently participating in this thread in an effort to raise the quality of the discussions.

Take for instance, the Indonesians are certainly more ambivalent about the West and America (having been subject to an arms embargo). Beyond intra-region issues, the countries in ASEAN have different interests when dealing with external powers. For example, the differences among ASEAN members make it difficult for us to reach a consensus in dealing with China, India or the US. By way of background, the Indian air force have provided technical assistance to the Malaysians (for their Su-30MKMs) and the Indonesians have bought Russian and Chinese weapons, including anti-ship missiles. The rapproachment dance between Indonesian and American relations have only just begun and likewise, China is seeking to engage Indonesia.

In the above post, you have demonstrated a lack of a basic understanding and insight on the concerns of the different countries in Southeast Asia. I suppose that you are proud that you have demonstrated an ability to have an opinion without any understanding (of the history or the geo-politics of the region). I hope you are aware that in the littorals of Northeast and Southeast Asia, some areas are variously claimed by China, Japan, several ASEAN states and Taiwan have been a recurrent focus of tension among the claimants.

It's a pity that you, like Rickyrab, are also contributing to the problem of the low quality of the posts in this thread. All I asked, was for him to read up on the key words given in my prior posts. He did not bother to do so. And you are likewise jumping in without reading or understanding the context of the prior conversation. Reading and thinking before posting is a good thing. A little research before posting can do wonders to help you contribute intelligently to the discussion.

Do not tell the Mod Team how to moderate this forum. Warning issued. ]

 

[Belesari]

My problem with NATO is that much of the time even if we DO deploy together like in afghanistain there are so many different ROE and such that its chaos and much of the time the forces only secure a base and sit there.

In some instanced governments or atleast units have been found paying the taliban not to attack.

Then add the lack of logistics assets in many of our partner nation-again our fault we basicly encouraged them to get combat forces and truthfully they only need that sense most will never have to go to war with a power more than a border away without our logistics network.

One thing that was found lacking in the WoT was that there just wasn't enough Heavy helicopters for transport, supply, etc.

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of NATO. It is not, & never has been, a general alliance, applicable to anything your country or any other member chooses to do. It was created solely to defend the home territories and waters of the members against aggression.

The USA insisted on that limitation. It didn't want to have any responsibility for assisting in the defence of the overseas territories of European countries. It has stood by & done nothing while some such territories have been invaded, & in other cases has provided weapons & logistics support (for payment), but made it clear that it would not fight.

There is no reason to complain if some NATO members don't do things that have nothing to do with the alliance. That's their right. The USA has the same right, & has exercised it several times.

There has only been one occasion when a NATO state has come under attack in circumstances where the NATO treaty could be invoked, & On that occasion the other members immediately offered whatever help was wanted, without waiting to be asked. I think you'll remember it: September 2001. That's what the treaty is for. It is not for wars of choice, such as Iraq.

The USA already has formal alliances with Australia, South Korea, Japan & some other non-NATO states. These alliances differ from case to case.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's wrong to discourage dialogue on this forum. It would have been incredibly helpful if OPSSG had given us the basics of geopolitics of this region as that's kind of what this whole thread is about. Though that wasn't the case I still hope this thread doesn't die. The whole point of this is for all of us to better understand the thread topic by bouncing ideas off each other and vetting them, so keep it up!

the whole idea of encouraging elevated discussion is to either contribute at an informed level, or to encourage people to at least do basic research before making assumptions about the merits and validity of their own position.

not making the effort but still holding the line is not an indicator that people are here to learn or to understand beyond the fortress of their own assumptions and beliefs.

if people are trying to elevate the debate and its apparent that with some others the effort is not being made to research before further comment, then it comes across as a little disingenuous.

there are any number of people who have first hand experience or knowledge of the topics and they will wherever possible enrich the debate by seeking to provide background and detail. when people make that effort and its ignored or trivialised then its not going to end up being a happy journey for some.....

 

[swerve]

My problem with NATO is that much of the time even if we DO deploy together like in afghanistain there are so many different ROE and such that its chaos and much of the time the forces only secure a base and sit there.

In some instanced governments or atleast units have been found paying the taliban not to attack.

Then add the lack of logistics assets in many of our partner nation-again our fault we basicly encouraged them to get combat forces and truthfully they only need that sense most will never have to go to war with a power more than a border away without our logistics network.

One thing that was found lacking in the WoT was that there just wasn't enough Heavy helicopters for transport, supply, etc.

Afghanistan is an out of area operation. It was originally justified by 9/11, but that was limited to getting rid of the Taliban government. Continued participation is voluntary.

The participating countries have their own RoEs because the nature of the operation made political support difficult for some of them, & getting it required restrictive RoEs in those cases. This is inherent in the nature of the operation.

The lack of political support has left some units demoralised, feeling that they get no recognition for what they do, so why bother?

Lack of logistical assets was part of the division of labour agreed by NATO many years ago. The USA actively discouraged European NATO countries from spending on anything to make their forces deployable out of area, seeing it as a waste of money & diversion from the purpose of the alliance, & most of them agreed, & were happy to go along with that. The end of the Cold War took away the reason for their logistics-light force structures, but it also took away the money needed to change it. There has been progress on reorganising forces (e.g. purchases of tankers, transport aircraft, amphibious shipping), but it's been limited by budget cuts - first of all the 'Peace Dividend', & now the economic crisis.

Go back & look at what NATO was intended for, what the treaty says it's for. Then ask how you persuade countries with budget-cutting governments to spend money on their armed forces & deploy them in distant countries to fight wars their people are deeply skeptical about.

 

[ngatimozart]

The radioactive devolopment of active industrialized nations is the plux of deviant plather managed works.

WTF?? In plain English please or are you a troll?

 

[Ben Solo]

i am not too sure it will help combat terrorism by letting japan and india join.
australia can help in troops as it is currently doing, singapore is important due to its position on the world map, israel, well, it can assist it targeted killing of terrorists.


furthermore, it will definetly send a message to MOST muslims that NATO's new objective is to combat islamic extremists=new alliance against Islam.

You right about Australia and Singapore but Israel is a no go right now.
Nato could never accept Israel because of two things;
1;Turkey would veto in this current situation
2;Nato would lose credibility in the muslim(Arab)world.

This is just my opinion.