Firn, as usual, thank you for the interesting responses. I would be equally happy if we could just say the looking back from the present, Clauswitz is "unable to satisfy the rigour of analytical philosophy or modern scientific methodology and ends up with a work in which is far from scientific in a modern sense." Do you need the concept of a 'post-modern' point of view? This concept is subject to some academic debate. Further, my understanding of the idea of a 'post-modern' point of view is not what you have described. I don't really want to debate the idea of what is 'post-modern' if it is not essential to the point you are driving at. If I may, I would like to qualify your basis of analysis further on 2 minor points for your consideration: (i) Singapore has over 3 million citizens and close to 1 million PRs or professionals on employment passes working in Singapore. We have a very low reproduction rate, such that, population growth has been achieved by net immigration. So our natural talent pool available for defence is small and we work on the long term assumption of a declining birth rate. (ii) Singapore has a self imposed cap on defence spending at 6% of our GDP and historically we have spent around 5% of our GDP on defence. Fortune has favoured our economy since independence, which has allowed our defence spending to enjoy constant real growth, especially from the 1980s onwards. From a planning perspective, in the late 1960s and the 1970s, we initially did not expect to outspend our neighbours in defence matters - outspending our neighbours in defence is a phenomenon that is only self evident after the 1997 Asian economic crisis. I am reading with interest and I await further posts from you.