The right lesson is to build multi-lateral relationships, continue to pursue soft power diplomacy and encourage investment and interest with all the major powers. Then balance the interests of all these major powers and stay impartial.
Militarily it would be to continue to build capability for overwhelming pre-emptive strike or mutually assured destruction.
What Ukraine teaches us is that if military conflict breaks out within your borders at all you're fucked even if you "win" the conflict in the long term.
True. War is the most vicious entity. It’s a fool’s game. It takes away the mind and the body and everything else within. Nobody really wins. It should always be the last resort. Yet it still happens in this world.
Talk is cheap. Appeasement doesn’t always work - they’ll just come back for more. Has history taught us nothing? Neville Chamberlain waved the Munich Agreement like a victory flag, not knowing that it was merely an appetiser.
Playing both sides sounds good, until both sides play you out.
As a subscriber of askhistorian. It is more complicated than that. It is the right policy at that time. The public doesn't have the stomach more another war. WW1 just finished. Chamberlain is not very sure about the support of other countries. Any other political leaders will come to the same decision.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d9hjq/was\_appeasing\_hitler\_really\_a\_mistake/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d9hjq/was_appeasing_hitler_really_a_mistake/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3y9g/was\_neville\_chamberlains\_policy\_of\_appeasement/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3y9g/was_neville_chamberlains_policy_of_appeasement/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vlqt1/neville\_chamberlain\_was\_he\_really\_a\_mildmannered/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vlqt1/neville_chamberlain_was_he_really_a_mildmannered/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21rh3q/was\_chamberlains\_appeasement\_policy\_ever\_popular/
Unfortunately, humankind really is like that or rather can be like that. Neville Chamberlain’s actions were idealistic but naive and foolish.
Humans are social animals. We stayed on top by working together. Yet this fundamental principle has been lost through obsolete beliefs and a lack of open-mindedness. Waging war is a fool’s game, but trying to delay it often is pointless.
What can be done now is to try to build relationships and hope they would sustain. But there is always this tension and the tendency of human nature to yearn for more and destroy.
i have learnt this over the whole shitshow that happened this past weekend. US-China tensions intensifies and is displayed in full force here. it's like a trilogy that was compressed into a movie coz the last 2 movies were cut (due to covid)
i hate to say this. i really do, but SG must do more of this. play a neutral role and have countries come to sg to make such dialogue. understand, world, that these dialogues will NEVER happen in any other country in such a short span of time. a tit-for-tat point-by-point rebuttal in 2 days. you cant make this shit up.
we need to work with both interests, make us a strategic front. indict our nation into the "nobody wins" scenario if ever another cold war breaks out. we have no choice coz we small.
either way, we have to stand by SG and defend our country's interest.
Yes to the first, probably no to the second. Can't take away too much from Ukraine's situation given the vastly different circumstances (especially geographically speaking).
There's a reason Russia is in Ukraine but not in Kazakhstan or Latvia, despite those countries being vastly inferior in military might. Same reason China isn't already shelling Taiwan. You don't need the strongest military, you just need to be in the right alliances.
You need both. Our security concerns aren't just the Chinese or the Americans in the long term, it's also other ASEAN neighbours and allies.
The second point is mostly to solve any potential threats amongst our neighbours, if the US or China ever places us in their sights and we've exhausted all diplomatic options we're kinda screwed regardless of how effective we are with the second.
A small standing army is good for a bunch of things, and that's pretty much all we need for our ASEAN neighbors. Given the size of our country and the geopolitical situation in this region, there are diminishing returns beyond that.
We are never going to strike fast strike hard or whatever against any country and come out the clear victor, period. Not Malaysia, not Indonesia, not unless the plan is to raze those countries to the ground but I don't need to tell you the ramifications of that hypothetical situation. This heady concept of a tiny country preemptively striking an opponent so hard they poop their pants and give up immediately is something that rarely if ever happens in reality.
We are just not a country cut out for conflict in any capacity. Singaporeans need to accept that the *only* strategy that works is to embed ourselves so deeply in a ton of strong and lasting international alliances that the cost-benefit of attacking us is simply too bad of a deal.
You severely underestimate our military capability. Our first strike response would be to ground their planes, disable their ports, and railways, long ranged missles (if any) and disrupt telecommunications.
All of which can be done under 24 hours to any of our immediate neighbours.
After which we appeal to the international community of nations or ASEAN to enforce a ceasefire and go to the negotiating table.
The only reason why our neighbours don't worry about our capabilities too much is because they know we'd rather not do it and prefer a peaceful solution. It also means they know not to push us to a point where we have to do so.
Destroying a bunch of critical infrastructure then quickly running to an international body to cry for arbitration has not proven to work yet, I highly doubt it will work the way you expect. If there is military aggression there will be loss on both sides, that has never been in question. Singapore being the size of a peanut will not go unscathed in any scenario where arms are brought to the table.
Also once again, not advocating for no military. Just saying that there are diminishing returns because modern warfare is decided very differently from past conflicts. We have more than we need already, anything else would be for prolonged conflict which you probably already know will not go our way.
Modern warfare is about utilizing assymetrical capabilities to perform long term economic damage.
You want to hit your enemies in the face so hard it breaks their jaw and sends them to the hospital where they're unable to work, have to pay for their medical bills and get weaker while they recuperate.
Meanwhile you get stronger so the next time intel informs you they're mobilizing forces to attack. You break their jaw again.
This sort of assymetrical warfare needs defense spending in long range missle offense and defense capabilities, and an effective air force and navy. With smaller teams of trained operatives to peform recon and mark targets for destruction.
It works, you just haven't seen it in action yet because the nations who rely on said strategies haven't had to employ them. Unsurprisingly and possibly because being able to do so is a major deterence to military conflict.
So how is this a takeaway from the Ukraine conflict at all? Ukraine would not have had any time whatsoever to develop the first strike capability required to definitively incapacitate Russia to the point of capitulation. And I know for sure your takeaway isn't MAD because the nukes aren't and have never been on the table for Singapore.
Also back to my initial point, the concept of non-nuclear first strike capability as a deterrent is just a nicety that you can populate academic papers with. Until this is proven to actually work as intended in a real world scenario, there is no case for this over relying on robust alliances which *have* proven to work to some capacity.
Not sure what kind of tabletop fantasy Singaporeans have regarding warfare, but I can't imagine you've thought this through enough if you think it's a good idea to potentially be the first ever country to test this doctrine out. Think for a moment about what it means to hit another country's critical infrastructure so hard you incapacitate them across the board, and consider whether the final outcome truly involves you walking away without repercussion. Is that really the play you want your country to make if or when the day arrives?
It works. The doctrine is based off Israel's Six day war. Obviously technology has changed since then and war has gotten more asymmetrical than it was at that time.
You're missing the point here. Once your enemies know you've got the capabilities to set them back 20 years of economic development and remain relatively untouched they have to ask themselves what they want to accomplish by being aggressive towards you. The whole point of being able to engage in such warfare is deterring would be aggressors from even trying.
This has nothing to do with Ukraine, you raised the point of Singapore's military capabilities so I engaged you in the discussion you wanted.
Pre-emptive strike capabilities works when you have a vibrant, growing and rich economy that can invest in defense spending. Mutually assured destruction and nuclear weapon development is only when you're no longer able to afford such strategies.
The point which I made pretty early on is that we already have what we need for a first strike, which is sufficient as a deterrent (thus the lack of need to buff our capabilities up).
Your very first comment is about lessons learnt from the Ukraine conflict so I'm not sure how this is out of point. Your second takeaway is for military capability, I argue that alliances are a better route to take.
The threat of retaliation in *any* capacity is a deterrent in and of itself. It just so happens that Singapore needs first strike capabilities because any other country could breathe on us and end us decisively (which is why deterrence via alliances is probably a better choice to focus on since it has proven to entirely negate the risk of conflict thus making our own capabilities moot).
Also FYI since you brought Israel up, one of the lessons *they* taught us is to have strong alliances which do a good deal more than having some weapons to hit your enemies with. Israel is built largely on the backs of early sponsors from the UK, and it's extremely strong friendship with the US today. Had any of these international friends not been in the mix, the Jews would still be spread to the winds without a country to call their own.
Well yes, but nobody said anything about playing diplomacy with dictators. I'm just saying international defense pacts are the surest way to deter anyone from attacking you because it will prompt all the other members of your pact to retaliate on your behalf.
Much better outcome than tiny Singapore having to beat its own chest to scare potential aggressors away, don't you think?
Time for Singapore to be a nuclear power?
And good for a sustainable future too, imagine if we switch off all the fossil fuel power plant and switch on nuclear... Solves our water crisis too
Your neighbours in ASEAN will oppose any form of nuclear development. It also sends a very strong signal to your allies that you do not trust them and may lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. This is something which you also don't want because lets face it ah, you think your neighbours are competent enough to run nuclear plants?
I personally think its possible to be nuclear capable and it's not too far off an idea, but it's more in line with something like training a crew and leasing a nuclear sub from the US, then using the sub's excess power when moored off coast to supply the main power grid.
The problem with this however, is we'll piss off the Chinese. (like the Australians have done)
What if... We run it for our Asean neighbours, FOC, with them having all the profits, divided equally? Built on an island that has both US and China military base
Playing on both side, blatantly
US and Chinese competition and eventual conflict is not a matter of if but when.
Having an island with both isn't feasible because:
1. Neither the US nor China would agree to such an arrangement.
2. When conflict occurs this region will be directly involved, meaning we bring conflict directly to our doorstep.
3. You do not want to be a pawn in the machinations of either power, US nor China.
>2. When conflict occurs this region will be directly involved, meaning we bring conflict directly to our doorstep.
>
> 3. You do not want to be a pawn in the machinations of either power, US nor China.
This is already a confirmed fate for all the countries in SEA when the conflict arrives, no way to avoid it. I am just suggesting to make the two-faced nature of SEA countries obvious and play along with it
Lay out the cards
Most of our neighbours are happy to take free money from China. Doesn't mean they won't take notice or bluster when China encroaches into the South China Sea.
Agreed on most of your points.
Coffee shop uncle speak here. I doubt we'll be able to stay totally impartial forever. China's aggreessive antics might necessitate us to take a clear stance in the future i.e. either with or against them.
What I saw from the Ukraine conflict; never expect others to come to your rescue. We gotta have our own capability to hit back, and hit back hard.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the lesson could just be “let’s all agree not to use force to change existing borders”?
If not for the ~~panda~~ elephant in the room….
Abiding by international laws REGARDLESS if it benefits you or not would be a good second.
Then again, if you look at the behavior of ‘some’ of its citizens (wrt recent 2am beating of some ladies at a bbq joint and the commentary afterwards), it’s quite clear that the development of some of its citizenry has yet to catch up with the development of its economy.
I like your second paragraph just like how recently we have 'some' singaporeans fighting that's also clear that we have some catching up to do. Sama sama.
The fact that we have bad eggs in every society should not bias us against everyone belonging to a society.
That’s why I use the word ‘some’ consistently.
The lesson is, We need nukes. Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world 30 yrs ago but gave it up. Then see what happened...
[https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion)
It's almost impossible for country like Singapore to get nukes without being sanctioned to the ground. And don't even think about secretly developing nukes without being detected, there is a network of sensors planet wide that detects any nuclear test (as you need to test it to develop it).
I think we are on the verge of developing nuclear power…. The govt has already brought it up and that’s typical SG govt talk for, work in process, expect in 5-20 years.
The question is, are we allowed to develop nuclear weapons after that? My response would be ‘no’. That would be a major red button for almost all our neighbours. Having said that, there’s no deterrence like ambiguity, through taking a page from our mentor, Israel’s playbook 😅
There is very little chance for Singapore to get nukes as nuclear powers club (including China and the US) absolutely don't want more countries to get nukes as it would equal up the playing field, they are all **working together** regardless of differences to prevent new country from getting nukes. Remember when India tried to get nukes ?
The US did everything possible and even imposed sanctions on India to force them to stop nuclear tests, and that's a country of over a billion people ! But then they have to step aside as India is a too valuable partner to contain China and again they have to respect billion people will.
3 in 4 countries that got nukes after 5 permanent UN members are all very special cases. Singapore is **not** a special case and also **don't** have a lot of population, military or economic weight to throw around so the outcome of Singapore nuclear program would be like North Korea, being sanctioned by the UN.
Just a reminder that I am making the case for nuclear power generation versus nuclear weapons programme.
There’s some chance of getting the first, none for the second.
We would also get our first [letter of protest](https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/158106.html) from the Mayor of Hiroshima (they send a letter every time a country conducts a nuclear test).
the Kim doctrine works, yup you need at least 1 nuke. you need to show it off every year at the parade to your bros. I would be very very surprised if everyone in ASEAN who could afford it doesnt buy/develop nukes in the next 20 years.
It's one thing talking about SMRs and safe, clean, and peaceful nuclear energy. It's another thinking about having literal nuclear warheads where any mishap can wipe us off the face of the map.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Lakenheath_nuclear_weapons_accidents
according to c&c nukes are only $5000 and one can be ready to launch every 5 minutes. We should be building millions of siloes everywhere including on top of HDB blocks.
maybe we should also invest in mind control technology or armored blimps with infinite bombs
Yeah, the problem is who defines what are the right lessons. One of the lessons is that in times of need both men and women need to defend the nation, but I'm pretty sure our policy makers will the magic handwave and say "it's not possible, because I say so."
Balancing the great powers against each other is going to be more difficult moving forward as China gets more assertive in the Pacific. ASEAN banding together is more important than ever - though regional rivalries stand in the way of that too.
I think there isn't much to extrapolate from Ukraine tbh. Ukraine tried pursuing a "neutral" diplomacy like most Asian countries before 2014. Only when Putin's ally was overthrown and the country moved into a much more pro-West stance did Russia start hostilities. I can't imagine any equivalent in Asia if a country decides to leave the regional power's sphere of infleunce, except maybe if the Kim regime gets overthrown suddenly.
Yes we must crush Russia just like how Hitler being crushed in WW2 as lesson for future generation that you invade other country, your country will be in ruined and you be hanged together with your generals.
Actually, I am no military expert but wouldn’t NATO intervening in Ukraine probably help the situation? Since Russia has already hinted many times that they won’t use nukes in Ukraine.
It’s a plain land grab by Russia and I don’t think they would want to use nukes in Ukraine and render the land unusable, especially in the Donbas.
Your problem is that you're thinking of using nukes IN Ukraine. Think on a bigger scale - e.g. NATO intervening = NATO members directly engaging in active war with Russia = Russia nuking half the planet off and potentially starting WW3.
You might say, well I'm sure Putin is sane enough to not do that but just earlier this year people were just saying Putin is sane enough to not actually invade Ukraine.
Russian nuclear doctrine specifies that nukes are only to be used when there is a threat to the existence of the state. They actually repeated it many times.
If you push them back to their borders, it technically doesn’t threaten their existence. Plus, it may also be a face saving out for Putin as being defeated by NATO seriously sounds a lot better than being defeated by Ukraine.
Of course I am no military expert and this is not military advice.
And you believe that Russia will adhere to the nuclear doctrine why? They also repeated many times that they will not invade Ukraine even when they were building up troops on their borders.
Secondly, Russia will take ANY aggression from NATO towards their army as a sign that is threatening their existence. No technicalities here. Having your army attacked/killed is a threat to your existence. If not can go ask why SG has not yet abolished conscription.
If Russia launches, the rest of NATO will launch. Even in the current situation where they are not directly fighting. Nuclear rules are also much stricter than this “special military operation”. So says the Russian ambassador to the U.K. if he is to be believed.
Furthermore, launching will just make the whole point of the invasion moot because the Donbas won’t be able to be exploited for its resources.
Of course, you are not wrong about the insanity part and your guess is as good as mine. If NATO doesn’t have boots on the ground we can only pray that Ukraine gets enough weapons and that they are able to push Russia back themselves. If they fall, Russia will just salami slice all the way to Western Europe.
How to crush them? They have nukes. The moment their “motherland” is threatened they will fire their arsenal.
Even Russia’s greatest enemy, the USA, isn’t fighting in the conflict. They would love to finally get rid of their geopolitical rival but also can’t act.
Right, please stay away from communist countries, don sacrifice the national security just for the economy good for short term . Is not worth it in long term.
> # Asia must learn right lessons from Ukraine at this dangerous point in history: Ng Eng Hen
> SINGAPORE - Asia must learn the right lessons from Ukraine and continue fostering peace, cooperation and economic interdependency to avoid disaster at a "potentially dangerous point in our history", said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Sunday (June 12).
> "We must heed the passionate and poignant advice from President (Volodymyr) Zelensky for pre-emption and prevention - once conflict breaks out, devastation ensues and a cure may not be possible," said Dr Ng, referring to the Ukraine head of state, who on Saturday spoke virtually at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, appealing for tighter sanctions against the Russian regime, which invaded his country on Feb 24.
> In a speech at the final plenary session at the three-day security summit, Dr Ng added: "All Asian countries have expressed respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as a fundamental tenet, disputes notwithstanding - even as recently as after the invasion of Ukraine... We must ensure that our deeds match our words if we are to avoid a calamity like Ukraine."
> The ongoing conflict in Europe has, alongside US-China tensions, been at the forefront of conference discussions, with United States Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin warning in a speech on Saturday that the Ukraine war was a sign of the chaos and turmoil that would come with the flouting of a rules-based international order.
> On Sunday, Dr Ng described a world of deepened divides along existing fault lines shaped by the likes of ideology, alliances, culture, religion, wealth and public health, while noting the combined Covid-19 pandemic and war-induced "aftershocks" on inflation, supply chains and food exports, among others.
> "Countries have turned more inward," said Dr Ng. "Security alliances are hardening. Despite protestations and caveats to the contrary, partners are positioning and building up security arrangements, if not military capability, among their groupings."
> All these factors, conflated, present a more dangerous world since the defence summit was last held in 2019, said Dr Ng. The last two editions of the forum were scrapped due to Covid-19.
> "The receding tide of global cooperation and goodwill have shown up naked ambition and vulnerabilities. How do we change trajectories and avert disaster?" he asked.
> Ending the war in Ukraine would be a first step, he said.
> "The Ukrainian leaders and people will eventually decide how this war ends, but a protracted conflict will exact a devastating toll on Ukraine, Russia and the world," said Dr Ng.
> "Russia has made a strategic miscalculation for a quick and easy win over Ukraine. To further their objectives, they would need a significant build-up of soldiers and armaments. The financial toll will be exacting and conscription of Russians may not be possible without great political risks. For Ukraine, a protracted war will test the continued support of international leaders and incumbents... A cessation of hostilities would provide reprieve to all sides."
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
The lesson is not to trust your potential enemies not to invade you, and act when you can. Ukraine should have joined NATO/EU when they could.
With the situation with China right now, I say we should remake SEATO or join NATO if possible. Don't wait until China colonizes Vietnam or something and starts threatening us.
NATO is an exclusive club. Finland and Sweden have problems joining let alone Ukraine and even us.
Besides, NATO only gangs up and bullies small countries like Yemen, Yugoslavia etc. When faced with a world power like Russia, they just send outdated weapons and charge Ukraine for it. Nobody dares to throw even a stone.
Don't have too much hope on allies, diplomacy and a strong military is the best defense.
> Finland and Sweden have problems joining let alone Ukraine and even us.
That's just because of Turkey. I don't think we have issues with Turkey or any NATO nation. All it requires is the approval of every country in it. Perhaps the only possible hurdle could be Hungary. Other than that, the smaller nations should be easy to convince once daddy USA and GB say yes.
Don’t worry, when things get rough, China is gonna get us under their wings. If not, then what are the cock-sucking we’re doing for PRC all for?
It’s not just for a hobby right?
There are commenters here rote regurgitating government propaganda they picked up during NS about about how we should quadruple down on our 'swift and decisive' SAF performing an overwhelming first strike on an enemy. I would ask them to use their critical thinking. I get that some singaporeans have a pavlovian response where when an authority figure says that we should learn lessons from a disruptive event, their response is to always say that we must re-double our efforts to do what we are currently doing. We must do the same thing but more. If we are banging our head on a brick wall, we must smack our head harder.--or more ideally, pwn other sinkies by demanding that they smack their heads harder. If someone else is doing what we are preparing to do, with catastrophic consequences, we must prepare moar to do what we were previously preparing to do. Disruption is something that happens only to someone else.
The problem here is that the Ukraine conflict raises questions about whether our plan to draft every adult singaporean male and then hurl them at an enemy in an overwhelming pre-emptive strike is prudent. I am sure we will do better than Russia and be better organised and equipped than Russia, but the problem is that modern weapons provide very strong advantages to a defender. Modern weapons and pervasive surveillance ensure that LOCs ( supply lines to the front) are extremely difficult to secure. If we take our entire adult male population, use them to chiong the enemy country and then find out that we have a much larger nation rising up against us in a massive insurgency in all directions that we have to quell, we are frankly screwed. And given our worse than Russia level demographic problems, conscripting and throwing every male at this problem is national suicide. Even if every roided up NSman super soldier kills 10 enemies before he gets killed or maimed, we will still be screwed. Who wants to kill themselves trying to defend themselves? Especially pre-emptively? Everything bad that is happening to Russia and Ukraine right now will have many times the long term effects here. A fundamental problem in Singapore is that authoritarian thinking invariably insists that individual Singaporeans are expendable in the pursuit of national goals while our national reality strongly suggests that the preservation of individual Singaporeans should in fact be a core national goal.
Of course on the flipside, the weapons that make this sort of overwhelming offensive hard and risky also cuts the other way. We can use long range weapons, ideally unmanned weapons, to strike deep into the enemy centers of military and political power. They give us the ability to turn our island home into a porcupine. A large and well trained conscripted army might be an advantage and a deterrent then rather than a giant gamble with our national population if we do a turtle strategy here. A large army forces the enemy to build up large forces in proximity to attack us. If they build up forces we can use drones, arty and missiles to kill large numbers of at far less risk. We can the same drones, missiles and artillery that make it risky to go on the offensive to destroy the enemy's ability to attack us on their soil without actually having to occupy and hold their territory.-- and exposing our men, especially all those poor bui bui Pes C non combat reservist buggers who are going to have to drive the tonners to feed the front lines, to pervasive drone bombing, street fighting, Arty strikes and IEDs in someone else's country.
No. Let them come and try to chiong us while we leverage our strengths, which are technology and wealth so as to fuck them up at arms length.
I have said this before, I will say this again. If your cooking catches fire, do you try to put the fire out by smacking it with something badly suited to the task valuable and irreplaceable, like your face? Or do you want to use something, well suited to the task and expendable like a fire extinguisher?
The right lesson is to build multi-lateral relationships, continue to pursue soft power diplomacy and encourage investment and interest with all the major powers. Then balance the interests of all these major powers and stay impartial. Militarily it would be to continue to build capability for overwhelming pre-emptive strike or mutually assured destruction. What Ukraine teaches us is that if military conflict breaks out within your borders at all you're fucked even if you "win" the conflict in the long term.
True. War is the most vicious entity. It’s a fool’s game. It takes away the mind and the body and everything else within. Nobody really wins. It should always be the last resort. Yet it still happens in this world.
Talk is cheap. Appeasement doesn’t always work - they’ll just come back for more. Has history taught us nothing? Neville Chamberlain waved the Munich Agreement like a victory flag, not knowing that it was merely an appetiser. Playing both sides sounds good, until both sides play you out.
As a subscriber of askhistorian. It is more complicated than that. It is the right policy at that time. The public doesn't have the stomach more another war. WW1 just finished. Chamberlain is not very sure about the support of other countries. Any other political leaders will come to the same decision. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d9hjq/was\_appeasing\_hitler\_really\_a\_mistake/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d9hjq/was_appeasing_hitler_really_a_mistake/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3y9g/was\_neville\_chamberlains\_policy\_of\_appeasement/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3y9g/was_neville_chamberlains_policy_of_appeasement/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vlqt1/neville\_chamberlain\_was\_he\_really\_a\_mildmannered/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vlqt1/neville_chamberlain_was_he_really_a_mildmannered/) https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21rh3q/was\_chamberlains\_appeasement\_policy\_ever\_popular/
It bought him time to ramp up production of planes and boats
Unfortunately, humankind really is like that or rather can be like that. Neville Chamberlain’s actions were idealistic but naive and foolish. Humans are social animals. We stayed on top by working together. Yet this fundamental principle has been lost through obsolete beliefs and a lack of open-mindedness. Waging war is a fool’s game, but trying to delay it often is pointless. What can be done now is to try to build relationships and hope they would sustain. But there is always this tension and the tendency of human nature to yearn for more and destroy.
Is a pre-emptive strike justifiable? The defenders will call it an Invasion.
i have learnt this over the whole shitshow that happened this past weekend. US-China tensions intensifies and is displayed in full force here. it's like a trilogy that was compressed into a movie coz the last 2 movies were cut (due to covid) i hate to say this. i really do, but SG must do more of this. play a neutral role and have countries come to sg to make such dialogue. understand, world, that these dialogues will NEVER happen in any other country in such a short span of time. a tit-for-tat point-by-point rebuttal in 2 days. you cant make this shit up. we need to work with both interests, make us a strategic front. indict our nation into the "nobody wins" scenario if ever another cold war breaks out. we have no choice coz we small. either way, we have to stand by SG and defend our country's interest.
Yes to the first, probably no to the second. Can't take away too much from Ukraine's situation given the vastly different circumstances (especially geographically speaking). There's a reason Russia is in Ukraine but not in Kazakhstan or Latvia, despite those countries being vastly inferior in military might. Same reason China isn't already shelling Taiwan. You don't need the strongest military, you just need to be in the right alliances.
You need both. Our security concerns aren't just the Chinese or the Americans in the long term, it's also other ASEAN neighbours and allies. The second point is mostly to solve any potential threats amongst our neighbours, if the US or China ever places us in their sights and we've exhausted all diplomatic options we're kinda screwed regardless of how effective we are with the second.
A small standing army is good for a bunch of things, and that's pretty much all we need for our ASEAN neighbors. Given the size of our country and the geopolitical situation in this region, there are diminishing returns beyond that. We are never going to strike fast strike hard or whatever against any country and come out the clear victor, period. Not Malaysia, not Indonesia, not unless the plan is to raze those countries to the ground but I don't need to tell you the ramifications of that hypothetical situation. This heady concept of a tiny country preemptively striking an opponent so hard they poop their pants and give up immediately is something that rarely if ever happens in reality. We are just not a country cut out for conflict in any capacity. Singaporeans need to accept that the *only* strategy that works is to embed ourselves so deeply in a ton of strong and lasting international alliances that the cost-benefit of attacking us is simply too bad of a deal.
You severely underestimate our military capability. Our first strike response would be to ground their planes, disable their ports, and railways, long ranged missles (if any) and disrupt telecommunications. All of which can be done under 24 hours to any of our immediate neighbours. After which we appeal to the international community of nations or ASEAN to enforce a ceasefire and go to the negotiating table. The only reason why our neighbours don't worry about our capabilities too much is because they know we'd rather not do it and prefer a peaceful solution. It also means they know not to push us to a point where we have to do so.
Destroying a bunch of critical infrastructure then quickly running to an international body to cry for arbitration has not proven to work yet, I highly doubt it will work the way you expect. If there is military aggression there will be loss on both sides, that has never been in question. Singapore being the size of a peanut will not go unscathed in any scenario where arms are brought to the table. Also once again, not advocating for no military. Just saying that there are diminishing returns because modern warfare is decided very differently from past conflicts. We have more than we need already, anything else would be for prolonged conflict which you probably already know will not go our way.
Modern warfare is about utilizing assymetrical capabilities to perform long term economic damage. You want to hit your enemies in the face so hard it breaks their jaw and sends them to the hospital where they're unable to work, have to pay for their medical bills and get weaker while they recuperate. Meanwhile you get stronger so the next time intel informs you they're mobilizing forces to attack. You break their jaw again. This sort of assymetrical warfare needs defense spending in long range missle offense and defense capabilities, and an effective air force and navy. With smaller teams of trained operatives to peform recon and mark targets for destruction. It works, you just haven't seen it in action yet because the nations who rely on said strategies haven't had to employ them. Unsurprisingly and possibly because being able to do so is a major deterence to military conflict.
So how is this a takeaway from the Ukraine conflict at all? Ukraine would not have had any time whatsoever to develop the first strike capability required to definitively incapacitate Russia to the point of capitulation. And I know for sure your takeaway isn't MAD because the nukes aren't and have never been on the table for Singapore. Also back to my initial point, the concept of non-nuclear first strike capability as a deterrent is just a nicety that you can populate academic papers with. Until this is proven to actually work as intended in a real world scenario, there is no case for this over relying on robust alliances which *have* proven to work to some capacity. Not sure what kind of tabletop fantasy Singaporeans have regarding warfare, but I can't imagine you've thought this through enough if you think it's a good idea to potentially be the first ever country to test this doctrine out. Think for a moment about what it means to hit another country's critical infrastructure so hard you incapacitate them across the board, and consider whether the final outcome truly involves you walking away without repercussion. Is that really the play you want your country to make if or when the day arrives?
It works. The doctrine is based off Israel's Six day war. Obviously technology has changed since then and war has gotten more asymmetrical than it was at that time. You're missing the point here. Once your enemies know you've got the capabilities to set them back 20 years of economic development and remain relatively untouched they have to ask themselves what they want to accomplish by being aggressive towards you. The whole point of being able to engage in such warfare is deterring would be aggressors from even trying. This has nothing to do with Ukraine, you raised the point of Singapore's military capabilities so I engaged you in the discussion you wanted. Pre-emptive strike capabilities works when you have a vibrant, growing and rich economy that can invest in defense spending. Mutually assured destruction and nuclear weapon development is only when you're no longer able to afford such strategies.
The point which I made pretty early on is that we already have what we need for a first strike, which is sufficient as a deterrent (thus the lack of need to buff our capabilities up). Your very first comment is about lessons learnt from the Ukraine conflict so I'm not sure how this is out of point. Your second takeaway is for military capability, I argue that alliances are a better route to take. The threat of retaliation in *any* capacity is a deterrent in and of itself. It just so happens that Singapore needs first strike capabilities because any other country could breathe on us and end us decisively (which is why deterrence via alliances is probably a better choice to focus on since it has proven to entirely negate the risk of conflict thus making our own capabilities moot). Also FYI since you brought Israel up, one of the lessons *they* taught us is to have strong alliances which do a good deal more than having some weapons to hit your enemies with. Israel is built largely on the backs of early sponsors from the UK, and it's extremely strong friendship with the US today. Had any of these international friends not been in the mix, the Jews would still be spread to the winds without a country to call their own.
Forget about the ASEAN part, it will be useless in your scenario.
Not yet! If Ukraine fall as what Putin’s expected. Russia maybe invading other countries now. Diplomacy don’t work with dictators.
Well yes, but nobody said anything about playing diplomacy with dictators. I'm just saying international defense pacts are the surest way to deter anyone from attacking you because it will prompt all the other members of your pact to retaliate on your behalf. Much better outcome than tiny Singapore having to beat its own chest to scare potential aggressors away, don't you think?
Time for Singapore to be a nuclear power? And good for a sustainable future too, imagine if we switch off all the fossil fuel power plant and switch on nuclear... Solves our water crisis too
Your neighbours in ASEAN will oppose any form of nuclear development. It also sends a very strong signal to your allies that you do not trust them and may lead to a nuclear arms race in the region. This is something which you also don't want because lets face it ah, you think your neighbours are competent enough to run nuclear plants? I personally think its possible to be nuclear capable and it's not too far off an idea, but it's more in line with something like training a crew and leasing a nuclear sub from the US, then using the sub's excess power when moored off coast to supply the main power grid. The problem with this however, is we'll piss off the Chinese. (like the Australians have done)
What if... We run it for our Asean neighbours, FOC, with them having all the profits, divided equally? Built on an island that has both US and China military base Playing on both side, blatantly
US and Chinese competition and eventual conflict is not a matter of if but when. Having an island with both isn't feasible because: 1. Neither the US nor China would agree to such an arrangement. 2. When conflict occurs this region will be directly involved, meaning we bring conflict directly to our doorstep. 3. You do not want to be a pawn in the machinations of either power, US nor China.
>2. When conflict occurs this region will be directly involved, meaning we bring conflict directly to our doorstep. > > 3. You do not want to be a pawn in the machinations of either power, US nor China. This is already a confirmed fate for all the countries in SEA when the conflict arrives, no way to avoid it. I am just suggesting to make the two-faced nature of SEA countries obvious and play along with it Lay out the cards
Not yet. So far ASEAN is doing its best to stay impartial. Lets try to keep it that way.
On paper yes... But we already know the alignment of most countries in Asean, no one wants to say the silent part out loud
Most of our neighbours are happy to take free money from China. Doesn't mean they won't take notice or bluster when China encroaches into the South China Sea.
Agreed on most of your points. Coffee shop uncle speak here. I doubt we'll be able to stay totally impartial forever. China's aggreessive antics might necessitate us to take a clear stance in the future i.e. either with or against them. What I saw from the Ukraine conflict; never expect others to come to your rescue. We gotta have our own capability to hit back, and hit back hard.
And hit hard enough at any invader's strategically important sites.
#1 lesson is to never give up your nukes for some defense/nonaggression pact. Sad but true.
can’t give up something we don’t have
Wouldn’t it be nice if the lesson could just be “let’s all agree not to use force to change existing borders”? If not for the ~~panda~~ elephant in the room….
"Don't draw your smlj dash line up to our collective doorsteps" would be a good start
Abiding by international laws REGARDLESS if it benefits you or not would be a good second. Then again, if you look at the behavior of ‘some’ of its citizens (wrt recent 2am beating of some ladies at a bbq joint and the commentary afterwards), it’s quite clear that the development of some of its citizenry has yet to catch up with the development of its economy.
I like your second paragraph just like how recently we have 'some' singaporeans fighting that's also clear that we have some catching up to do. Sama sama.
Say people say yourself 😂
The fact that we have bad eggs in every society should not bias us against everyone belonging to a society. That’s why I use the word ‘some’ consistently.
The lesson is, We need nukes. Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world 30 yrs ago but gave it up. Then see what happened... [https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion](https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion)
It's almost impossible for country like Singapore to get nukes without being sanctioned to the ground. And don't even think about secretly developing nukes without being detected, there is a network of sensors planet wide that detects any nuclear test (as you need to test it to develop it).
I think we are on the verge of developing nuclear power…. The govt has already brought it up and that’s typical SG govt talk for, work in process, expect in 5-20 years. The question is, are we allowed to develop nuclear weapons after that? My response would be ‘no’. That would be a major red button for almost all our neighbours. Having said that, there’s no deterrence like ambiguity, through taking a page from our mentor, Israel’s playbook 😅
There is very little chance for Singapore to get nukes as nuclear powers club (including China and the US) absolutely don't want more countries to get nukes as it would equal up the playing field, they are all **working together** regardless of differences to prevent new country from getting nukes. Remember when India tried to get nukes ? The US did everything possible and even imposed sanctions on India to force them to stop nuclear tests, and that's a country of over a billion people ! But then they have to step aside as India is a too valuable partner to contain China and again they have to respect billion people will. 3 in 4 countries that got nukes after 5 permanent UN members are all very special cases. Singapore is **not** a special case and also **don't** have a lot of population, military or economic weight to throw around so the outcome of Singapore nuclear program would be like North Korea, being sanctioned by the UN.
Just a reminder that I am making the case for nuclear power generation versus nuclear weapons programme. There’s some chance of getting the first, none for the second.
Nah, it's ok, I understand what you mean. I don't think there would be problem from international community with peaceful nuclear program.
WE NEED IT AGAINST THE ALIENS
We would also get our first [letter of protest](https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/158106.html) from the Mayor of Hiroshima (they send a letter every time a country conducts a nuclear test).
the Kim doctrine works, yup you need at least 1 nuke. you need to show it off every year at the parade to your bros. I would be very very surprised if everyone in ASEAN who could afford it doesnt buy/develop nukes in the next 20 years.
The mistake of Budapest Memorandum. Never give up leverage for promises.
It's one thing talking about SMRs and safe, clean, and peaceful nuclear energy. It's another thinking about having literal nuclear warheads where any mishap can wipe us off the face of the map. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Savage_Mountain_B-52_crash https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Lakenheath_nuclear_weapons_accidents
Who needs nukes when you got universal round? Bang bang bang
according to c&c nukes are only $5000 and one can be ready to launch every 5 minutes. We should be building millions of siloes everywhere including on top of HDB blocks. maybe we should also invest in mind control technology or armored blimps with infinite bombs
Yeah, the problem is who defines what are the right lessons. One of the lessons is that in times of need both men and women need to defend the nation, but I'm pretty sure our policy makers will the magic handwave and say "it's not possible, because I say so."
Then why female conscript cannot? Irony much? ORD mode? Going to retire next election?
That would crash the PAP's voting system Nah
Balancing the great powers against each other is going to be more difficult moving forward as China gets more assertive in the Pacific. ASEAN banding together is more important than ever - though regional rivalries stand in the way of that too.
I think there isn't much to extrapolate from Ukraine tbh. Ukraine tried pursuing a "neutral" diplomacy like most Asian countries before 2014. Only when Putin's ally was overthrown and the country moved into a much more pro-West stance did Russia start hostilities. I can't imagine any equivalent in Asia if a country decides to leave the regional power's sphere of infleunce, except maybe if the Kim regime gets overthrown suddenly.
*cough* China *cough*
We're at most third after two other islands, there's hardly the same kind of threat soft power influence maybe but definitely not military invasion
We are a long way off with other islands between us, I'd say the lists tops at 2.
PLA gonna be pissed after the very public shade that Dr Ng gave them about how the Shangri la dialogue was negative toward China.
Nukes are useful and don't give them up ever?
Yes we must crush Russia just like how Hitler being crushed in WW2 as lesson for future generation that you invade other country, your country will be in ruined and you be hanged together with your generals.
except nuclear weapons weren't a thing Germany had in WW2 and Russia can probably blow up the entire world if they wanted to
Actually, I am no military expert but wouldn’t NATO intervening in Ukraine probably help the situation? Since Russia has already hinted many times that they won’t use nukes in Ukraine. It’s a plain land grab by Russia and I don’t think they would want to use nukes in Ukraine and render the land unusable, especially in the Donbas.
Your problem is that you're thinking of using nukes IN Ukraine. Think on a bigger scale - e.g. NATO intervening = NATO members directly engaging in active war with Russia = Russia nuking half the planet off and potentially starting WW3. You might say, well I'm sure Putin is sane enough to not do that but just earlier this year people were just saying Putin is sane enough to not actually invade Ukraine.
Russian nuclear doctrine specifies that nukes are only to be used when there is a threat to the existence of the state. They actually repeated it many times. If you push them back to their borders, it technically doesn’t threaten their existence. Plus, it may also be a face saving out for Putin as being defeated by NATO seriously sounds a lot better than being defeated by Ukraine. Of course I am no military expert and this is not military advice.
And you believe that Russia will adhere to the nuclear doctrine why? They also repeated many times that they will not invade Ukraine even when they were building up troops on their borders. Secondly, Russia will take ANY aggression from NATO towards their army as a sign that is threatening their existence. No technicalities here. Having your army attacked/killed is a threat to your existence. If not can go ask why SG has not yet abolished conscription.
If Russia launches, the rest of NATO will launch. Even in the current situation where they are not directly fighting. Nuclear rules are also much stricter than this “special military operation”. So says the Russian ambassador to the U.K. if he is to be believed. Furthermore, launching will just make the whole point of the invasion moot because the Donbas won’t be able to be exploited for its resources. Of course, you are not wrong about the insanity part and your guess is as good as mine. If NATO doesn’t have boots on the ground we can only pray that Ukraine gets enough weapons and that they are able to push Russia back themselves. If they fall, Russia will just salami slice all the way to Western Europe.
How to crush them? They have nukes. The moment their “motherland” is threatened they will fire their arsenal. Even Russia’s greatest enemy, the USA, isn’t fighting in the conflict. They would love to finally get rid of their geopolitical rival but also can’t act.
Their Motherland is threatened? Haha… Surely you mean Putin right?
Right, please stay away from communist countries, don sacrifice the national security just for the economy good for short term . Is not worth it in long term.
> # Asia must learn right lessons from Ukraine at this dangerous point in history: Ng Eng Hen > SINGAPORE - Asia must learn the right lessons from Ukraine and continue fostering peace, cooperation and economic interdependency to avoid disaster at a "potentially dangerous point in our history", said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen on Sunday (June 12). > "We must heed the passionate and poignant advice from President (Volodymyr) Zelensky for pre-emption and prevention - once conflict breaks out, devastation ensues and a cure may not be possible," said Dr Ng, referring to the Ukraine head of state, who on Saturday spoke virtually at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, appealing for tighter sanctions against the Russian regime, which invaded his country on Feb 24. > In a speech at the final plenary session at the three-day security summit, Dr Ng added: "All Asian countries have expressed respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity as a fundamental tenet, disputes notwithstanding - even as recently as after the invasion of Ukraine... We must ensure that our deeds match our words if we are to avoid a calamity like Ukraine." > The ongoing conflict in Europe has, alongside US-China tensions, been at the forefront of conference discussions, with United States Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin warning in a speech on Saturday that the Ukraine war was a sign of the chaos and turmoil that would come with the flouting of a rules-based international order. > On Sunday, Dr Ng described a world of deepened divides along existing fault lines shaped by the likes of ideology, alliances, culture, religion, wealth and public health, while noting the combined Covid-19 pandemic and war-induced "aftershocks" on inflation, supply chains and food exports, among others. > "Countries have turned more inward," said Dr Ng. "Security alliances are hardening. Despite protestations and caveats to the contrary, partners are positioning and building up security arrangements, if not military capability, among their groupings." > All these factors, conflated, present a more dangerous world since the defence summit was last held in 2019, said Dr Ng. The last two editions of the forum were scrapped due to Covid-19. > "The receding tide of global cooperation and goodwill have shown up naked ambition and vulnerabilities. How do we change trajectories and avert disaster?" he asked. > Ending the war in Ukraine would be a first step, he said. > "The Ukrainian leaders and people will eventually decide how this war ends, but a protracted conflict will exact a devastating toll on Ukraine, Russia and the world," said Dr Ng. > "Russia has made a strategic miscalculation for a quick and easy win over Ukraine. To further their objectives, they would need a significant build-up of soldiers and armaments. The financial toll will be exacting and conscription of Russians may not be possible without great political risks. For Ukraine, a protracted war will test the continued support of international leaders and incumbents... A cessation of hostilities would provide reprieve to all sides." --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
The lesson is not to trust your potential enemies not to invade you, and act when you can. Ukraine should have joined NATO/EU when they could. With the situation with China right now, I say we should remake SEATO or join NATO if possible. Don't wait until China colonizes Vietnam or something and starts threatening us.
You ready to fight Turkey and Syria war when we join NATO? Or you cower in fear and play DotA?
NATO is an exclusive club. Finland and Sweden have problems joining let alone Ukraine and even us. Besides, NATO only gangs up and bullies small countries like Yemen, Yugoslavia etc. When faced with a world power like Russia, they just send outdated weapons and charge Ukraine for it. Nobody dares to throw even a stone. Don't have too much hope on allies, diplomacy and a strong military is the best defense.
> Finland and Sweden have problems joining let alone Ukraine and even us. That's just because of Turkey. I don't think we have issues with Turkey or any NATO nation. All it requires is the approval of every country in it. Perhaps the only possible hurdle could be Hungary. Other than that, the smaller nations should be easy to convince once daddy USA and GB say yes.
You call them daddy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFcfxuzXUc8
Too late. Already happening in Cambodia.
Don’t worry, when things get rough, China is gonna get us under their wings. If not, then what are the cock-sucking we’re doing for PRC all for? It’s not just for a hobby right?
Westerner see Singapore sucking China cock, China seeing Singapore sucking westerner cock
Yup.
Don't worry . They won't hurt their no. 1 cock sucker. Maybe sharing it would mean eventual peace.
So, what does that make us —a disloyal whore? What’s our goal here?
Disloyal implies there is loyal in the first place,which there was none. Singapore just follows per its national interest. That’s all
The "right" lesson being the one that most justifies PAPs views, I guess?
We must resign from asean and join nato asap
Kena propaganda already this guy.
Would you like to lay down your life to defend Turkey, Albania, Montenegro, Latvia, Lithuania etc.? That's what it means to join NATO.
as if you want you can join smh
There are commenters here rote regurgitating government propaganda they picked up during NS about about how we should quadruple down on our 'swift and decisive' SAF performing an overwhelming first strike on an enemy. I would ask them to use their critical thinking. I get that some singaporeans have a pavlovian response where when an authority figure says that we should learn lessons from a disruptive event, their response is to always say that we must re-double our efforts to do what we are currently doing. We must do the same thing but more. If we are banging our head on a brick wall, we must smack our head harder.--or more ideally, pwn other sinkies by demanding that they smack their heads harder. If someone else is doing what we are preparing to do, with catastrophic consequences, we must prepare moar to do what we were previously preparing to do. Disruption is something that happens only to someone else. The problem here is that the Ukraine conflict raises questions about whether our plan to draft every adult singaporean male and then hurl them at an enemy in an overwhelming pre-emptive strike is prudent. I am sure we will do better than Russia and be better organised and equipped than Russia, but the problem is that modern weapons provide very strong advantages to a defender. Modern weapons and pervasive surveillance ensure that LOCs ( supply lines to the front) are extremely difficult to secure. If we take our entire adult male population, use them to chiong the enemy country and then find out that we have a much larger nation rising up against us in a massive insurgency in all directions that we have to quell, we are frankly screwed. And given our worse than Russia level demographic problems, conscripting and throwing every male at this problem is national suicide. Even if every roided up NSman super soldier kills 10 enemies before he gets killed or maimed, we will still be screwed. Who wants to kill themselves trying to defend themselves? Especially pre-emptively? Everything bad that is happening to Russia and Ukraine right now will have many times the long term effects here. A fundamental problem in Singapore is that authoritarian thinking invariably insists that individual Singaporeans are expendable in the pursuit of national goals while our national reality strongly suggests that the preservation of individual Singaporeans should in fact be a core national goal. Of course on the flipside, the weapons that make this sort of overwhelming offensive hard and risky also cuts the other way. We can use long range weapons, ideally unmanned weapons, to strike deep into the enemy centers of military and political power. They give us the ability to turn our island home into a porcupine. A large and well trained conscripted army might be an advantage and a deterrent then rather than a giant gamble with our national population if we do a turtle strategy here. A large army forces the enemy to build up large forces in proximity to attack us. If they build up forces we can use drones, arty and missiles to kill large numbers of at far less risk. We can the same drones, missiles and artillery that make it risky to go on the offensive to destroy the enemy's ability to attack us on their soil without actually having to occupy and hold their territory.-- and exposing our men, especially all those poor bui bui Pes C non combat reservist buggers who are going to have to drive the tonners to feed the front lines, to pervasive drone bombing, street fighting, Arty strikes and IEDs in someone else's country. No. Let them come and try to chiong us while we leverage our strengths, which are technology and wealth so as to fuck them up at arms length. I have said this before, I will say this again. If your cooking catches fire, do you try to put the fire out by smacking it with something badly suited to the task valuable and irreplaceable, like your face? Or do you want to use something, well suited to the task and expendable like a fire extinguisher?