The best strategy to defending Singapore Island

[OPSSG]

There are discussions to expand the ASEAN treaties towards a defence pact.

I'm just looking from the political level: Any conflict involving SG would involve major powers, aka possibility of escalation towards WW3

Where are your thoughts from a military stand point? I'll be interested to know.

Are you sure of how ASEAN works and the ASEAN way? Looking at the various players, your statement on a defence pact is unlikely. Do you understand the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia?

Don't mind me but DT does not do purely political discussions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

ASEAN as a defence group seems very unlikely. But in terms of standardising equipment and muntions, coms etc that is possible.

However, there are other defence agreements between relivant members in Asia. I am sure that any invasion of singapore would involve immediate intervention by the US and the British and Australia with the support of other nations nearby (unless they are the aggressor). However the response would be limited by what resources are avalible and how quickly they could get there. If there was general regional instability, the response would be much more limited.

I can't see such an operation happening alone, it would be done to take advantage of a particular situation involving other states and turmoil.

 

[the road runner]

Red great post about Singapore defence equipment.
One point i noticed from your post........Singapore Army has 132 Leo 2 tanks?
I was not aware they had that many Leo 2 MBT?Dont they have approx.60 odd MBT:unknown

 

[Red]

Red great post about Singapore defence equipment.
One point i noticed from your post........Singapore Army has 132 Leo 2 tanks?
I was not aware they had that many Leo 2 MBT?Dont they have approx.60 odd MBT:unknown

I merely elaborated a bit on what is already known. You can read up on Singapore`s Leos over here;

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8344

Cheers

 

[Crunchy]

Where are your thoughts from a military stand point? I'll be interested to know.

Are you sure of how ASEAN works and the ASEAN way? Looking at the various players, your statement on a defence pact is unlikely. Do you understand the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia?

Don't mind me but DT does not do purely political discussions.

ASEAN Defence Coop (OK I reduce my expectation.) -> Some stupid comments by some PLA top brass can speed things up very quickly.

As we all know SG's doctrin is an preemptive strike, so wouldn't an pre empitive strike by SG on - example: agressor naval fleet - give the agressor the reason it needs to strike SG? (Assuming the agressor has got several naval task forces.) So SG's modern forces may have exhausted its arsenal & munitions. We all know that SG cannot substain a prolonged conflict. What now?

The whole scenario is so absurd.

 

[OPSSG]

ASEAN Defence Coop (OK I reduce my expectation.) -> Some stupid comments by some PLA top brass can speed things up very quickly.

Our total defence spending in ASEAN is so low that quite a few countries cannot defend themselves against external aggression without extensive external help.

No matter what PLA says, ASEAN is not able to compete in defence spending.

Even if we could agree to a unified force structure and that every country in ASEAN raises its defence spending to Singapore spending levels, we still cannot compete. They are a major regional military power and we are not.

China's problem is their ability to project their forces.

As we all know SG's doctrin is an preemptive strike, so wouldn't an pre-emptive strike by SG on - example: agressor naval fleet - give the aggressor the reason it needs to strike SG? (Assuming the aggressor has got several naval task forces.) So SG's modern forces may have exhausted its arsenal & munitions. We all know that SG cannot sustain a prolonged conflict. What now?

You must ask yourself: How is Singapore's defence going to be conducted?

If a US/PLA general was asked to defend Singapore, within Singapore, the general will probably tell you that it cannot be done. Hence the need to fight outside of Singapore (also called a pre- emptive strike in certain circumstances), as defender confined to only within Singapore is at a tactical disadvantage.

In geographic terms, the defence of Malaysia-Singapore is indivisible. If a hostile aggressor invades West Malaysia, Singapore cannot standby the side, as we will be drawn into the conflict. For that matter Australia will also be alarmed.

Singapore's force structure is capable of a pre-emptive strike. However, with a conscript army and our strong reliance on mobilization to stand-up our army means that we are not willing to get into any fight unless our survival is threatened.

If you read the RSAF thread, I posted information on supplementary orders over and above our F-15SG purchases. Please note a single order is over S$1 billion. How much more bombs and bullets would you suggest we buy? What is spending enough to be prepared? And what is enough?

We not poor but we do not have limitless pockets. Keep in mind, we have a population of only 4 million.

The whole scenario is so absurd.

Ah... but then why plan to defend Singapore at all?

p.s. Welcome to DT!

 

[Red]

The so-called pre-emptive strike doctrine is just one of the strategies available to Singapore. The Singaporean government is not a bunch of robots. They will not simply attack a potential aggressor when they are other viable alternatives. And it also depends on who the aggressor is.

I doubt munitions will be an issue. Singapore produces the majority of them in house; more so than any other country in Asean. Singapore is already nearly self sufficient for her water needs. However, food will be a factor. But the same goes for most other countries where food is imported. Not many countries are self sufficient when it comes to food; including many Asean countries. The government does stock-pile food in preparation of exigencies so there should be enough for everyone for an extended period of time. I think they are the only ones who do it consistently and persistently in the region. So much so that if there is a rush for food, Singapore would probably be the last one to be affected drastically.

As such, the attacker must be prepared to lay siege on Singapore from air and sea. Otherwise, Singapore will have not just have water but sufficient quantities of food as well. And unless you have a capable navy/airforce and carrier battle groups the US have to squash the RSAF and RSN, it will be hard. None of the Asean countries have such a capability currently.

In reality, Singapore is the 3rd largest oil refinery centre in the world and half of the world`s oil passes through Singapore and practically 75% of East Asian oil. Shut down Singapore and you`ll see the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, etc joining the party as well. Not to mention the largest/busiest container port in the world and a major financial centre/node in the global financial trading system.

As such, there is a confluence of reasons owing to Singapore`s own modest but considerable military capabilities, geographical location, economic and financial reasons which make an invasion unlikely. It is simply not worth the mess that comes with such an action.

 

[Red]

In geographic terms, the defence of Malaysia-Singapore is indivisible. If a hostile aggressor invades West Malaysia, Singapore cannot standby the side, as we will be drawn into the conflict. For that matter Australia will also be alarmed.

That is an interesting point. If conflict erupts between Thailand(a longtime Singapore ally as well) and Malaysia, would Singapore act? I think we would. But there are different actions that we could take. It does not have to be military. We are not obliged to defend the Malaysian government or her people. And I think they know that very well.

 

[OPSSG]

That is an interesting point. If conflict erupts between Thailand(a longtime Singapore ally as well) and Malaysia, would Singapore act? I think we would. But there are different actions that we could take. It does not have to be military. We are not obliged to defend the Malaysian government or her people. And I think they know that very well.

Thanks for the succinct clarification on my post. And that is why I chose not to say 'defend' or 'fight' and said 'drawn into'. I didn't want to say too much on this point (simply because I wanted to be succinct), save that, we have certain common interests with our neighbours.

In fact, 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."​

I am sure you are aware of Dr. Ong's book "Operation Matador World War II Britain's attempt to foil the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore", which is a background read.

I like this newish Pointer Monograph on the topic. Concise and contains lessons learned.

 

[Crunchy]

@ OPSSG:
You got the money. We got the men. How about some exchange?

With the US Arms Embargo on Vietnam lifted, I think there can be much more coop between our Armed Forces/def industry. Give us some insight into Western systems and you can get more into Russian systems.

dreaming *RTAF's Gripen & RMAF's MiG-29N/Su-30 & SG's F15SG & TNI AU's Su-30 & VPAF's Su-30 flying together.*
*USAF's F22 comes along* dreams ends

 

[OPSSG]

dreaming *RTAF's Gripen & RMAF's MiG-29N/Su-30 & SG's F15SG & TNI AU's Su-30 & VPAF's Su-30 flying together.*
*USAF's F22 comes along* dreams ends

At Cope Tiger a trilateral exercise between US, Thai and Singapore, the air forces of the 3 countries play together. The RSAF also goes to Pitch Black to play with with RMAF and RAAF.

Slowly... our ASEAN air forces are learning to get along (to do things together) and to play along.

@ OPSSG:
You got the money. We got the men. How about some exchange?

Traditionally, you buy arms and weapons for your own men.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait demonstrated that small countries need their own armies (that are capable enough to deter invasion) or a lot of external support or both.

 

[SGMilitary]

I would view that the SAF/Mindef defence planners had done their job

rather well.

Singapore need to develop her capability in long range precision strike.

This is forward defence capability.

We need more F-15SG, more stealth frigates and I'm really hoping that

SAF will procure Aster 30 SAMP/T land based system.

Any comments?

 

[Ananda]

How Long South East Asia Can Hold..???

"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"..

That's nice quote OPSSG...
I also believe that it can also include the whole south east asia...

Look...many reasons can be stated on why Asean being created..but one of the big reason is to 'constraint' my own Indonesia..so the situation when Soekarno in power will not happen again...

But lets back to the present or near future situation in South East Asia...
Lets see if somehow a new Soekarno emerging in Indonesia....let's assume somehow this guy within ten short years realising all Soekarno Dreams (nuclear weapon, huge submarines and fighters fleet,etc,etc)....Can we realistically assume no big powers will encircle Indonesia if this new soekarno suddely emerge and begin to venture old soekarno policies..??

The situation this first decade of 21st century certaintly different with what happen in the early 60's...Long Soeharto Era and the relatively weak Government that coming after him (which we call in here the "Reformasi Order")....has make sure that not only our military does not possesed regional superiority as in Soekarno era (off course not included British forces stationed at Malaya and Singapore at that time)....but we don't even have REGIONAL PARITY anymore with some of our neighbours...

Thus again it show...nobody in the region has power to intimidate each other....
Which in the end go back to outside regional threat....and which again will come to a question.. "Thus anybody in SEA can have long term defence on their own..('against outside SEA threat')...??"

If outside help is being ommitted....even if all SEA Forces united...at most it can only hold for 1 month...before retreating on Guerilla Warfare....
Larger country like Indonesia, Vietnam,Thailand, or even Malaysia...can do that only on the count of larger geographically and demographically....but can that happen to Singapore...???

Realistically...can you made Fortress Singapore holding over one month on your own against outside MAJOR Forces..???

None of us in SEA have strong INDEPENDENT Military Industries...whatever Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand...produce locally...all basically depends to the outside sources....

Which all again show under realistic scenario...not one of SEA countries can invade each other...thus potential threat will come from outside SEA...which if that happen not one of us will be abble to hold indefinetely...without outside SEA help...

 

[Tavarisch]

"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"..

That's nice quote OPSSG...
I also believe that it can also include the whole south east asia...

Look...many reasons can be stated on why Asean being created..but one of the big reason is to 'constraint' my own Indonesia..so the situation when Soekarno in power will not happen again...

But lets back to the present or near future situation in South East Asia...
Lets see if somehow a new Soekarno emerging in Indonesia....let's assume somehow this guy within ten short years realising all Soekarno Dreams (nuclear weapon, huge submarines and fighters fleet,etc,etc)....Can we realistically assume no big powers will encircle Indonesia if this new soekarno suddely emerge and begin to venture old soekarno policies..??

The situation this first decade of 21st century certaintly different with what happen in the early 60's...Long Soeharto Era and the relatively weak Government that coming after him (which we call in here the "Reformasi Order")....has make sure that not only our military does not possesed regional superiority as in Soekarno era (off course not included British forces stationed at Malaya and Singapore at that time)....but we don't even have REGIONAL PARITY anymore with some of our neighbours...

Thus again it show...nobody in the region has power to intimidate each other....
Which in the end go back to outside regional threat....and which again will come to a question.. "Thus anybody in SEA can have long term defence on their own..('against outside SEA threat')...??"

If outside help is being ommitted....even if all SEA Forces united...at most it can only hold for 1 month...before retreating on Guerilla Warfare....
Larger country like Indonesia, Vietnam,Thailand, or even Malaysia...can do that only on the count of larger geographically and demographically....but can that happen to Singapore...???

Realistically...can you made Fortress Singapore holding over one month on your own against outside MAJOR Forces..???

None of us in SEA have strong INDEPENDENT Military Industries...whatever Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand...produce locally...all basically depends to the outside sources....

Which all again show under realistic scenario...not one of SEA countries can invade each other...thus potential threat will come from outside SEA...which if that happen not one of us will be abble to hold indefinetely...without outside SEA help...

Let's remember that we are all former colonies. Assuming that we had been able to thwart off the Portugese in the 1500s, the Malaccan Sultanate might've expanded to comprise most of the Malayan Archipelago. We could've been a major power here in the East. We used to make loads out of trading with the West. If we had been a major power, we could've made our own tanks, planes and ships. We could've been the one exploiting the West of their resources.

However, do onto others what you want others to do onto you. Exploitation is bad, no matter who does it to who.

And, no we could last longer than one month. We can't fight conventional battles, so we won't. We'll use our muddy terrain to our advantage. Any tank above the weight of 45 tonnes is gonna get bogged down in the mud, making them excellent targets. We have jungles, lots of them. (Sorry about Singapore though) We don't have to fight the way Westerners do. Our defense may as well be guerilla warfare. You are totally underestimating our united capabilities. The US will be COMPELLED to help us out. Singapore is one of their interests, the loss of Singapore means the loss of a gateway to SEA and an entry port. And, despite whatever some people say, some humans do learn from mistakes. IF we were to be desperate enough to defend only Singapore, it would be in the form of aerial precision strikes supported by the Navy. Singaporean Subs will sink supply convoys. Our collective Air forces will conduct air-raids on enemy landing areas. We will ensure that our common enemy doesn't get a chance to even be within 10 km of our respective coasts. WE WILL NEVER revert to STATIC defense.

We will hunt our enemies out and destroy them.

A foreign power not from SEA will find it hard to attack our collective defense. It's not the same as Central Europe, the Middle East and the Winter Plains of Siberia.

Anyway, I don't see a reason for them to do so. If there were power struggles unfavorable to them, all they have to do is send in their spies and stage a coup like the CIA does all the time.

 

[Red]

@ OPSSG:
You got the money. We got the men. How about some exchange?

With the US Arms Embargo on Vietnam lifted, I think there can be much more coop between our Armed Forces/def industry. Give us some insight into Western systems and you can get more into Russian systems.

dreaming *RTAF's Gripen & RMAF's MiG-29N/Su-30 & SG's F15SG & TNI AU's Su-30 & VPAF's Su-30 flying together.*
*USAF's F22 comes along* dreams ends

I think we already got most of what we wanted intelligence-wise. There are rather established yet covert links. I cant remember the book I read. Ill try and look it up again.
Vietnam is important. And I think there have been efforts to get her involved in the scheme of things(intricate power play) in the region. As of late, Vietnamese military officials have been meeting thier Singaporean counterparts on a number of occasions. There is even a military forum between the two countries set up. Relations are getting closer and there is a reason why.

 

[Red]

Let's remember that we are all former colonies. Assuming that we had been able to thwart off the Portugese in the 1500s, the Malaccan Sultanate might've expanded to comprise most of the Malayan Archipelago. We could've been a major power here in the East. We used to make loads out of trading with the West. If we had been a major power, we could've made our own tanks, planes and ships. We could've been the one exploiting the West of their resources.

I think the Malacan Sultanate pales in comparison with other established contemporary powers worldwide. If the Chinese had expanded all the way south, the Sultanate would have been just another province. I feel they simply started off too late to make a difference. The only reason she lasted that long is because the region was not deemed important then or just out of the way as far as where the action was in those days.

The academically ideal solution would be for Singapore to fight on Malaysia`s side if Malaysia is attacked. But realistically, this would arguably not happen all the time. If the US is to invade or attack Malaysia(say, she goes rogue with an ultra-islamist government), which side would you think Singapore will be on? Or for that matter; Australia and New Zealand.

Earlier, I brought on the example of Thailand, a US ally and Singapore`s as well. If a conflict is to erupt between Malaysia and Thailand, my opinion is that Singapore would not automatically fight on Malaysia`s side. It might not be in Singapore`s interests to do so. Or that the net result would be favourable to Singapore. Same with other countries; including the US.

It would be misleading to say that the US will be compelled to help Malaysia all the time. Of course, there will be scenarios whereby the US will find it necessary to help out as well. Ananda furnished a scenario where a resurgent Indonesia decides to take bites out of her neighbours(sorry, i didnt read the whole post). I think you will find every other country in the region ganging up just to deal with this threat.

Wast Malaysia is largely urbanised. There will be places for tanks to play and get hurt. Control of West Malaysia`s urban areas will be a huge blow to the Malaysian economy; which will take many years to recover. While West Malaysia is certainly bigger than Singapore, she is hardly big in the larger scheme of things. You can drive halfway through the peninsula in less than a day.

 

[Red]

Anyway, I don't see a reason for them to do so. If there were power struggles unfavorable to them, all they have to do is send in their spies and stage a coup like the CIA does all the time.

I think you have got a good point here. IMHO, Malaysia`s greatest weakness is her shady and grimy political leadership and heirachy. External powers could manipulate national decisions via proxies; wittingly or otherwise.

 

[OPSSG]

@SGMilitary, Ananda, Tavarisch & Red,

Nice posts. I am glad we are getting along and thinking the unthinkable, which is could war start in Southeast Asia and how it would start.

We are currently living in peace and I hope it would continue. There are 2 classes of threats:

(i) internally driven (from within ASEAN); and
(ii) externally driven (external to the ASEAN members).

Collectively, ASEAN membership enables us to have a forum and manage the differences between ASEAN members. And we are also able to engage our external dialogue partners during our ASEAN summits.

Many people (externally), tend to view ASEAN as a talk shop. As far as I am concerned, as long as we are talking, it is much better than shooting. In this respect, the best defence of ASEAN is being conducted with our mouths rather than just guns.

I am also proud that the efforts of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and my country have managed to reduce incidents of piracy, though the Malacca Straits Patrols (there is RSIS Commentaries on this topic) and collectively helped reduce insurance costs (via the removal of the war risk rider) to goods traveling though our region. We have much to be proud of (and you only need to look to the continent of Africa as contrast). Our interaction (via our navies and air forces) is increasing and we are learning to work together. An auspicious sign and start on working together. Let us see if we can expand our cooperation to other areas too.

If we have to face a conventional external threat, collectively, we are tougher than we look. We can always aspire to punch above our weight and increase the cost of external aggression (conceptually, we just need to make it very expensive, so as to deflect potential trouble out of the region). In Some Principles of Maritime Strategy, Julian Corbett (a British historian), in writing in 1911, asserted that just because one nation has lost control of the sea, another nation has not necessarily gained it. A naval coalition or a “fleet in being”—a collection of ships that can quickly coalesce into a unified fleet when necessary. This fleet-in-being wouldn’t need to dominate or sink other fleets; it could be effective by seizing bases and policing choke points. Such a deceptively able fleet, Corbett argued, should pursue an “active and vigorous life” in the conduct of limited defense, by, for example, carrying out harassing operations.

However, we already face an external threat of imported ideologies and internally grown self radicalized terrorists. The recent events in Mumbai reminds us that a terrorist attack (the scourge of modern life) is always possible and I know that our respective governments are sharing intelligence and working on our respective abilities to respond. Intelligence sharing within ASEAN (and our external partners) is one of the little known secrets and a success story on mutual cooperation in combating piracy and terrorism. We must also not forget the external help to address these concerns and supplied by our external partners.

We have all started our independence in poverty and are moving towards prosperity (recession not withstanding). For a region of 500 million people, we should collectively aspire to live together and move together. We are after all neighbours.

 

[Ananda]

Unified SEA Defence...Can't it be possible..??

Guys...I believe this thread already developed from what's best for Singapore Defence to what's best for SEA Defence...

I think from what we can see, the defence of Singapore will in the end in someways will involve the others in SEA...and basically it's also shown the trend that with resurgance economics and strategic powers of India & China, SEA/Asean has no other choice to come out as one voice.

However I believe mutual trust still need a long way to go for unified SEA defence...
We know that the condition on 60's already change dramatically in the current time, and I believe internal SEA threat will not come from members states.

But if we go back to the defence, what I have mentioned in my privious post that by conventionall means, SEA defence (individually or unified) still can't cope with external major threats without having outside help (like US)...

Tavarisch says that we can always fight unconventionally, thus we can't underestimate the unified defence of SEA...however just like I've mentioned on my previous posts...not all of us can go with unconventionall/guerilla resistances...
Fortress Singapore have no choice to play with conventionall defence...once it's breach...she'll be lost since unlike the others that can retreat to the rural and jungles to make unconvcentionall resistance, that choices in my oppinion regretfully does not applicable to Singapore...

The biggest weakness in long term defence for SEA is that we donot have strong independent defence industries...
Individually we can't provide large enough market for strong local defence industries..but together we can...
But can it will be..???

With each states need different things and staretgically sources their equipments to different sources...SEA will always be defence buyers..and will not be strong defences manufacturer...
And anyones that defensively dependa to outside sources....will never provide long term defences capabilities on their own...

 

[OPSSG]

Guys...I believe this thread already developed from what's best for Singapore Defence to what's best for SEA Defence...

It is good to get along.

I think from what we can see, the defence of Singapore will in the end in someways will involve the others in SEA...and basically it's also shown the trend that with resurgence economics and strategic powers of India & China, SEA/Asean has no other choice to come out as one voice.

I don't think we can speak with one voice. And whose voice? The problems or solutions within ASEAN must take into the account the interests of Indonesia (and her role as leader). What is in the interest of Indonesia, is not always in the interest of the other ASEAN countries.

Just take the sand issue between Indonesia and Singapore in 2007 to which the Indian Express describes as "Asian Unity, On a Bed of Sand." And that is just one of many issues.

However I believe mutual trust still need a long way to go for unified SEA defence... We know that the condition on 60's already change dramatically in the current time, and I believe internal SEA threat will not come from members states.

We are working on resolving internal differences. Hopefully, we will be united against an external foe. However, our interests are not always the same. We should take the 'crawl, walk and run' approach to building capability and engaging in co-operation.

Some Crawl Steps Taken thus Far:

Step 1: Solve boundary disputes. Eg. RI and Singapore agree to a new boundary.

Step 2: Learn to train together to build trust. Exercises like Ex Semangat Bersatu (M'sia), Ex Salkar Indopura (I'sia), Ex Maju Bersama (Brunei) and Ex Kocha Singa (Thai) are just some of the Singapore army's bilateral exercises. These exercises build interoperability. Further, Singapore is also capable of providing some technology to our ASEAN neighbours to enable our navies to train and inter-operate.

Step 3: Share intelligence (already covered in previous post).

But if we go back to the defence, what I have mentioned in my previous post that by conventional means, SEA defence (individually or unified) still can't cope with external major threats without having outside help (like US)...

You need to look at 2 main factors/concepts:

(i) the concept of 'local superiority' and the ability by ASEAN members to establish such local superiority; and

(ii) the ability of the the potential aggressor to project his forces.

When you consider these factors, it would be clear that ASEAN is no pushover. However, ASEAN cannot compete in a long term, full-on war by conventional means alone. Please read the earlier posts and reconsider some of your concepts (they are a bit lopsided ).

Tavarisch says that we can always fight unconventionally, thus we can't underestimate the unified defence of SEA...however just like I've mentioned on my previous posts...not all of us can go with unconventional/guerrilla resistances...

We'll need to see what sort of unconventional capabilities we collectively posses. Unconventional warfare is also available to conventional armies. Eg. The use of unconventional warfare is not uncommon in Afghanistan.

Fortress Singapore have no choice to play with conventional defence...once it's breach...she'll be lost since unlike the others that can retreat to the rural and jungles to make unconventional resistance, that choices in my opinion regretfully does not applicable to Singapore...

I will only say that conventional warfare is a tool in Singapore's war chest. We can employ some unconventional warfare tools too with our own special forces.

But I agree that we are only 1 city, so there is no retreat into the hinterland/jungle option. The last time Singapore was conquered in WWII, the Imperial Japanese Army murdered/massacred 25,000 to 50,000 Singaporean civilians during the occupation (depending on which estimate you believe). Of note is the particular bravery of the 1,400 soldiers of the Malay Regiment made their stand at Bukit Chandu, in Singapore against 13,000 advancing Imperial Japanese soldiers, choosing death over dishonour.

The biggest weakness in long term defence for SEA is that we donot have strong independent defence industries...

Individually we can't provide large enough market for strong local defence industries..but together we can...

But can it will be..???

In the relative scheme of things, ASEAN's defence market is small (so you must look beyond ASEAN as a market) but some countries are trying to develop some capabilities in our respective defence industries.

Thailand's move to buy an Endurance class vessel is a first step to buying within ASEAN.

With each states need different things and strategically sources their equipments to different sources...SEA will always be defence buyers..and will not be strong defences manufacturer...
And anyones that defensively depends to outside sources....will never provide long term defences capabilities on their own...

Yes, we are all not totally self sufficient, because trade is good for our export orientated economies.