Can China take Vietnam if it wants to? In an Sino-Indian war who will win/lose/prevail/be left standing?
Those are the big questions.
There are slightly smaller questions. Like, would Singapore be able to defend itself against Malaysia? Indonesia? If her bigger neighbours attempt to swallow the "little red dot"?
The answers to these questions are usually best debated hotly over some beers and pizza. Or satay. Or sambal stingray. Or BBQ chicken wings. Cos if you're going to spend the evening pontificating over hypotheticals, it is best to do so with good food (or beer food), and with alcohol to fuel your passion.
As such this is NOT meant to be a serious discussion leading to ANY REASONABLE conclusion about the state of the world and the militaries of the various countries. And, I strongly recommend that you be drinking beer and having some 'beer food' while you read this. About the only thing of ANY CONSEQUENCE that one can conclude from all these rankings, is that the US and China are in the top two positions. Anything more detailed than that is subject to (inconclusive) argument.
In any case, rankings don't tell the full story.
Before the Ukraine invasion, Russia was ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world. Ukraine was ranked 15 (or thereabouts). However, their performance on the battlefield is not commensurate with their respective rankings (even before Ukraine got all those military aid/donations). Russia was supposed to take over Ukraine in days - 3 days! A week, at the most. Instead Russia failed to do that, and Ukraine held the invaders at bay long enough for military aid to arrive, and then began to push the Russians back.
Still, the starting position of any arguments about military power will require some reference to objective or near-objective rankings of the various countries.
This is one of the more referenced Military Ranking list.
The US as the sole superpower (yes it is. China is NOT a superpower) is uncontroversially ranked the highest. Russia is ranked 2nd, and China 3rd. Russia's ranking is probably more historical than current at this point in time.
[A note to the Sinophiles, and latent "Huaqiaos": If you want to consider China a "Superpower", you are of course free to do so. However, for my purpose (and a generally accepted definition), a "Superpower", or more specifically, a "Military Superpower" is a country (or nation) that can exert military force globally, or almost anywhere in the world. The US is one (and only) such force. With its 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, dispersed throughout the world's oceans - Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian - a US carrier group is often just days away from any hotspot that might flare up. China is not a military superpower. At best, it can project its military power in the region and against its neighbours - Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan - and flex in the South China Sea. That makes China a regional Great Power at best.]
Other countries of interest on this list and their rankings (in 2023), are:
13 Indonesia16 Australia19 Vietnam23 Taiwan24 Thailand29 Singapore32 Philippines38 Myanmar42 Malaysia103 New Zealand106 Cambodia115 Laos
Some of the lower rankings are not controversial. At this point, it is unlikely (or even unthinkable) for New Zealand, Cambodia or Laos to contemplate aggression. And therefore it does not matter, what their actual rankings should be, or if the rankings accorded are even accurate.
Indonesia. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country (after China, India, and the USA) with about 280 million people. It is an archipelago comprising over 17,000 islands with the largest islands being Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan/Borneo, Sulawesi, and New Guinea. The vast land and islands present a logistical challenge for the military to protect and defend. Indonesia is not a rich country, and spends less than 1% of its GDP on their Military. This puts them at 143 place (out of 167 countries/territories).
Nevertheless, for all these reasons, or despite all these, Global Firepower ranks the Indonesian military 13th in the world.
IMHO, it is large because it needs to be large to properly hold the vast, far-flung country together. Not to conquer another country. And certainly, if Indonesia has ambitions to take other territories, it would be spending more on its military. Not just 0.8% of its GDP. So while it is 13th in the world, it is not a potential invading force just waiting (for an opportunity) to strike.
Australia. Australia a large island-continent with a land area that puts it at 7th in the world, but with a population of about 27 million, or 54th in the world. There are vast swathes of desert and deserted (or sparsely populated) lands, with most of the population concentrated near the coasts. Australia spends 2% of its GDP on its military and this puts them 57th in the world. Australia has been a member of various alliances or security pacts including ANZUS (since 1951), FPDA (1971), and AUKUS (2021). Significantly, the AUKUS pact will be providing Australia with conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines which are intended to better equip the Australian Navy, possibly or ostensibly to counter Chinese subs.
However, the point of AUKUS would be to ensure that in the event of direct aggression from China against Australia, the US and UK would come to Australia's aid, so there is no scenario, other than possibly in the initial opening of aggression, where it is a straight one-on-one between China and Australia.
Vietnam. Vietnam has a storied history when it comes to war. Its name is synonymous with a historical defeat of the US in the last century. Lesser known is their repulse of China in 1978. Vietnam has the singular honour among ASEAN countries of having defeated (or at least held them both at bay) BOTH the US and China! At this point in time, Vietnam has "disagreements" with China over the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. And this has meant that Vietnam has to ensure that it can repel or resist China's forceful claims over disputed territories. At 105 million people, Vietnam is the 16th most populous country, and is estimated to have almost half a million active duty military personnel.
Taiwan. As China claims the whole of Taiwan, it is not surprising that Taiwan would feel the need to ensure that it can resist an invasion from China. Even so, Taiwan is ranked 23rd in "Global Firepower", and the question is, "Can Taiwan resist an invasion from China (ranked 3rd)?" The corollary question is "Does China have the (latent) capability to successfully invade and hold Taiwan?". As a matter of comparison, Russia (ranked 2nd, prior to the invasion of Ukraine) have not had the success they expected in taking Ukraine, ranked 15th. And there are differences in logistical consideration for China to take Taiwan. First, the Russo-Ukraine war is mainly a Land War, with a land border between Russia and Ukraine. Russian tanks and forces, just need to march (or roll) into Ukraine (mainly to get their tanks blown up). China trying to take Taiwan has the 160 km Taiwan Strait to cross, and conditions limit the opportunity to make this crossing to just two months of the year (IIRC, April and Oct). Second, because of the constraints of a sea crossing and the logistics involved, and because China has been "telegraphing" an invasion, there is no way China will have the element of surprise when they launch their invasion. Taiwan has been prepared for an invasion for years, and have made preparations. Where the assault force will land is even known (there are only 14 possible beaches?), and have been "prepared" (i.e.booby-trapped) to welcome the Chinese visitors. The Taiwanese Air Force is prepared for a missile barrage preceding the assault and have planned for that. The lesson from the Russo-Ukraine war is that "paper" ranking does not guarantee an easy victory (or even victory), and the World will respond. With censure, with sanctions, with embargoes, and even with military aid. China's main question has always been, "will the US come to Taiwan's defence?" The fact that the US did NOT actively come to Ukraine's defence (i.e. actively involved) could be read two ways. One, the US is tired of fighting foreign wars. They just pulled out of Afghanistan, and just gave up after 20 years of war. Read this way, China can take comfort in believing that US WILL NOT COME TO TAIWAN'S DEFENCE. Or, two, the US knows that the bigger more important war is in the Pacific, and did not want to get involved in Ukraine's defence so that they can focus on China, and containing China. US was figuratively "keeping its powder dry", so that they will have the capacity to act in the Pacific.
Thailand. Is the only ASEAN country with an aircraft carrier. But it is more like a glorified Royal Yacht of the Thai King. The Thai military constant involvement in coups, as well as border skirmishes means that the army is experienced and tested. However, it is not clear if this translates to conventional, open war. In any case, the Thai Military seems more interested in "conquering" Thailand (military government), then conquering other nations.
Singapore. Ranked 29th, the problem of defending Singapore is a complicated one. In the early years, the best we could hope for was to be as problematic for any invader or aggressor. The "Poison Shrimp" strategy was intended to give any invaders indigestion if they tried to take Singapore. Over the years, our capabilities improved and our strategy changed to that of the "Porcupine Strategy", bristling with defences. But the best defence is a good offence and the current strategy is the "Dolphin Strategy" where a fast, nimble, agile force is able to out-manoeuvre any aggressor force. As a small island, Singapore lacks strategic depth. Any invading force at our borders would have the whole of Singapore within artillery range. We do not have the luxury that Ukraine had of having invading forces taking and holding a significant portion of our island. We would be lost by then! Singapore's strategy is that we CANNOT fight any war on our island. If it comes to that, we have already lost. BUT, neither can Singapore be aggressive. Singapore's wealth and prosperity lies with our political stability and openness to trade and globalisation. War will destabilise Singapore's economy, and undermine our economic advantage. Singapore is a small country and aggression will not serve us at all. To that end, Singapore ensures that it is well-equipped with the latest (and greatest) military assets so that would be aggressors know that Singapore is not a fat juicy target, but a hard, prickly nut to crack.
The Philippines. The Philippines have had aggressions with China over the Spratley Islands and access to the West Philippines Sea (a.k.a. the South China Sea). As the smaller, less equipped, and lower ranked (32nd) country, the Philippines have been at the disadvantage. China has ignored UNCLOS rulings in favour of the Philippines, and continued to prosecute China's claims in the South China Sea using grey zone tactics.
The Philippines attempted to appease and collaborate with China to work out an amicable resolution (during President's Duterte term) was not successful. Since then, the new administration has (re)turned to the US to support their position against China. Because the reality is, the Philippines Military is not going to be much of an issue to the Chinese. However, the Philippines defence agreement with the US changes everything. Like Taiwan, the Philippines is unlikely to antagonise China, but in the face of increasing grey zone (i.e. bullying) tactics, Philippines may react and inadvertently provoke China.
As an aside, the Philippines, or some segment of the Philippines, have some territorial dispute with Malaysia. And again, this is secondary to the looming "crisis" with China, so its on the back burner for now.
Myanmar. The ruling junta is more concerned with maintaining their power in the govt, and to quell any possible opposition to their military rule. As such, it's 38th ranking may not translate to a comparable ability to wage war or to project power beyond its borders.
Malaysia. Malaysia is ranked 42nd on the list. Behind most of the ASEAN countries. Being ranked behind Singapore (29th) must... rankle. However, Malaysia is not above "pranking" Singapore with faux threats like the one on Singapore's National Day in 1991:
Video:Singapore almost went to war (with Malaysia, 1991, National Day)
Comments from the video:
"Side Note: Not only did the Malaysian and Indonesians not intimidate us, the speed at which we could mobilized our troops actually intimidated the Malaysian military top brass instead. This should serve as a reminder of how vulnerable we are. There were talk by some of the opposition some years back if we maintain a good relationship with our neighbors we don't need to have national service. Thanks to Mahathir regaining PMship of Malaysia a while back, this naïve thinking has since disappear
"Agreed. The 2 hour mobilization shocked others as it displayed the organizational effectiveness of our forces against theirs, who need days to mobilize. We will get the first strike in, and with our tech, hit obscenely hard, maybe even giving an irrecoverable blow while buying ourselves time for our allies and our own assets in foreign lands to be deployed.
"This is real. I was in the Air Force but I was stationed in US. We were told to be prepared to deploy with our full assets. All aircraft were prepared to fly back with configuration for long distance flying. Our commander briefing was a short but tense one. But we are ready to be deployed within 12hours. Eventually, we stand down after National day. It was only after we stand down, we knew that every military personal and every assets in Singapore was put on high alert, with fully armed weapons on army, navy and air force. At that time, our air force is still flying the F5s, A4s and the older F16s..
"First time drawing live rounds other than for live firing exercise. Over the weekend no book out. Sleep in uniform! Good reminder!
"Great content. In case it seems like my comments below are critical, that is not my intent. Just wanted to add some info. 1:17, reasons why Singapore saw this wargame as a threat. To add: (4) Lack of notification. When countries conduct wargames, they would, as a matter of courtesy and prudence, inform their neighbours so that the neighbour would not be unduly worried, or respond inappropriately (like launch a counter attack). Malaysia did not inform Singapore. Interestingly, Indonesia let slip the information to Singapore. Which was nice of them. (5) 2:05 "The purpose of the exercise was to test the response of Malaysia and Indonesia in case a neighbouring country turned hostile." Hmmm.... I wonder which neighbouring country might they mean? Those dastardly Filipinos? The cunning Thais? Surely, they cannot mean sweet, innocent little Singapore? Oh but they left Singapore out of the wargame. That's telling.... I THINK THEY MEANT SINGAPORE! (6) New PM. In 1991 Goh Chok Tong had just taken over from Lee Kuan Yew as PM of Singapore. Meanwhile in Malaysia, Mahathir was still holding onto power and trying to catch up with Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew. While Lee Kuan Yew was PM, Mahathir would NEVER have tried to do a "Pukul Habis" or he would be the one to "habis". BUT.... with a new PM.... Mahathir (or Malaysia) wanted to test the new PM. See if he was as tough as LKY... Two things might happen. One, Goh Chok Tong panics and attacks Malaysia, or Two, Goh Chok Tong folds under pressure and LKY has to step back up as PM. Unfortunately (for Mahathir), PM Goh got advice from his generals and his ministers. And I suspect classified intelligence briefing as to the real intent of the wargames. PM Goh would be right to be reasonably sure that no attack is imminent, and that it was just an attempt to startle us. But he also went with his generals' advice to conduct mobilisation. National Day was a particularly vulnerable time for Singapore. The entire govt was gathered in one place. Singapore is small, and the site of the wargame was just minutes away by jet fighters. A consolidated attack could wipe out our entire govt. I am sure there were contingency plans for evacuating the Ministers in case of an attack, and emergency bomb shelters or makeshift shelters and evacuation plans. 1991 was a particularly "vulnerable" or uncertain year. LKY had handed over PMship to GCT, and this was the formal stepping down of our founding PM. Questions as to the continued viability of Singapore was pertinent. If Malaysia's wargame had panicked GCT into attacking Malaysia the premise of the wargame (at 2:05) "in case a neighbouring country turned hostile" would have been proven and given Malaysia the excuse to counter-attack and possibly re-take Singapore and maybe merge Singapore back into the Federation. At least in the Malaysian military's estimation. On the other hand, if GCT had a meltdown and LKY had to step back up, that would also have been humiliating and throw Singapore's viability and desirability as an investment destination into question. And Malaysia would also win. But neither of Malaysia's best and second best scenario emerged. PM Goh did not panic or fall to pieces. Singapore responded professionally, resolutely, and with commendable restraint. In the aftermath, there were some scoffing remarks from Malaysia about why Singapore "panicked" and had a mobilisation. IIRC, PM Goh said something along the lines of "I was not worried, but my generals advise that we should have a mobilisation, as a matter of prudence. So we did. I trust the Malaysians, but I pay my generals a lot, so I should listen to them."
Singapore does not have (AFAIK) the practice of appointing a "Designated Survivor" during our National Day Celebrations. The entire Cabinet and govt attends the parade. So a well-aimed munition could technically wipe out the Singapore Govt. And the open mobilisation was to show that while Singapore was not going to panic, it will respond to provocations appropriately.
BUT, I found out recently, that Minister for Law, K. Shamugam is the de facto "Designated Survivor":
And has been "for some years now". So it may well be that after the "Pukul Habis" incident, Singapore adopted "unofficially" a "Designated Survivor" protocol.
(This also means, that whether Singapore is ready for a non-Chinese PM or not, if a "pukul habis" incident happened, and Shanmugam was the de facto designated survivor, Singapore will have an Indian Prime Minister! But not Tharman! Cos he's President!)
(Hmmm... story idea. Singapore's govt is wiped out by a terrorist attack leaving Tharman as President and Shanmugam as PM... Singapore becomes an Indian Nation!)
Anyway, Malaysia famously has many issues with their military procurement. So until they resolved these issues and reduce or eradicate corruption, they would be hard pressed to seriously contemplate aggression against any of her neighbours.
New Zealand. New Zealand famously (to me at least) is known for having dismantled their airforce. Or rather, not replacing the retirement of their A4 Skyhawks in 2001. As such they do not have any combat aircraft, and only about 20,000 regular personnel in their entire armed forces (land, sea and Air). So this explains their 103rd ranking. They also have no tanks, rocket artillery, and only 6 naval combat assets of which 4 are patrol vessels. As far as the Kiwis are concerned, only the US with their ability to project power anywhere in the world, and the Australians who are close enough, could possibly threatened New Zealand's peace, and these two nations are allies. China MIGHT one day be able to project power with their aircraft carriers and navy, but probably not in the next two or even three decades.
Ar 3:04 in the video above, the reasons for NZ deciding to scrap their airforce (or at least all their A4 Skyhawks in 2001). Mainly cost. NZ$1.2 billion would have to be spent over the next 10 years to upgrade and maintain the A4 Skyhawks. And NZ does not require combat planes. Certainly, Ukraine has proven that one does not require an airforce to deny an aggressor air supremacy.
These AI drones can be NZ's de facto "air force", use to engage any potential aggressors. The cost per drone will be between $5m and $10m, so for the price of a current generation warplane, NZ could equip itself with 10 to 20 of such drones - enough to present a viable drone Air Force!
Cambodia. Ranked 106th. Below even New Zealand. I have NO idea about Cambodia's military. But I have not heard any thing about it.
Laos. Ranked 115th. Even lower than New Zealand, AND Cambodia. They have the people, but not the land and sea assets.
Commentary - The Defence of Singapore
Everything in this section is just my opinion (or speculation). So feel free to ignore or disregard.
Invasion
Any nation or power that intends to invade (or "annex") another needs to have superior force. Defenders have home ground advantage, and 1 defender is generally considered to be equal to 3 attackers. Generally.
Also, a large military is a financial burden. Why have 1,000,000 soldiers? Unless you somehow NEED 1,000,000 soldiers. Because your country is very large and soldier take on the role of police in less urbanised areas. So we look at Indonesia, the fourth most populous nation, with a large land area to protect, and we are not concerned that they have about 1 million soldiers. Most of those soldiers are needed to defend or police their lands/islands.
(China may be in the same situation. Partially.)
The invasion of Ukraine was easy. Russia shares a long land border with Ukraine. All the Russian tanks and BMP can just roll across the border.
If the Philippines wanted to take over any land, they will need amphibious assault vessels. Thousands of them.
Same for Indonesia unless they aim to take Sabah and/or Sarawak.
Malaysia is separated from Singapore by a very narrow (about 1 km) Straits of Johor. And shares a common border with Thailand.
Singapore does not have the manpower to invade any country, nor do we intend to. Singapore's prosperity is based on trade and that requires peace and goodwill. We make more money with peace. War does not serve our interest. Then why does Singapore spend so much on defence?
Defence Strategy
It is said that "The best defence is a good offence". But that's when war has started. Otherwise the best way to prevent war, is to present a daunting force that tells would-be aggressors that they would be in a world of hurt if they try. That's Singapore's strategy: "Walk softly, and carry a rocket launcher. And park the Leopard tank over there. Have the Apache behind that hill back there. And have the F16 and F15 overhead."
Actually, don't even bother to walk. Hop inside the Leopard.
It may seem like Singapore makes conspicuous defence purchases like the F15, the F16, and the F35. But the purpose of such purchases is to prevent anyone from contemplating invading Singapore. And so, if these military assets tips the calculus towards a too strong Singapore, and this dissuades a potential adversary, then these expensive military assets have done their job, and did it without the need to fire a shot in anger.
The point of the military ranking (and this superficial comparison) is not to decide who can beat whom. But to conclude that no one can be "beaten" without the aggressor getting at least a bloody nose, and for some formidable military, maybe more than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment