Can the aerostat hold up in conflict?

PETER LOON SENG CHEE

NOVEMBER 6

I refer to the report, “Powerful balloon radar to help watch over Singapore” (Oct 29), that we will be using a helium balloon to monitor our skies.

While this is financially a good move, as it promises to cost millions less than our current radar systems, I wonder about its vulnerability to attacks.

Many armies have used balloons before, but history has shown that a large, slow-moving object can be a sweet target for enemies.

If any enemies were to fire missiles or send aircraft to shoot the aerostat down and it should fall into an urban area, it could cause havoc and damage.

[Yes. That is generally the point of warfare, bombing attacks, and weapons of mass destruction.]

Furthermore, if it is lost early in any conflict, then we lose any advantage we have.

Manpower efficiency is vital in a small country, and we want to maximise the use of our troops. But we also want to ensure that our forces can withstand any initial assault, allowing us to respond swiftly and decisively.

Any such balloon must be backed by early-warning aircraft. Some costs are worth bearing.

[This is so silly, I don't know how to start. I think I'll just leave it as it is. Some things are too easy, it just isn't worth it.]