The balance of 3 years of military government: 'Especially a lot of money for arms purchases'
Today, the junta led by Prayut has been in power for three years. Bangkok Post looks back and lets a number of critics speak: “Prayut promised three years ago to bring peace, order and happiness back to Thailand. But the only ones who are happy are in the army. They are allowed to spend a lot of money on new military equipment”.
According to Deputy Prime Minister Prawit, maintaining security is the main achievement of the current government: “There have been no more street protests. The people are satisfied.”
Critics comment on this. Relative calm has only been restored through draconian measures and because all political activity has been banned. “The peace and quiet is probably temporary,” writes editor Wassana Nanuam. “There is no guarantee that lasting peace will be achieved if the regime steps down after the elections.” She also points out that there have been some politically motivated bomb attacks in Bangkok.
Violence also continues in the South, the junta has not brought any solutions to the years of conflict. The economy is not in good shape and the junta throws money at arms purchases.
Prime Minister Prayut says that critics should not complain: “The government has done its best over the past three years, although we have not succeeded in everything. But I am 200 percent committed to the country”.
Source: Bangkok Post
It could have been done without those Chinese submarines... the shallow waters are even unsuitable for this. Unfortunately, this is a waste of billions...and while so many are still struggling to make ends meet.
Submarines are not deployed in home waters.
Who should they “hide” from in their own waters, by the way.
Any suspected ship in the Gulf of Thailand can also be seen from land, or countermeasures can be taken from land or airports.
Usually submarines operate in the open oceans.
If they operate in shallow waters, they are those of other nations for intelligence gathering, mine laying, or Special Forces deposition.
No country buys submarines to operate off their own coast. Even if those waters are deep. That is indeed completely pointless.
This does not mean that I think it is a responsible purchase.
Even though I'm an ex-Marine man.
It also seems to me that the money could be better used for other purposes than submarines.
They can use those submarines when Bangkok is under water.
What I have to tell them is that they have jacked up the infrastructure in Isaan quite a bit, the main roads have almost all gone to 3 lanes in 4 years, and/or repaired or repaved.
Same for most village roads, let them be happy with their submarines.
Do not compare the then military resources from WWII with the current military resources.
Pearl Harbor was also possible at the time, but is now non-existent due to an extensive warning system. You don't even have to have staff behind you anymore.
Moreover, I write that a country does not buy submarines to sail in OWN waters.
I'm not saying they can't operate in shallow water. On the contrary, I have given three reasons why they can do there, but in their own waters such a thing is of course useless.
I quote “If they operate in shallow waters, they are those of other countries for intelligence gathering, mine laying, or Special Forces deposition.”
You can torpedo ships in foreign rivers and include ports if that makes you happy, but I'm afraid submarines can't get there anymore these days. And if they do get there, I don't think they'll get away. Nobody's going to sacrifice their submarines for that. Laying mines in front of a harbor has just as much effect, especially if one runs up and blocks the river.
In the example you give, Thailand was occupied by Japan. So there were Japanese ships on that river and a Dutch submarine attacked them there.
Does that not match what I wrote?
And what do you think of the current Dutch submarines? Or do you think they serve to sail around the Wadden Islands or to sail up and down the Scheldt, the Maas and the Rhine?
the graph of defense expenditure mainly shows that there is no significant increase in expenditure under the current military regime. Defense spending has been rising since 2006, with a dip in 2010.
Economically it would not go so well under the military regime. I cannot judge that, but if it is a fact, can the regime be blamed? Or is it a combination of causes.
Some asking around in my circle of acquaintances (which consists entirely of Thais) shows that almost everyone is satisfied with the current regime. The fact that elections are scheduled in a year and a half is generally considered the right time to switch back to civilian government. I think the majority of the Thai population is being heard.
That increase in expenses is yet to come.
The money from the ordered submarines and tanks has not yet been included in that graph.