VJ Day (Victory over Japan) [Archive]

placidfemme

19th August 2005, 07:44

I am disappointed that there was not one mention of VJ day on this forum.
Is it just my age or doesn't anybody really care about that anymore.
I recall how close we were to being invaded and what that would have meant for me and other children (at that time). It was a lot closer than Auntie Helen likes to make out. She calls it a benign territory but it was nearly invaded 60yrs ago by Japan, if it wasn't for the USA it would have been. If it wasn't for the USA today it would be easy pickins again. I personally saw a hostile Japanese warplane fly over our house. It was a sea plane off a submarine based off the Wairarapa Coast. A Harvard from Ohakea chased it but had no guns to do anything about it anyway. (Helen would have been proud of that) They were very frightening times. I would not like to see our children and grandchildren threatened like that again. Love or hate America Try being without them for a while it could get very rough. Thank you to all those who died or suffered that we might live in peace. Cheers John.

Hey Mate... I never even knew that happened.... how sad am I?

LMAO @ A Harvard from Ohakea chased it but had no guns to do anything about it anyway. (Helen would have been proud of that)

Things havn't changed much since then... still have no guns :rofl:

MacD

19th August 2005, 08:32

It's not that nobody cares, John ---- it's just that it's [thankfully] all so distant.

It's not really that distant, my father spent six years overseas during WWII, in both the Pacific and Europe (he turns 90 in November). The older I get the more I respect the sacrifices my parent's generation made, and the more annoyed I get by neo-cons like George Bush who use war as an economic tool.

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 08:41

MikeL

19th August 2005, 08:59

It was a lot closer than Auntie Helen likes to make out... Helen would have been proud of that

John, while I respect your political opinions, and share your sentiments about the significance of the sacrifices made in World War II, I think that your attempt to link today's foreign and military policies with the situation 60 years ago amounts to little more than a gratuitous dig at a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.

Oscar

19th August 2005, 09:07

And on the subject of nuclear bombs, more people were killed in single cities by conventional bombing e.g. Dresden, Tokyo...

I don't believe the rhetoric that has been used about nuclear bombs shortening WWII. I think some American leaders just wanted to make a point.

If you don't believe that the A-Bombs shortened the war, you need to do more research. If you look at the casualties from Okinawa and project them onto an invasion of Japan, you get 1m Allied Dead & Wounded and God knows how many Japanese. I saw an interview with a Jap who was 12 in 1945 and he told of being taught how to run at a US tank with a satchel charge and roll underneath to then blow himself up.

The fact was that both the Chief of Staff, Gen. Marshall, and President Truman were leaning away from an invasion, due to the concentration of Jap troops in proposed invasion sites. Their only alternative was continued carpet bombing and a naval blockade. As you mentioned, convential bombing was quite capable of inflicting horrendous casualties (the fire bombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 in one night). The war would have dragged on much longer and many more deaths would have ensued...

The interesting thing was that in the end, the threat of the USSR entering the war was as troubling to the Jap Govt. as the A-Bombs - and one prompted the other. Joe Stalin had promised the Allies that the Soviets would attack Japan (through Manchuria) toward the end of 1945. When the first A-Bomb bomb was dropped, this operation was brought forward, as Stalin feared he would miss out....

Oscar

19th August 2005, 09:14

I was more interested in the commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 'victimisation' of the Japanese.
Nary a mention of the atrocities they committed, the rape of Nanking, the slaughter of civilians in Manilla, the disgusting treatment of prisoners of war.
Doubtless the Merkins had many motivators to use the bomb, but first and foremost it saved 100,000's of lives by avoiding the need to invade Japan. Although, they still didn't surrender after Hiroshima, Hirohito had to unilaterally declare surrender after the Nagasaki bomb.
And, still, the Japanese try to revise history and their part in it. Unlike the Germans, they have never truly aplogised for their actions. Merely expressed "regret".

Hirohito's intial surrender overtures seemed to be more about his position than that of his people. He wanted to be left with his full power as head of state, with no interference by the Allies in constitutional matters (the first response to Soviet overtures was that no occupation would take place). I have no doubt that Hirohito was a war criminal and should have been tired accordingly. The fact that he wasn't is just as bad as the Japanese Govts. subsequent refusal to apologise for any of their actions...

Hitcher

19th August 2005, 09:53

If you don't believe that the A-Bombs shortened the war, you need to do more research. If you look at the casualties from Okinawa and project them onto an invasion of Japan, you get 1m Allied Dead & Wounded and God knows how many Japanese. I saw an interview with a Jap who was 12 in 1945 and he told of being taught how to run at a US tank with a satchel charge and roll underneath to then blow himself up.
That's if the allies had decided to invade Japan. There was no rush. The Japanese by that stage of the war had no navy and no air force. They weren't going anywhere. The allies could have continued to have bombed cities and industrial targets and starved them into surrender.

Oscar

19th August 2005, 10:01

That's if the allies had decided to invade Japan. There was no rush. The Japanese by that stage of the war had no navy and no air force. They weren't going anywhere. The allies could have continued to have bombed cities and industrial targets and starved them into surrender.

On the contrary - the Japanese Airforce in August 1945 still had 3500 operational planes. The practicality of a blockade would have invovled living with kamikaze planes, ships and submarines which were a major source of casualties at Okinawa.

The fact was that there was no discussion about using the bomb or not in the US Govt. After four years of total war, the opportunity to finish it so quickly was enthusiastically taken.

Any extended fire bombing of major cities would have (and did) result in many more casualties than the two A-Bombs. I just can't see how a blockade would have been a better result....

idb

19th August 2005, 10:55

Things havn't changed much since then... still have no guns :rofl:
Probably an OSH requirement?

oldrider

19th August 2005, 11:31

Fantastic response. I didn't seek a political argument I just wanted to Honor the fallen and those who were disadvantaged (from both sides) so that we could continue to live and enjoy our freedom. I thought maybe it was just forgotten. Obviously and thankfully I was wrong. Strategically I feel we still owe much more to the American people than they (Politics aside) are given credit for. The same as in Iraq today. Cheers John.

Lias

19th August 2005, 11:47

Didn't do anything special for VJ day, nor do I do anything special for VE day.. I do however attend dawn parade on Anzac day, and stop for silence on Armistice Day (11th Nov)

TonyB

19th August 2005, 11:53

Hey Mate... I never even knew that happened.... how sad am I?

It's not your fault. I distinctly remember being taught at school that NZ was never attacked and that no enemy aircraft or ships even got close. So THAT was wrong, but even worse, I remember being taught that the attack on Darwin was a small one, with a 'stray/ lost aircraft dropping a handful of bombs'. I was amazed to learn a few years ago that it had been a large scale planned attack.

Which raises the question- exactly why weren't we taught the truth?

TonyB

19th August 2005, 12:06

John, while I respect your political opinions, and share your sentiments about the significance of the sacrifices made in World War II, I think that your attempt to link today's foreign and military policies with the situation 60 years ago amounts to little more than a gratuitous dig at a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.
Our nations defence policies seem to:

Be more about international big-noting than actual defence
Rely on the Aussies and USA to save us in the event of an attack/ invasion. While I agree that it is unlikely that another nation would take military action against us, I do wonder if our policy makers have ever read Stormin Norman's biography. In it he revealed just how long it took for the US to bring amass enough military power in the Gulf to be able to attack Iraq- it took MONTHS. NZ is small, even if it only took weeks, there wouldn't be much left to save.

Wolf

19th August 2005, 12:06

Which raises the question- exactly why weren't we taught the truth?
Probably because we rely so much on trade with Japan - the Japanese are not the only ones keen to whitewash what happened...

Big business cannot afford us to say "Well, I'm not buying that Japanese stuff after what they did during the war."

SARGE

19th August 2005, 12:54

even if it only took weeks, there wouldn't be much left to save.
[/list]

i was part of a rapid deployment team in the US Marine Corps.. we were deployed within hours of getting the call. the US Navy maintains a constant presence in the South Pacific, as does the Ozzie Navy.. Oz could scramble fighters and be here within a few hours..

but in saying that .. i do not think that NZ will be the target of a mass military invasion..kinda hard to hide a naval flotilla from the spy sats.. more likely to be the target of a few well placed car bombs etc.if anything.( IE: London)

Ixion

19th August 2005, 13:32

.... Oz could scramble fighters and be here within a few hours..

..

So long as they attack before 2010 when the long range F111 is decommissioned . The F18-A only has an interdiction range of 290miles. The JSF if it ever arrives, is claimed to have a vapourware range (ferry only?) of 2000km (not miles). So at best dodgy. "I do not say they cannot come, merely that they cannot come by air".

So, as it always has been, it's down to the navy. If we are to spend money, that's where it's best spent. Command of the sea is still our best defence.

SARGE

19th August 2005, 14:00

So long as they attack before 2010 when the long range F111 is decommissioned . The F18-A only has an interdiction range of 290miles. The JSF if it ever arrives, is claimed to have a vapourware range (ferry only?) of 2000km (not miles). So at best dodgy. "I do not say they cannot come, merely that they cannot come by air".

So, as it always has been, it's down to the navy. If we are to spend money, that's where it's best spent. Command of the sea is still our best defence.

i think Auntie Helen needs to invest in a few really good Exocet missiles and American Patriot missiles.. station them around the country and at least NZ would be able to get in a few good licks while we wait for help.. otherwise we just surrender and put up a good gurrilla fight till help arrives ( i'm in!)

Ixion

19th August 2005, 14:04

i think Auntie Helen needs to invest in a few really good Exocet missiles and American Patriot missiles.. station them around the country and at least NZ would be able to get in a few good licks while we wait for help.. otherwise we just surrender and put up a good gurrilla fight till help arrives ( i'm in!)

If the Senior Service are doing their job, the only invaders to guerilla fight would be paratropps (easy targets) and anyone who manages to swim ashore (exhausted and very wet)

This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands

Still works. We culd buy a lot of ships for the cost of missiles. And the new ships carry missiles anyway.

mstriumph

19th August 2005, 14:16

sorry -when i said this war was thankfully so long ago, i meant that the suffering had become a general memory rather than an individual one .......... certainly didn't mean to imply that the event itself could be forgotten ..... am well aware that "those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"

I was more interested in the commemoration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 'victimisation' of the Japanese.
Nary a mention of the atrocities they committed, the rape of Nanking, the slaughter of civilians in Manilla, the disgusting treatment of prisoners of war.
Doubtless the Merkins had many motivators to use the bomb, but first and foremost it saved 100,000's of lives by avoiding the need to invade Japan. Although, they still didn't surrender after Hiroshima, Hirohito had to unilaterally declare surrender after the Nagasaki bomb.
And, still, the Japanese try to revise history and their part in it. Unlike the Germans, they have never truly aplogised for their actions. Merely expressed "regret".

SARGE

19th August 2005, 14:40

If the Senior Service are doing their job, the only invaders to guerilla fight would be paratropps (easy targets) and anyone who manages to swim ashore (exhausted and very wet)

dont think for a moment that paratroops are an easy target.. there is an insertion method called HALO (High Altitude, Low Opening) that can have a soldier on the ground and ready to fight in 60 seconds. bail out at 20,000 feet and go to silk at 3000 feet... ive done several.
also.. Submarine insertions at 1 km offshore / 50 meter depth.. US Navy seals / Marine Recon do this type all the time.. done a few of those also im my career, and with the physical fitness level of todays professional soldier, a 1 km swim is nothing ( also for longer distances, a small underwater "sled" is used with a 20 km range)

Still works. We culd buy a lot of ships for the cost of missiles. And the new ships carry missiles anyway.

good point there Ixion.. picket ships are an effective defense, used since the early days of mechanized warfare.. but with the length of NZ's shoreline.. you would need quite a few more than NZ could afford i think.

Ixion

19th August 2005, 14:49

dont think for a moment that paratroops are an easy target.. there is an insertion method called HALO (High Altitude, Low Opening) that can have a soldier on the ground and ready to fight in 60 seconds. bail out at 20,000 feet and go to silk at 3000 feet... ive done several.
also.. Submarine insertions at 1 km offshore / 50 meter depth.. US Navy seals / Marine Recon do this type all the time.. done a few of those also im my career, and with the physical fitness level of todays professional soldier, a 1 km swim is nothing ( also for longer distances, a small underwater "sled" is used with a 20 km range)

good point there Ixion.. picket ships are an effective defense, used since the early days of mechanized warfare.. but with the length of NZ's shoreline.. you would need quite a few more than NZ could afford i think.

Sub insertion OK for spies and bridgehead stuff. But you can't land a complete invasion force that way. And a sub at 50mtr is a vulnerable sub.

Paratroops is much the same. OK to get a few elite troops down, but an army ?

Bear in mind that an invasion of NZ wouldn't be like Iraq. An enraged Kiwi is a nasty beast. Reckon on a reception party of at least half a million. Very angry. The Anglo-Saxon is still the most ruthless killer on Earth. And most Kiwis know how to shoot.

I would not believe for one second that there would be any group in NZ that would support a foreign invader. No welcoming parties here.

Wolf

19th August 2005, 14:50

picket ships are an effective defense, used since the early days of mechanized warfare.. but with the length of NZ's shoreline.. you would need quite a few more than NZ could afford i think.
Or faster engines.

One of the things said when we bought the frigates was "PT Boats would've been better" - they're faster, we could buy more of 'em for the same price as the frigates and they're more useful in peace time - rescues and such. Use them to police our territorial and fishing zones.

I think a lot of small, well armed, fast boats would be the best defence for our waters. So they don't have a massive range, so what? The idea is to defend New Zealand, not sail halfway across the world to kill people that the English government doesn't like.

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 14:56

The Kiwi's made a mess of the German paras in Crete and they were dropped at less than 3000 feet. Plus we were only using SMLE's, BREN's and Bofors.
Once the chute's open you're a clay target.

SARGE

19th August 2005, 15:20

The Kiwi's made a mess of the German paras in Crete and they were dropped at less than 3000 feet. Plus we were only using SMLE's, BREN's and Bofors.
Once the chute's open you're a clay target.

sure Lou.. during the day.. and with an armed populace / Militia you would get a few of them. but then you would also have one or 2 slip by.. blow the Harbor Bridge and the oil refinery..sink the ferry's and paralize NZ

or.. a more realistic scenario.. they just show up at the Auckland Airport and Auntie Helen is there with a bunch of flowers,a residency permit and a dole check

Ixion

19th August 2005, 15:26

sure Lou.. during the day.. and with an armed populace / Militia you would get a few of them. but then you would also have one or 2 slip by.. blow the Harbor Bridge and the oil refinery..sink the ferry's and paralize NZ

..

I recall a few Frogs who had a similar notion. Think it might take a bit more than that to paralyse NZ. Besides, are we talking terrorists now, or invasion?

Terrorists will always slip through if they're determined enough. But terrorism is a different matter to conquest.

Wolf

19th August 2005, 15:28

they just show up at the Auckland Airport and Auntie Helen is there with a bunch of flowers,a residency permit and a dole check
Wrong on two counts:

1) we have cheques here in NZ, and

2) the dole is direct credited to your account...

TonyB

19th August 2005, 15:37

Wrong on two counts:

1) we have cheques here in NZ, and

2) the dole is direct credited to your account...
So she will direct them to the nearest Kiwi Bank, get them to open an account, and THEN pay them the dole? :rofl:

Wolf

19th August 2005, 15:41

So she will direct them to the nearest Kiwi Bank, get them to open an account, and THEN pay them the dole? :rofl:
Then the question they will need answered is: Will Dupont give them a discount on the explosives if they present their Community Services cards?

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 15:46

Don't ACT say that the dole saps your will to live?
We'll social service the bastards till they surrender.
If that fails, we'll make them marry gay, ethnic whales.
That'll learn 'em to mess with us.

SARGE

19th August 2005, 15:46

I recall a few Frogs who had a similar notion. Think it might take a bit more than that to paralyse NZ. Besides, are we talking terrorists now, or invasion?

Terrorists will always slip through if they're determined enough. But terrorism is a different matter to conquest.

i personally think that a full scale invasion is not in the cards.. with the intelligence capabilities the world governments have at thier disposal, i doubt that any standing invasion force would be able to mount an attack without someone knowing well in advance..(hmmm.. a huge flotilla steaming south??... wonder what they are up to??..)

more likely to be a commando/ terrorist action rather than an invasion.

NZ needs a strong militia / police force / etc

Ixion

19th August 2005, 15:52

i personally think that a full scale invasion is not in the cards.. with the intelligence capabilities the world governments have at thier disposal, i doubt that any standing invasion force would be able to mount an attack without someone knowing well in advance..(hmmm.. a huge flotilla steaming south??... wonder what they are up to??..)

more likely to be a commando/ terrorist action rather than an invasion.

NZ needs a strong militia / police force / etc

Agree with that. :clap:

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 15:57

And the right to bear arms?

Wolf

19th August 2005, 16:01

NZ needs a strong militia / police force / etc
and a damn good crystal ball to tell us where the buggers are hiding and what their plans are. The worst part of terrorism is that you usually don't know what's afoot until there's someone standing three feet from you brandishing a switch on a stick.

That is where terrorism mainly differs from conventional war - it is very much based on individuals and surprise rather than something large-scale (that can be seen from a spy satellite or by anyone watching the border).

Police and Militia would be all well and good, but they would need to know where to focus their attention. Being well armed and well trained means bugger all if you have know idea of where your enemies are and where they will strike next.

SARGE

19th August 2005, 16:01

And the right to bear arms?

damn skippy... thats why the USA has never / will never be subject to a full scale military action ( they had to resort to covert actions.. not an invasion..)

too many crazy redneck motherfuckers like me with 12 Ga. shotguns, hunting rifles and saturday night specials. open season on the invaders??... no limit??.. no license??.. YEEE- frikkin- HAWWW!!!

onearmedbandit

19th August 2005, 16:02

And the right to bear arms?

A bit of sensitivity would be appreciated Lou. :bye:

TonyB

19th August 2005, 16:02

And the right to bear arms?
But we don't have any bears!

TonyB

19th August 2005, 16:05

Seriously though- there are supposed to be huge oil reserves in Antarctica. If thats true then I guess sooner or later someone is going to make a play for it. Hopefully we won't be considered a convinient staging post. :chase:

Ixion

19th August 2005, 16:05

And the right to bear arms?

You shouldn't have bear arms when riding a bike. A good leather or Cordura jacket, covering the arms, and gloves. Unless you are a B.E.A.R.

SARGE

19th August 2005, 16:11

SARGE

19th August 2005, 16:13

A bit of sensitivity would be appreciated Lou. :bye:

rofl.. great self depriciating humor man.. love it .. i'll keep an eye out ( :doh: ) for ya

pete376403

19th August 2005, 16:23

On the contrary - the Japanese Airforce in August 1945 still had 3500 operational planes. ..
And virtually no fuel to run them on.
IMHO the bombs were dropped to show Stalin who was boss. And to see what the effect was on a real target.

onearmedbandit

19th August 2005, 16:25

rofl.. great self depriciating humor man.. love it .. i'll keep an eye out ( :doh: ) for ya

ROTFLMAO!!

Ixion

19th August 2005, 16:26

And virtually no fuel to run them on.
IMHO the bombs were dropped to show Stalin who was boss. And to see what the effect was on a real target.

Yeah.Like, you've invented something that makes the biggest (manmade) bang in history. And you're going to pass up a chance to try it out for real. Tui's - make good beer (Hey, Mr Spankme, can we have a Tui's smiley ?)

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 16:32

damn skippy... thats why the USA has never / will never be subject to a full scale military action ( they had to resort to covert actions.. not an invasion..)

too many crazy redneck motherfuckers like me with 12 Ga. shotguns, hunting rifles and saturday night specials. open season on the invaders??... no limit??.. no license??.. YEEE- frikkin- HAWWW!!!

That's why you've only had one serious attack on the continental USA, most of your enemies are content to let you guys do it yourselves. :whistle:

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 16:33

A bit of sensitivity would be appreciated Lou. :bye:

Sorry. I'll rephrase, carry big fuck-off guns. :2guns:

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 16:34

But we don't have any bears!

OK OK already, we'll arm bears.

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 16:35

You shouldn't have bear arms when riding a bike. A good leather or Cordura jacket, covering the arms, and gloves. Unless you are a B.E.A.R.

Can you get arm gaitors?

SARGE

19th August 2005, 16:36

That's why you've only had one serious attack on the continental USA, most of your enemies are content to let you guys do it yourselves. :whistle:

Darwinism man.. imagine what a bunch of badasses the US will be in 2 generations after we weed out the liberal fucktard crybabies ( Michael Moore is the first one i wanna shoot in the nutsack :tugger:)

Ixion

19th August 2005, 16:41

Can you get arm gaitors?
Actually, yes, yes you can. They used to wear them in banks, to stop the ink from marking their cuffs. haven't seen them in years.

And toffs used to wear fancy white kid leather ones, with opera gloves

EDIT. Good thinking, though. Can't get them at the Army Surplus though, I'll have to find another source. Watch this space

Motu

19th August 2005, 16:52

And virtually no fuel to run them on.
IMHO the bombs were dropped to show Stalin who was boss. And to see what the effect was on a real target.

Yep - two bears awoke in WWII...it was a case of who can drop the biggest turd,and getting the other to have a sniff....

And the bomb was one of the biggest gambles in history,they spent years and untold manhours...on several different tracks at once,hoping one might be successful....ended up with two different bombs - ending the war in Japan was a gift to see if they might do a little damage.

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 16:58

Darwinism man.. imagine what a bunch of badasses the US will be in 2 generations after we weed out the liberal fucktard crybabies ( Michael Moore is the first one i wanna shoot in the nutsack :tugger:)

Yeah OK, when you badasses stop shooting each other in deer season.
Or registering your disapproval of a lane change with a 9mm. Then you can start on the crybabies.

Ixion

19th August 2005, 17:00

Yep - two bears awoke in WWII...i...

Did they have arm gaiters ?

Lou Girardin

19th August 2005, 17:00

Yep - two bears awoke in WWII...it was a case of who can drop the biggest turd,and getting the other to have a sniff....

And the bomb was one of the biggest gambles in history,they spent years and untold manhours...on several different tracks at once,hoping one might be successful....ended up with two different bombs - ending the war in Japan was a gift to see if they might do a little damage.

$1,000,000,000 for two bangs. Big bangs though, like a double happy to the power of 1000.

TonyB

19th August 2005, 17:07

And the bomb was one of the biggest gambles in history,they spent years and untold manhours...on several different tracks at once,hoping one might be successful....ended up with two different bombs - ending the war in Japan was a gift to see if they might do a little damage.
I have a book at home (History of WWII I think) that claims that the scientists involved thought there was a possibility that The Bomb would crack the earths crust. But they dropped it anyway. Now THATS a gamble!

SARGE

19th August 2005, 17:07

$1,000,000,000 for two bangs. Big bangs though, like a double happy to the power of 1000.

thats what we call a " Texas Sized BBQ"

pass the tater salad please?

Ixion

19th August 2005, 17:24

Indiana_Jones

19th August 2005, 20:25

I want to the parade in the city with Magua, :)

-Indy

Magua

19th August 2005, 20:44

I want to the parade in the city with Magua, :)

-Indy

I enjoyed it, I thought it was kinda small to be honest. They should of ended it in the Aotea Square rather than outside the town hall with the wind howling by.
There was a mint old skool british bike there, left a big oil patch after being parked up for like 30 mins. We arrived a little late and chased the parade up queen st on foot.

Timber020

19th August 2005, 21:21

SARGE

19th August 2005, 21:21

Yeah OK, when you badasses stop shooting each other in deer season.
Or registering your disapproval of a lane change with a 9mm. Then you can start on the crybabies.

how else do you register your disapproval with a lane change??? ( i prefer a .45 personally.. 9mm's bounce off windscreens)

WINJA

19th August 2005, 21:36

I KNOW AN INVASION WAS CLOSER THAN PEOPLE THINK , LUCKY FOR US THE AMERICANS DROPPED THOSE BOMBS AND ENEDED IT ALL , I KNOW SOME THINK THOSE BOMBS WERE ATROUCIOUS BUT FUCK JAPAN THEY DESERVED IT AND BACK THEN IT WAS WAR , I HAVE A JAPANESE PARTNER SO IN A WAY IM LIKE MY OLD GREAT UNCLE BILL WHO FOUGHT IN THAT WAR (WE BOTH FUCKED SOME JAPS)

SARGE

19th August 2005, 21:49

I worked with the youth at risk program in the USA and have to say that the "Right to bear arms" thing has to be the single most damaging peice of legislation this side of the old days of slavery.

I found it hard to take that so redneck idiots can have the ego trip of packing a glock 40 everywhere their webbed toes will take them, I get to work with an 8 year old kids who needs to learn to walk again after a treeA had shattered their body. Dont get my wrong, I love firearms, but once you start seeing such effect culling of youth, you start to take a step back.

Sad to see that the WW2 veterans are getting so few. They gave so much and over the years have asked for so little. We owe them alot.

the right to bear arms is not legislation.. it is a part of the US constitution, and it is meant to keep the US Militia strong and ready (the citizens are the last line of defense) also to take the govt back if need be....

yes.. a few assclowns own guns over there.. yes innocents die and get injured every year.. but i would rather have them then not have them.

mstriumph

20th August 2005, 01:47

Ixion, i luv u to BITS but i gotta confess that there are times when i disBEAR .....[an this is one of 'em]
You shouldn't have bear arms when riding a bike. A good leather or Cordura jacket, covering the arms, and gloves. Unless you are a B.E.A.R.

Lou Girardin

20th August 2005, 09:22

Lou Girardin

20th August 2005, 09:27

the right to bear arms is not legislation.. it is a part of the US constitution, and it is meant to keep the US Militia strong and ready (the citizens are the last line of defense) also to take the govt back if need be....

A bit of creative definition by some lawyers there. How can the entire population be defined as a militia?
And apart from that, when has the US ever been invaded. It's time that amendment was repealed for the sake of the populations mental health. (and physical)

TLDV8

20th August 2005, 09:43

I have a book at home (History of WWII I think) that claims that the scientists involved thought there was a possibility that The Bomb would crack the earths crust. But they dropped it anyway. Now THATS a gamble!

"Even before the bomb was tested, a second bomb was secretly dispatched to the Pacific for an attack on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

Preparations for the test included the building of a steel tower that would suspend the bomb one hundred feet above ground. Many were apprehensive - there were concerns that the blast might launch a cataclysmic reaction in the upper atmosphere leading to world destruction. Some feared the consequences of radio-active fallout on civilian populations surrounding the test site. Still others feared the test would be an outright dud. Observers were sent to surrounding towns to monitor the results of the blast and medical teams were kept on alert. "

What cracks me up in general with this type of thread (and yes both my Father R.I.P and Step Father R.I.P fought in the Pacific in WW2) ...People seem to forget the numerous monuments in every city and town no matter how big or small devoted to the fallen New Zealanders who fought and died in "every" war....... and appreciated or not for their imput,the US was in WW1 for something like 8 months only entering when a passenger liner with munitions was sunk..again WW2 did not start in 1941 but 1939, and you can bet this country was one of the first to step across the line on all fronts,politics or not.
As for the US i believe they were invaded by the British,French and Spaniard's ? ..the Bare Arms thing simply got twisted around by rednecks who run around in the forest like little pissants with the belief the US government is out to get them :rofl:

Oscar

20th August 2005, 13:30

And virtually no fuel to run them on.
IMHO the bombs were dropped to show Stalin who was boss. And to see what the effect was on a real target.

There are too many people reading too much into why the bombs were dropped and these ignore contemporary factors - an A-Bomb gave a chance to end a long bloody war sooner than otherwise. There is simply no evidence to suggest any other reason and also none that there was any argument about using it.

The simplest theory is usually the best.

Oscar

20th August 2005, 13:34

I have a book at home (History of WWII I think) that claims that the scientists involved thought there was a possibility that The Bomb would crack the earths crust. But they dropped it anyway. Now THATS a gamble!

There was also some concern as to whether the chain reaction would stop (!). Some scientists felt the first bomb test might consume all the flammable gases in the atmosphere...

scumdog

20th August 2005, 13:34

a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.

Hope it's better than her grasp of the realities of speeding!

(sorry, thread hi-jack)

Oscar

20th August 2005, 14:09

John, while I respect your political opinions, and share your sentiments about the significance of the sacrifices made in World War II, I think that your attempt to link today's foreign and military policies with the situation 60 years ago amounts to little more than a gratuitous dig at a PM who, with all due respect, has a better grasp of the realities of power than you.

Whereas I agree there is no comparison between VJ Day and today's situation, I cannot agree that the PM has a grasp of the realities of the world situation other than that concocted for local consumption (I think "big noting on the world" stage was mentioned). The current administration's approach to defence is cynical and shameful, no to mention down right impractical. We have LAV-3's that we can't take anywhere, two Frigates (we need six) that would be state of the art if we could afford to equip them (no AA or missile defence systems) and a joke of an air force.

If this afternoon an incoming trans-tasman 767 is hijacked and pointed at Ericsson Stadium, what can the RNZAF do about it? If Fiji has another coup and it ends in civil war, how do we get our troops there? What about the LAV-3s?

Indoo

20th August 2005, 16:00

yes.. a few assclowns own guns over there.. yes innocents die and get injured every year.. but i would rather have them then not have them.

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.

Hitcher

20th August 2005, 16:40

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.
Americans get no sympathy from me for things like the Columbine killings. If they insist on living with few gun controls, that's the price that goes with it.

Timber020

20th August 2005, 18:13

I think NZ does need to keep its military in good form but keeping at a level that would make the US happy would require money NZ simply doesnt have to spend.
Part of the great thing about the US army is that it creates so much industry in the US. 95% of their gear is made in the US so it helps their economy, NZ would have to buy 95% of there gear from overseas, big fat waste of money that would just make other nations richer.

TwoSeven

20th August 2005, 20:29

Actually, only a small percentage of their equipment is made in the US, they outsource most of it.

But it does raise a couple of good points. Why the heck aint NZ picking up on the outsourcing deals ?

The other point is, combat troops aside, 70% of the armed forces here are not front line facing. So why an earth aint they profiteering from leveraging civilian industries like they do overseas.

Some countries have leveraged the technical abilities of their own armed forces that they almost turn a profit out of it.

MikeL

20th August 2005, 21:18

If this afternoon an incoming trans-tasman 767 is hijacked and pointed at Ericsson Stadium, what can the RNZAF do about it?

Probably about as much as the USAF was able to do on 9/11...

I know that the PM's approach - not spending zillions of dollars on futile attempts to defend the country, but solid diplomacy to reduce the risk of becoming a target - causes apoplectic fits among those who see all the answers to present problems in yesterday's policies. But sometimes the past is not a reliable guide to the future.

And have the billions of Australian dollars poured into the RAAF increased the security of our trans-Tasman neighbours? They may well be able to repel an invasion, but what about the bomb that sooner or later will explode at Circular Quay ?

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 03:52

A bit of creative definition by some lawyers there. How can the entire population be defined as a militia?
And apart from that, when has the US ever been invaded. It's time that amendment was repealed for the sake of the populations mental health. (and physical)

yes lou.. believe it or not .. the entire population IS the militia..thats how the founding fathers intended it.. thats how it is.... thats WHY the US has never been the subject of a military invasion... because they realize that the citizens are armed...also.. this law is there to protect the citizens from a dictatorship..i believe that one of the first things that Adolph Hitler did was to outlaw guns.. wasnt that great for the people?..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

i personally am the owner of quite a collection of semi-auto and auto weapons ( fully licensed to do so) ..i have a shotgun that my Great grandfather owned and my son will inherit all my weapons when i go

It's time that amendment was repealed for the sake of the populations mental health. (and physical)

heres an idea.. grab an ANZ flight to any small town in America..stand on the steps to city hall and start spouting that shit.. and while you are at it.. lets repeal the first amendment ( free speech) and freedom of the press too..thats the great thing about America.. the government cant just "repeal an Amendment"..the US Constitution is not a malleable document.. it is , for th most part, set in stone

.. kinda like your Treaty of Wango-Tango....

oh .. wait

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 04:12

W
As for the US i believe they were invaded by the British,French and Spaniard's ? ..the Bare Arms thing simply got twisted around by rednecks who run around in the forest like little pissants with the belief the US government is out to get them :rofl:

invaded by the French??..im sorry... which reality did that happen in Dr. Who? :hitcher:
if you are talking about the French / Indian war in 1755.. that started out as a war betewn FRANCE and ENGLAND and ended up with both of thier asses kicked and sent packing

Lou Girardin

22nd August 2005, 09:13

A "well regulated militia" is, by no stretch of the imagination, what the US has now.
Good ole boys armed with squirrel rifles may have worked against Santa Anna, but they ain't no good now.
This amendment is probably the main thing that makes the US a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 09:38

Probably about as much as the USAF was able to do on 9/11...

I know that the PM's approach - not spending zillions of dollars on futile attempts to defend the country, but solid diplomacy to reduce the risk of becoming a target - causes apoplectic fits among those who see all the answers to present problems in yesterday's policies. But sometimes the past is not a reliable guide to the future.

And have the billions of Australian dollars poured into the RAAF increased the security of our trans-Tasman neighbours? They may well be able to repel an invasion, but what about the bomb that sooner or later will explode at Circular Quay ?

That is a somewhat rose-coloured description of Helen's diplomatic style, I would've described it more as "...pissing off our long time friends and allies with weasel words intended for home consumption.."

Additionally I can't let your comment on Defense spending go, either. No, they haven't spent zillions of dollars in a futile attempt to defend the country. They've spent zillions in a futile attempt to...spend zillions, I suppose. The classic example is the LAV-3 purchase - an APC that we don't have personnel for, can't transport anywhere and that are only really fit to recover our under-equipped troops in body bags. I understand the latest modification is to tie an old mattress to the side, as these brand new vehicles can't stand a hit from a rocket propelled grenade designed fifty years ago...

scumdog

22nd August 2005, 10:42

This amendment is probably the main thing that makes the US a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Ahh, but the richest most powerful laughing stock :rofl: :wait:

Lou Girardin

22nd August 2005, 11:44

Ahh, but the richest most powerful laughing stock :rofl: :wait:

Maybe not for long. A huge deficit. Manufacturing capacity being exported to Asia. $100 billion per year for Georges Iraq adventure.
Goerge Soros is selling his US dollar holdings.
All bad signs.

TwoSeven

22nd August 2005, 11:49

scumdog

22nd August 2005, 11:59

Maybe not for long. A huge deficit. Manufacturing capacity being exported to Asia. $100 billion per year for Georges Iraq adventure.
Goerge Soros is selling his US dollar holdings.
All bad signs.

'Not for long' don't count buddy, it's like saying a successful racer 'won't be successful for long' - it's NOW that counts.

scumdog

22nd August 2005, 12:03

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.

Hmm, and I hope the smoking related deaths are taken note of too - they're just as preventable. :yes:

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 12:09

Hmm. Dont think any of that is actually true. Can you post links that justify this?

Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0108/S00440.htm)

From the Auditor-Generals report:

Examples of risks with implications for achieving LAV project targets include the shortfall in funding for LAV spare parts (discussed in more detail in Part 4 of this report), and the risk that there would be insufficient personnel to fill future LAV-related vacancies (see paragraph 2.31 on page 24).26

The report found that the governance structure over the LAV project was not appropriate for a project of its size and complexity, as the governance covered only the capability development and acquisition parts of the project.

The stuff about the insufficiencies of the LAV armour is well known and you may have seen pictures of US troops hanging mattresses on these in Iraq and Afganistan to "pre-detonate" rockets.

This is the official answer:

pete376403

22nd August 2005, 12:10

.i believe that one of the first things that Adolph Hitler did was to outlaw guns.. wasnt that great for the people?..
heres an idea.. grab an ANZ flight to any small town in America..stand on the steps to city hall and start spouting that shit.. and while you are at it.. lets repeal the first amendment ( free speech) and freedom of the press too..thats the great thing about America.. the government cant just "repeal an Amendment"..the US Constitution is not a malleable document.. it is , for th most part, set in stone
1./ Hitler quote is widely accepted to be fake -attributed more to the NRA than the NSP
2./ PATRIOT act can be used a curtail free speech, freedom of the press and just about anything else you like, in the name of "The War on Tarrism"
3/ THe Supreme Court makes regular "adjustments" to the Constitutional rights and currently the Supreme Court is pretty well stacked with right wingers - more if Dubya gets Roberts in. So effectively, the government can and does alter the Constitution.

oldrider

22nd August 2005, 12:14

So many men, so many opinions. Well founded, well expressed.

Freedom in action? Long may it continue.

Thank's again to the ones who suffered.

Thank you Kiwi Bikers. "Respect". John.

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 12:22

I think its now well in excess of 30,000 people per year dieing gun-related deaths. Even taking out the suicides etc thats still a hell of alot.

maybe you would feel better if they were shoved out of windows or hit with clubs?
face it man,. the human race is a predatory race.. if it needs to die.. we will find a way to kill it, be it with guns, knives , bombs, sticks, cars or reality TV programs

how many murders per capita happened in NZ last year?.. how many were done with guns?

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 12:24

2./ PATRIOT act can be used a curtail free speech, freedom of the press and just about anything else you like, in the name of "The War on Tarrism"

i AM an American patriot..i DO NOT agree with the Patriot act.. the US i grew up in does not exist anymore ( not since the late 70's)

Hitcher

22nd August 2005, 12:32

maybe you would feel better if they were shoved out of windows or hit with clubs?
face it man,. the human race is a predatory race.. if it needs to die.. we will find a way to kill it, be it with guns, knives , bombs, sticks, cars or reality TV programs

how many murders per capita happened in NZ last year?.. how many were done with guns?
Really good piss take, Sarge!

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 12:34

Shall we ban concrete blocks?
Apparently 8kgs of concrete makes a good murder weapon...

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 12:42

Really good piss take, Sarge!

not really a pisstake Hitch.. i really wanted to know so i went to the NZ Govt's statistics page.. got a population of just over 4 million in 2004.. there were 94 homicide offences and 48 murders.

not bad for a country that doesnt allow an armed populace..

Hitcher

22nd August 2005, 12:42

Shall we ban concrete blocks?
Apparently 8kg of concrete makes a good murder weapon...
And the cops agree with you. They've upgraded the status of this from manslaughter to murder after some eye-witness accounts received this morning.

Hitcher

22nd August 2005, 12:43

not really a pisstake Hitch.. i really wanted to know so i went to the NZ Govt's statistics page.. got a populatiomn of just over 4 million in 2004.. there were 94 homicide offences and 48 murders.

not bad for a country that doesnt allow an armed populace..
I guess I could argue that it would be higher if there were more guns? But that would be unproveable. Unlike the US of A we don't have a Singlets Act, so therefore don't have a right to bare arms...

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 12:46

Unlike the US of A we don't have a Singlets Act, so therefore don't have a right to bare arms...

hey wait a minute.. i saw Once Were Warriors ... they all had Bare Arms..

Biff

22nd August 2005, 12:50

Old timer - Good post. let's hope that we 'younger' (ish) generation neve forget the suffering endured during both world wars - or any wars for that matter.

Serge - Good point re' militia. NZ should do as Switzerland does IMO, have a well rehearsed and maintained civil defence force, capable of springing into action very quickly in order to protect the country from invasion. Not that we'd have a budget for it of course.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Food for thought.

So you may believe that by dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, killing around a quater of a million people so far really helped to end the war early and honestly saved lives?

Japan has recently released archives that show that they were thinking of signing a peace treaty a couple of weeks before the bombs were dropped because Stalin had decided to enter the war. They were apparently in the process of arranging a series of meetings with the UK and Russia in order to discuss peace treaty.

So maybe all those innocent people died for no real reason, and continue to do so to this very day..........?

Lou Girardin

22nd August 2005, 12:54

not really a pisstake Hitch.. i really wanted to know so i went to the NZ Govt's statistics page.. got a population of just over 4 million in 2004.. there were 94 homicide offences and 48 murders.

not bad for a country that doesnt allow an armed populace..

We have a long way to go to catch up.
Besides the issue in the US isn't just gun ownership. Switzerland requires all current army or territorial equivalent members to keep personal weapons at home, Canada has gun ownership on a par with the US, yet neither comes close to the rate of gun related deaths in the US.
There's something wrong in the mentality of people who reach for a gun first to solve problems.
Maybe it's to do with the myth of the wild west.

TwoSeven

22nd August 2005, 13:18

Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0108/S00440.htm)
<snip>

Ok, so you posted a document that was written before the LAVs were actually purchased and before the army was restructured to cope with them.

If you read the latest NZ doctrine, you'll find that the staffing issue has pretty much been sorted (as much as recruiting requires).

Also, the Stryker is a slightly different vehicle than the LAV III (its a later model), and the anti-armour mod was a standard fix applied to all such vehicles (check out the anti-rpg kit for the humvee and M1).

Remember that NZ is using the LAV as a transport role, whereas the US is using it in a combat facing role. Slightly differing scenarios, but showing how adaptable the unit is.

I doubt mattresses were fixed to prevent RPGs. I suspect anyone making such a quote was either joking, or has never seen any of the RPG varients in action.

MikeL

22nd August 2005, 13:43

That is a somewhat rose-coloured description of Helen's diplomatic style, I would've described it more as "...pissing off our long time friends and allies with weasel words intended for home consumption.."

The classic example is the LAV-3 purchase - an APC that we don't have personnel for, can't transport anywhere and that are only really fit to recover our under-equipped troops in body bags. I understand the latest modification is to tie an old mattress to the side, as these brand new vehicles can't stand a hit from a rocket propelled grenade designed fifty years ago...

Whether this is true as a matter of fact, or an opinion, is something which I'm not qualified to judge.
However, it is ihnteresting that you did not address either the first or last point I made in my post.

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 14:07

Ok, so you posted a document that was written before the LAVs were actually purchased and before the army was restructured to cope with them.

If you read the latest NZ doctrine, you'll find that the staffing issue has pretty much been sorted (as much as recruiting requires).

Also, the Stryker is a slightly different vehicle than the LAV III (its a later model), and the anti-armour mod was a standard fix applied to all such vehicles (check out the anti-rpg kit for the humvee and M1).

Remember that NZ is using the LAV as a transport role, whereas the US is using it in a combat facing role. Slightly differing scenarios, but showing how adaptable the unit is.

I doubt mattresses were fixed to prevent RPGs. I suspect anyone making such a quote was either joking, or has never seen any of the RPG varients in action.

The Stryker is any LAV3 used by US defence forces. The cage shown was developed after US Army units protected theirs using burnt out mattress to fend off RPG attacks.

As for our LAV 3's being for transportation, how do you propose to deliver them? Our huge fleet of C130's?

Hoon

22nd August 2005, 14:24

The classic example is the LAV-3 purchase - an APC that we don't have personnel for, can't transport anywhere and that are only really fit to recover our under-equipped troops in body bags.

Yes you would be led to believe that if all you listened to were the ramblings of politicians and media with hidden agendas. Don't you think its strange that its only the bad points the public hears about??
Another popular misconception is that LAV3's are flown into combat and roll out the back ready to do the damage. It looks good in the movies but in real life vehicles are transported by sea. During the buildup for the US invasion of Iraq in '03, only 4 tanks were airlifted in with all others transported to the gulf by sea.

Likewise the NZ Army conducted a joint LAV3 Exercise in Aus (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1104/topstories/story12.htm) so "can't transport anywhere" isn't quite correct.

The armour deficiencies isn't just a LAV problem but an "Armoured Vehicle" problem. The face of war is changing and the main battle tanks days are numbered as well. Warfare has reached the stage where the soldier with an RPG can defeat almost any tank in service and as a result Armys are moving towards faster lighter vehicles.

I've worked with both the LAV3s and the old M113's and kind of get tired of people bagging the LAVs who have never seen either in the flesh and think they're experts on the subject after reading a few newspaper articles. I'm yet to find a single soldier who still prefers the M113 over the LAV and although 99 guys might say great things, the public only hears about the 1 guy with something bad to say.

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 14:26

Whether this is true as a matter of fact, or an opinion, is something which I'm not qualified to judge.
However, it is ihnteresting that you did not address either the first or last point I made in my post.

Did I not?

Point one - that was then and this is now. How far do you think you'd get if you hijacked a plane (or even flew one on an unauthorised flight path) near a US city??

Point Last - Australian Defense spending is primarily designed to deter any threat from the North. Indonesia has been a powder keg in the past and could be again in the future...

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 14:29

Yes you would be led to believe that if all you listened to were the ramblings of politicians and media with hidden agendas. Don't you think its strange that its only the bad points the public hears about??
Another popular misconception is that LAV3's are flown into combat and roll out the back ready to do the damage. It looks good in the movies but in real life vehicles are transported by sea. During the buildup for the US invasion of Iraq in '03, only 4 tanks were airlifted in with all others transported to the gulf by sea.

Likewise the NZ Army conducted a joint LAV3 Exercise in Aus (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1104/topstories/story12.htm) so "can't transport anywhere" isn't quite correct.

The armour deficiencies isn't just a LAV problem but an "Armoured Vehicle" problem. The face of war is changing and the main battle tanks days are numbered as well. Warfare has reached the stage where the soldier with an RPG can defeat almost any tank in service and as a result Armys are moving towards faster lighter vehicles.

I've worked with both the LAV3s and the old M113's and kind of get tired of people bagging the LAVs who have never seen either in the flesh and think they're experts on the subject after reading a few newspaper articles. I'm yet to find a single soldier who still prefers the M113 over the LAV and although 99 guys might say great things, the public only hears about the 1 guy with something bad to say.

All very good points, but look at it from the tax payers point of view;

* What are they for,
* Why did they cost so much
* Why so many?
* Where could we use them without the support of the Australians?

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 14:36

All very good points, but look at it from the tax payers point of view;

* What are they for,
* Why did they cost so much
* Why so many?
* Where could we use them without the support of the Australians?

i was talking to a soldier at this years Big Boys Toys show..he said they were purchased on the back of a US order.. very nice systems.. small differences to the US models apparently

mstriumph

22nd August 2005, 16:19

Yes, since you ask, I do [allied lives, anyway].

Furthermore, can't help feeling the word 'innocent' is debatable in this context - as is the supposition that Japan's leaders 'thinking about' signing a peace treaty absolves them from all guilt / responsibility for the holocaust that followed.

[and i am a pacifist.... ]

....................................So you may believe that by dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, killing around a quater of a million people so far really helped to end the war early and honestly saved lives?

Japan has recently released archives that show that they were thinking of signing a peace treaty a couple of weeks before the bombs were dropped because Stalin had decided to enter the war. They were apparently in the process of arranging a series of meetings with the UK and Russia in order to discuss peace treaty.

So maybe all those innocent people died for no real reason, and continue to do so to this very day..........?

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 18:58

Actually, only a small percentage of their equipment is made in the US, they outsource most of it.

But it does raise a couple of good points. Why the heck aint NZ picking up on the outsourcing deals ?

i think alot of it stems from NZ's Anti-Nuke stance. Onya for standing up for what you believe in..but if you look at th safety record of US Nuke powered ships (i know i know ... there i always a first time..dont flame me on this..) then you should realize how safe it really is..AND the fact that Anti-Nuke or not.. if NZ needed aid from the US Military, im almost positive that there would be a nuclear powered fleet in the Hauraki (sp) Gulf faster than you could blink an eye

i was stationed in the Phillipines for a few years ( Subic Bay..).. the US Military was responsible for 80% of Subic bay's regional inflow of cash. now that they are out of there .. the region is drying up..
the US Defense department tries to spend thier budget inside the US as much as they can.. the Defense industry is HUGE over there ( Grumman, Boing, Matttel, Chrysler, GM, etc etc) ..also companies in Austrailia, GB, Japan, Spain, Italy, South Korea, etc all have US DoD contracts.

politics pays off sometimes .. dirty as it is

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 19:12

i think alot of it stems from NZ's Anti-Nuke stance. Onya for standing up for what you believe in..but if you look at th safety record of US Nuke powered ships (i know i know ... there i always a first time..dont flame me on this..) then you should realize how safe it really is..AND the fact that Anti-Nuke or not.. if NZ needed aid from the US Military, im almost positive that there would be a nuclear powered fleet in the Hauraki (sp) Gulf faster than you could blink an eye

i was stationed in the Phillipines for a few years ( Subic Bay..).. the US Military was responsible for 80% of Subic bay's regional inflow of cash. now that they are out of there .. the region is drying up..
the US Defense department tries to spend thier budget inside the US as much as they can.. the Defense industry is HUGE over there ( Grumman, Boing, Matttel, Chrysler, GM, etc etc) ..also companies in Austrailia, GB, Japan, Spain, Italy, South Korea, etc all have US DoD contracts.

politics pays off sometimes .. dirty as it is

Our anti-nuke stance needs reviewed in terms of both defence and energy.
Problem is that some people regard it as some sort of kiwi holy grail.

For me - I can live with a nuclear power ship as long as it isn't nuke armed.
In terms of power, as far as I can see ONE modern atomic power station would solve this country's energy problem, and it is probably the greenest alternative - think about it people, no huge power pylons running for miles, no rivers dammed, no coal burnt...what are we really afraid of?

SPman

22nd August 2005, 19:39

Our anti-nuke stance needs reviewed in terms of both defence and energy.
Problem is that some people regard it as some sort of kiwi holy grail.

For me - I can live with a nuclear power ship as long as it isn't nuke armed.
In terms of power, as far as I can see ONE modern atomic power station would solve this country's energy problem, and it is probably the greenest alternative - think about it people, no huge power pylons running for miles, no rivers dammed, no coal burnt...what are we really afraid of?
Excuse me - A nuclear power station produces electricity that needs power pylons running for miles to distibute its power.
They are hideously expensive,to build and maintain, have limited life spans and what do you do with the fuckin things when you have to decommission them!
Dont mind nuclear powered ships in here though.

Hitcher

22nd August 2005, 19:57

Biff

22nd August 2005, 20:10

Furthermore, can't help feeling the word 'innocent' is debatable in this context - as is the supposition that Japan's leaders 'thinking about' signing a peace treaty absolves them from all guilt / responsibility for the holocaust that followed.

[and i am a pacifist....]

The word innocent was used to describe the hundreds of thousands of people, people like you and I, going about their peaceful daily routines like attending school - not misguided imperialist Japanese politicians.

Interesting use of the word holocaust though, a word commonly used to describe the kind of scene that existed in those two major cities after they were razed to the ground - that continue to this day to be home to thousands of cancer and leukaemia sufferers.

And with all due respect – you’re the first person I’ve ever met that claims to be a pacifist that also appears to condone the dropping of thermonuclear devices on ‘innocent’ people.

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 20:28

Excuse me - A nuclear power station produces electricity that needs power pylons running for miles to distibute its power.
They are hideously expensive,to build and maintain, have limited life spans and what do you do with the fuckin things when you have to decommission them!
Dont mind nuclear powered ships in here though.

i used to live within sight of the Davis-Besse Nuke plant in Ohio. the distribution grid is Fibre Optic.. carries HUGE amounts of power from the plant.. all underground.. alot longer lifespan than your typical copper wire towers..1/2 the price.. easier to maintain.. the spent nuke rods are sealed inside a salt cave in the western desert ( New Mexico/ Arizona) where they will 1/2 life for a few centuries ( google SPENT+NUCLEAR+FUEL to see the latest technology being used)

funny thing.. i ALSO grew up on GE food.. i am rarely sick..my BP is normal..colesteral (sp) is REAL low.. i smoke a pack a day of Marlboro reds (have smoked up to 3 packs a day for 30 years)and in my recent Residency physical.. the doc couldnt believe i was a heavy smoker.. i ( obviously) enjoy a few drops of alchohol from time to time...

basicly.. what im trying to say is .. with my lifestyle.. i should be either dead or seriously ill or run down like a possom on SR22..

ask anyone who has met me.. i dont look/ act/ think like a mid 40's man .. and my life has not ben an easy one to this point..

thank GAWD for GE and Nukes.. i could die tomorrow and if you dug me up in 10 years.. i'd STILL look better than most of you twats :rofl:

WINJA

22nd August 2005, 20:32

Our nuclear-free policy is about perceptions, rather than reality. It is based more on a desire not to be bullied by a superpower than anything else. It has become a taonga, albeit a worthless one.

A desire from some in our community for New Zealand to be "GM free" is a similar nonsense.
GM FREE IS A FABULOUS IDEA , I 100% BACK THOSE WILD GREENS THAT RIPPED UP THAT GM POTATO CROP , WHY FUCK WITH A POTATO, ITS ALREADY $1 FOR 3 KG , ANSWER COPORATE GREED . THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THE FOOD WE ARE GROWING , THERES A SURPLUS OF FOOD IN THE WORLD SO WHY RISK TAMPERING WITH NATURE , HOWEVER I DO BELIEVE IN GM FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES APART FROM THAT , IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT

rammstein636

22nd August 2005, 20:35

Ok, this may take a while for you to read, but...

A) No warplane ever approached new zealand*Bullshit, eats hat*
B) Submarines don't carry Aeroplanes*Bigger Bullexcrement, eats 2nd hat*
C) Nagasaki happened before hiroshima. I know one was attacked only because Tokyo was obscured by cloud, don't know which though.*Sorry, i wan't trying to state a point, there was supposed to be a question mark with the intent of clarification by someone, got that now*
D) Japan never had military plans created to attack new zealand although currency had apparently been created for use in New Zealand, i think that can be disregarded.
E) Japan may have had 3500 planes left, but their Navy was scrap. The problem was that they had thousands upon thousands of troops scattered through hundreds of islands in the pacific, that would have taken years to clear, and untold lives. Yes I do believe the bombs saved lives.
F) I believe the only reason we arn't taught the truth is because teachers don't know it. Not because it's being 'hidden'. The facts are in any school library.
G) - TONY B, you said it would take months for america to amass troops to protect us...ok...maybe so., who do you think would attack us in this time? Indonesia? One Aircraft carrier group pulled south can destroy any nations navy that could possibly want NZ. Therefore I believe New Zealand is an extremely safe country with 0% chance of invasion. Yes terrorists could attack, but why worry about an unavoidable problem. - Concur with most of Sarges comments.
H) Ixion, I think you need to review the ability of modern HALO paratroopers as pointed out by Sarge, remembering ww2 was the first time the concept had been put to action.
I) Tony B - The antarctic operations yard in chch (as mentioned) is a USAF operation, we supply support and have a small attachment ourselves in antarctica, but the US is there in large numbers already.
J) Oscar - You know a lot less than you think. How long have you spent marching with a full pack/ webbing/rifle? I'd say not a lot. LAV transport is a godsend. The RNZN is shortly receiving a decent sized troop/Lav Carrier so transport outside New Zealand isn't possibly an issue.
Should terrorists ever wish to fly a plane into ericson stadium they will. Even if we could scramble an air-combat capable aircraft, do you think they're going to shoot it down full of passengers without knowing exactly what's going on? Ericsson isn't exactly hours of course to Auckland int.
Our 'Joke of an Airforce'? ... Well yes, I might like an aircombat wing back...but truth is it wasn't going to be used in defence of NZ. Our P3K orions are undergoing a huge project to become some of the best Maritime patrol/SAR aircraft in the world(great considering the size of our EEZ) Have you ever been in a C-130 during tactical flying? impressive is a better word than 'joke'. And they are also undergoing projects for life extension, along with massive avionics improvement. The RNZAF is also undergoing purchase of a fleet of NH90 Eurocopter helicopters capable of transport of troops in any enviroment. The fact the aircraft are always 'grounded' or 'breaking down' is that they are pushed a lot harder than civilian equivalents and also far better maintained, they are often pulled out of service for inspections due to the slightest glitch-therefore the glitch never becomes a ditch.

Please review your knowledge of NZ's military situation before contributing any further un-supported information, which does nothing but demoralises anyone reading and motivates me to believe your a dick.

(And just on a side note, I think using mattresses costing a few $'s a part is fkin good ingenuity to a possible multimillion dollar problem. not to mention the weight factor)

K) Later all.

Kickaha

22nd August 2005, 20:56

Ok, this may take a while for you to read, but...

A) No warplane ever approached new zealand

Wrong http://www.asahi.com/english/asianet/column/eng_011005.html

B) Submarines don't carry Aeroplanes

Wrong again http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/aichi_serian.htm

There were also several sightings of Submarines in and around Auckland and Wellington harbour and around the coast of New Zealand
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-c14.html

Ixion

22nd August 2005, 21:17

Ok, this may take a while for you to read, but...

A) No warplane ever approached new zealand
B) Submarines don't carry Aeroplanes
C) Nagasaki happened before hiroshima. I know one was attacked only because Tokyo was obscured by cloud, don't know which though.
D) Japan never had military plans created to attack new zealand although currency had apparently been created for use in New Zealand, i think that can be disregarded.
E) Japan may have had 3500 planes left, but their Navy was scrap. The problem was that they had thousands upon thousands of troops scattered through hundreds of islands in the pacific, that would have taken years to clear, and untold lives. Yes I do believe the bombs saved lives.
F) I believe the only reason we arn't taught the truth is because teachers don't know it. Not because it's being 'hidden'. The facts are in any school library.
G) - TONY B, you said it would take months for america to amass troops to protect us...ok...maybe so., who do you think would attack us in this time? Indonesia? One Aircraft carrier group pulled south can destroy any nations navy that could possibly want NZ. Therefore I believe New Zealand is an extremely safe country with 0% chance of invasion. Yes terrorists could attack, but why worry about an unavoidable problem. - Concur with most of Sarges comments.
H) Ixion, I think you need to review the ability of modern HALO paratroopers as pointed out by Sarge, remembering ww2 was the first time the concept had been put to action.
I) Tony B - The antarctic operations yard in chch (as mentioned) is a USAF operation, we supply support and have a small attachment ourselves in antarctica, but the US is there in large numbers already.
J) Oscar - You know a lot less than you think. How long have you spent marching with a full pack/ webbing/rifle? I'd say not a lot. LAV transport is a godsend. The RNZN is shortly receiving a decent sized troop/Lav Carrier so transport outside New Zealand isn't possibly an issue.
Should terrorists ever wish to fly a plane into ericson stadium they will. Even if we could scramble an air-combat capable aircraft, do you think they're going to shoot it down full of passengers without knowing exactly what's going on? Ericsson isn't exactly hours of course to Auckland int.
Our 'Joke of an Airforce'? ... Well yes, I might like an aircombat wing back...but truth is it wasn't going to be used in defence of NZ. Our P3K orions are undergoing a huge project to become some of the best Maritime patrol/SAR aircraft in the world(great considering the size of our EEZ) Have you ever been in a C-130 during tactical flying? impressive is a better word than 'joke'. And they are also undergoing projects for life extension, along with massive avionics improvement. The RNZAF is also undergoing purchase of a fleet of NH90 Eurocopter helicopters capable of transport of troops in any enviroment. The fact the aircraft are always 'grounded' or 'breaking down' is that they are pushed a lot harder than civilian equivalents and also far better maintained, they are often pulled out of service for inspections due to the slightest glitch-therefore the glitch never becomes a ditch.

Please review your knowledge of NZ's military situation before contributing any further un-supported information, which does nothing but demoralises anyone reading and motivates me to believe your a dick.

(And just on a side note, I think using mattresses costing a few $'s a part is fkin good ingenuity to a possible multimillion dollar problem. not to mention the weight factor)

K) Later all.

A) 8th Mar 1942 a seaplane from IJN submarine I-25 reconnoitred Wellington. On the 13th it checked out Auckland, before moving on to Fiji. These were warplanes, though agreed no land based plane got anywhere near (not enough range anyway)
B) See picture below of one. IJN class I subs carried seaplanes
"I" Boats - Long range fleet submarines. Almost half carry aircraft at the start. These were observed to carry a seaplane: I-7, I-9, I-10, I-19, I-21, I-25, I-26, and in SW Pac: I-29, I-30. These were designed to carry an aircraft, although a few traded the seaplane for a second deck gun.: I-5 to I-11, I-13 to I-15, I-17, I-19, I-21, I-23, I-25 to I-45, I-54, I-56, I-58 . Most other subs were fitted to carry mini-subs.On 17 Dec 1941 a seaplane from sub I-7 reconnoited Pearl Harbour.

D) Correct. And it would have been logistically improbable (at best) for Japan to mount an invasion (different to an attack) on NZ, unless they had previously established themselves in Australia.
E) Their Navy was badly battered, but they had enough smaller ships to be a real danger to an invasion fleet. Landing craft are very vulnerable.
G) We agree then that NZ is in no danger of attack so long as no hostile country achieves command of the sea in the South Pacific.
H) Main advantage of HALO is that it protects the transport aircraft , and minimises the risk to the paratroops from AA fire. A landing paratrooper is still a sitting duck to ground troops. Landing a full invasion force by parachute is just not going to happen. We are an island, this is different to dropping an insertion force behind enemy lines to set things up for the main attack force.The main invasion force still has to get here by sea. Without support, any paratroop force will be hunted down and killed
J) LAV transport (and LAVs) are largely irrelevant because any invasion of NZ must stand or fall on action at sea. If the Navy does its job, we don't need LAVs. If the Navy fails, no number of LAVs we could muster will make a difference.

That someone could fly a plane onto Ericcson stadium, or the Beehive, is not really at issue. Nothing can fully protect against terrorism. But terrorist activity, unless supported by a significant proportion of the local population, will not overthrow any country. You can kill people, but not conquer them with terrorism. Conquest requires either insurrection or invasion. There is no appetite in NZ for the former, and the latter is not possible so long as the Navy's on the job.

TwoSeven

22nd August 2005, 21:46

I just may point out that para's no longer use chutes (although they are trained for it). Biggest problem is that the load carried is pretty small (bigger loads and ammo tend to injure the carrier), and a chute has to deploy at 500 feet or higher (which takes an awful long time to reach the ground - even at 30mph). So, you can scratch that idea. In fact its easier to run them out the back of a c130 on the ground than it is to jump out of one in the air.

Although, a Helo is now the preferred mode, but i'd suggest that kiwi troops need a shite load more training on deploying judging by a recent tv program I saw. Even with the new Helo's they are getting.

NZ will only have 1200 combat facing troops in 2 battalians. Given that a fair percentage of those may be overseas, it means you have maybe one battalian to defend the whole country. Even if they were all here, it would mean each person would have to defend roughly 223 square kilometers.

So I think you can scotch the idea of anyone doing any form of defending (with or without airforce). If the force was kept together which would be the logical thing to do, then you'd only be able to defend each army base.

The orian upgrade is a joke. They are adding a thales night vision camera to an orion and probably to one of the Helo's (i've seen one fitted with a thales mount). Thats it.

In fact if you look at NZs current and futre army doctrine, you can quite easily see that its being geared up for one battalion resting/training and one overseas on UN duty. I wouldnt expect much more than that.

rammstein636

22nd August 2005, 22:03

I ate my hat and also found a really cool website on the submarines, one of the ones that flew a plane here ended up sending a plane to bomb oregon! Apparently 2 recce's of AK...Amazing machines. Know of any video footage?
Both sub's ended up being sunk though :)

http://www.ww2pacific.com/japsubs.html

Back to the strength of the Jap's navy...Compared to the might of the US Navy and speed of production of Naval vessels in the US their navy was no longer a threat to the invasion of the south pacific, they were well on the backfoot and could do little to stop the massed movement of the US navy. Let alone the fact they couldn't fly planes because of having no oil...how the heck could they run a navy effectively? They were by all means f*cked. especially when russia piped in. Do you seriously think land fighting would of cost less lives? It wasn't the number of deaths from the bombs that stopped the Japs'. It was just 'scare' factor. .. anyway. I don't know what i'm talking about. I'm not a historian. I just want to drink some beer.

My point on the paratroopers was not so much that we need to be scared of them, just they arn't completely gun-fodder as in crete (my granddad was there and helped serve the germans a fairly raw deal). They could if they even got into NZ airspace cause a nuisance, but agreed it would take at least a dozen large aircraft to cause a problem so not a worry. We will never have a navy/defence force that can deter a large threat. Its just not going to happen. If we don't stop them at sea, yes, we are little more than fuked. But that wn't happen - Ref my carrier group comment. LAV's - I never said they should be used in the defence of New Zealand. But they do make a very nice vehicle for transport of our troops, comment is made that we need amphibious/tracked vehicles...i'm not convinced. If we need to get across a river that's what the engineers are for. This discussion could go on forever. I think Lav's are choice.

SARGE

22nd August 2005, 22:06

C) Nagasaki happened before hiroshima. I know one was attacked only because Tokyo was obscured by cloud, don't know which though.

just quickly Rammstein..

The atomic bomb named "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay, a Boeing B-29 bomber, at 8:15 in the morning of August 6, 1945.

On 9 August 1945,at 11:02 am, the primary target for the second atomic bomb attack was the nearby city of Kokura, but the bomber pilot found it to be covered in cloud. The industrial areas outside Nagasaki were the secondary target and so, despite a far more powerful bomb, the devastation visited upon Nagasaki was less severe than that experienced by Hiroshima

Fat man was a Plutonium based bomb and Litle Boy was a uranium based weapon.

you are correct that one US Navy Carrier Battle Group could devistate almost any threat to NZ waters within a few hours if need be.. on CBG has the equivalent firepower of all the Navies that fought in WW2 combined

great carrier battle group info here.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_group)

rammstein636

22nd August 2005, 22:09

"The orian upgrade is a joke. They are adding a thales night vision camera to an orion and probably to one of the Helo's (i've seen one fitted with a thales mount). Thats it."

Are you totally sure about that, i'm not...but...

rammstein636

22nd August 2005, 22:26

A) No warplane ever approached new zealand*Bullshit, eats hat*
B) Submarines don't carry Aeroplanes*Bigger Bullexcrement, eats 2nd hat*
C) Nagasaki happened before hiroshima. I know one was attacked only because Tokyo was obscured by cloud, don't know which though.*Sorry, i wan't trying to state a point, there was supposed to be a question mark with the intent of clarification by someone, got that now*

Have amended my post as above. Sarge, sorry about the way my C) was written...that was supposed to come across as a question/glad to have those answers cheers.

I think this is all getting taken out of hand. (And admittedly and apparently i'm full of shit, but don't think i'm the only one!) I still think our defence force is very effective and efficient given their means, it's a shame the government won't spend more but, the outputs produced are EXTREMELY large given the small funding.

Has anyone here ever visited the USA war memorial in the solomons by anychance? If you're interested in the pacific war it's a good venture. And as a lot of people travel to New Caledonia anyway you might want to know that there is a cemetary there just out of Bourail that was created specifically for the burial of all kiwi's in the war.

Also was mentioned the lack of tv time it all received, watch channel one this weekend, there is a documentary on.

Oscar

22nd August 2005, 23:04

mstriumph

23rd August 2005, 01:20

no reflection on Japan as she now is .... but as she was then?

Absolve me please ......members of a society that could worship a man as a god, conscript young women of conquered races like slaves into army brothels and glorify sending their sons to their deaths by suicide are most decidedly NOT like me........

and one can scarcely call support of the war effort [Nagasaki was an industrial target] 'peacefully' going about their daily routines?

My use of the word ' holocaust' was deliberate ----- IMHO even expedient, justifiable violence needs to be recognised as the abomonation it is. However I'm afraid you'll have to explain your use of the mild word 'misguided' to describe the atrocities of the WW2 Japanese war machine.

You haven't met me..... :) if/when you do I'll be glad to debate the seeming contradictions of my fierce pacifism with you - until then we shall have to agree to differ.

The word innocent was used to describe the hundreds of thousands of people, people like you and I, going about their peaceful daily routines like attending school - not misguided imperialist Japanese politicians.

Interesting use of the word holocaust though, a word commonly used to describe the kind of scene that existed in those two major cities after they were razed to the ground - that continue to this day to be home to thousands of cancer and leukaemia sufferers.

And with all due respect – you’re the first person I’ve ever met that claims to be a pacifist that also appears to condone the dropping of thermonuclear devices on ‘innocent’ people.

SARGE

23rd August 2005, 07:43

SNIP
...... and glorify sending their sons to their deaths by suicide ........
SNIP

hmmm... history never repeats? most religions in the world consider suicide a sin dont they?..( im not gonna get into a religious debate on this thread.. when i am ready for that you will know..)

why is it that they are all so quick to do it then? seems religion is again being used as a convenient crutch

i am not in favor of Nuclear weapons.. i DO realize that they are a nessasary evil in the world and i will defend thier existance fully.. say what you will .. but it the US didnt stockpile them during the cold war, we would all be speaking Russian right now( not that Russian is such a bad language.. i intend on learning it one day..) they were and ARE a powerful deterrant ( although we do have nastier shit avalable.. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm )

not as messy long term.. but pretty much turn all available air into fire..kinda like a fertilizer truck bomb being dropped on ya.. War is hell folks

Oscar

23rd August 2005, 08:51

J) Oscar - You know a lot less than you think. How long have you spent marching with a full pack/ webbing/rifle? I'd say not a lot. LAV transport is a godsend.

I haven't spent any time doing that, but I pay taxes and I vote.
I think you're the second person that's alluded to the LAV's role being primarily transport, which makes the purchase even more stupid. For the price of one LAV, every member of the squad contained within it could have their own personal Landcruiser, with money left over...

MikeL

23rd August 2005, 09:23

i am not in favor of Nuclear weapons.. i DO realize that they are a nessasary evil in the world and i will defend thier existance fully.. say what you will .. but it the US didnt stockpile them during the cold war, we would all be speaking Russian right now

1. You can't say in one breath that you are not in favour of nuclear weapons and in another that you will defend their existence fully. This is a contradiction. What I assume you mean is that you don't favour their use, but believe that their existence is necessary. The logic of this is also a bit shonky. If you are not prepared to use them, how can they serve as a deterrent?

2. Your assumption that without American nuclear weapons "we" - by which I assume you mean everybody - would be under Russian control is silly. Are you suggesting that after WWII the USSR would have had either the capability or the motivation to attack the U.S. and its allies? Or are you implying that the takeover would have been done by subversion rather than military action? Were 200 million Americans that susceptible to foreign manipulation?

3. The fact is that the USSR developed its nuclear capability in response to the American bomb, and what it perceived as a threat to its own security.
It was American propaganda that turned this into a threat to the west, and the American military-industrial complex that saw material advantages in an arms race.

Oscar

23rd August 2005, 09:51

1. You can't say in one breath that you are not in favour of nuclear weapons and in another that you will defend their existence fully. This is a contradiction. What I assume you mean is that you don't favour their use, but believe that their existence is necessary. The logic of this is also a bit shonky. If you are not prepared to use them, how can they serve as a deterrent?

2. Your assumption that without American nuclear weapons "we" - by which I assume you mean everybody - would be under Russian control is silly. Are you suggesting that after WWII the USSR would have had either the capability or the motivation to attack the U.S. and its allies? Or are you implying that the takeover would have been done by subversion rather than military action? Were 200 million Americans that susceptible to foreign manipulation?

3. The fact is that the USSR developed its nuclear capability in response to the American bomb, and what it perceived as a threat to its own security.
It was American propaganda that turned this into a threat to the west, and the American military-industrial complex that saw material advantages in an arms race.

1. Atomic weapons are a fact. Defending them or otherwise is somewhat redundant.

2.The USSR certainly had the capability and the motivation to acquire more real estate in Europe post World War 2. Did Poland, Hungary, Czecho, et al want to be under Soviet Domination?

3. A race requires more than one competitor. Are you implying that without the Manhattan Project, the bomb would not have been developed? One of Stalin's major motivations for being first to capture Berlin was the German Atomic Bomb research facility there and the Scientists and Uranium contained therein.

The US certainly had it's propaganda department working overtime, but so did the Soviets, and the Chinese for that matter.

SARGE

23rd August 2005, 10:36

1. You can't say in one breath that you are not in favour of nuclear weapons and in another that you will defend their existence fully. This is a contradiction. What I assume you mean is that you don't favour their use, but believe that their existence is necessary. The logic of this is also a bit shonky. If you are not prepared to use them, how can they serve as a deterrent?

ok.. you assume correctly.. i am not in favor of thier use, i do believe their existance is nessasary in today's world.. you must be ready to deploy them to have them serve as any type of deterrant

2. Your assumption that without American nuclear weapons "we" - by which I assume you mean everybody - would be under Russian control is silly. Are you suggesting that after WWII the USSR would have had either the capability or the motivation to attack the U.S. and its allies? Or are you implying that the takeover would have been done by subversion rather than military action? Were 200 million Americans that susceptible to foreign manipulation?

Poland/ Czec /etc were taken by the USSR post WW2 and have yet to recover from it..the expansion in that era was accelerating and "might " have spilled over into Europe had the US (NATO) not been standing in the way

3. The fact is that the USSR developed its nuclear capability in response to the American bomb, and what it perceived as a threat to its own security.
It was American propaganda that turned this into a threat to the west, and the American military-industrial complex that saw material advantages in an arms race.

thats bullshit Mike.. Germany had a Nuke program before the end of WW2 and Adolph WOULD have used it, had it been ready.. the Soviets wanted the program for themselves and would have done what it took to get it.. again.. had NATO not been standing in the way

in the States, EVERYONE had a bomb / Tornado shelter available to them all through the 50's- late 70's.. had one on my pop's farm ( used a few times in Tornado's).. some of it WAS paranoia i admit because at the end of the day, both sides KNEW it would be the end if the shit hit the fan..

just for instance .. Iran, North Korea.. both have active weapons development programs.. what happens if one or both use them?.. would the US hit back hard? .. that i cant answer.. we have the capability to strike back conventionally with equal power and less long term effects.. the UN would say" lets just put sanctions on them and smack thier wrists .."

Biff

23rd August 2005, 11:23

'peacefully' going about their daily routines?

You haven't met me..... :) if/when you do I'll be glad to debate the seeming contradictions of my fierce pacifism with you - until then we shall have to agree to differ.

[/COLOR]

I've been playing devils advocate somewhat here - although I believe that children, woman and men going about their normal daily duties should be considered as innocent, even if others in the locality were involved in directly supporting Japan's war effort (and this includes farming I guess?). Justified targets to me are members of the armed services, those in direct supporting roles of the armed services (including industrial facilities - which can be specifically targeted), military apparatus (including buildings) members of national security organisations and first in line, every time, the politicians.

But your understanding of the word pacifist is totally different to mine (and the dictionary, my desktop dictionary describing a pacifist as "one opposed to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action".), so on this point we are indeed miles apart. ;)

SARGE

23rd August 2005, 11:53

I've been playing devils advocate somewhat here - although I believe that children, woman and men going about their normal daily duties should be considered as innocent, even if others in the locality were involved in directly supporting Japan's war effort (and this includes farming I guess?). Justified targets to me are members of the armed services, those in direct supporting roles of the armed services (including industrial facilities - which can be specifically targeted), military apparatus (including buildings) members of national security organisations and first in line, every time, the politicians.

1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

Biff

23rd August 2005, 12:35

1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

Yup - fully agree.

Shame about the collatoral damage targetting quasi-civilian facilities does though.

Hitcher

23rd August 2005, 12:46

Shame about the collatoral damage targetting quasi-civilian facilities does though.
You mean people get killed or maimed?

Biff

23rd August 2005, 12:48

You mean people get killed or maimed?

Accidently of course.

mstriumph

23rd August 2005, 12:58

............................But your understanding of the word pacifist is totally different to mine (and the dictionary, my desktop dictionary describing a pacifist as "one opposed to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action".), so on this point we are indeed miles apart. ;).....................The really GREAT thing about language is that it's a living thing ........ and it evolves.
This makes dictionaries an acceptable historic record but a questionable current authority.... nevertheless, the stated definition describes me at least in part.

:) this is interesting - but going off in too many directions for the thread ....... good talking to you though

mstriumph

23rd August 2005, 13:00

Thanks.....................
1) defense / early warning capabilities - Radar installations, AA/ missile batteries, lookout towers
2) Command and control - government buildings, command structure, communications (including civilian broadcasting)
3) infrastructure - Roads,bridges,runways, power generation, water
4) industrial capabilities - factories, mines, agricultural facilities
5) standing military.. anything that can fight back, ammo dumps

SARGE

23rd August 2005, 13:10

... and glorify sending their sons to their deaths by suicide ...

lotta that going around nowdays too...

TwoSeven

23rd August 2005, 13:41

But they do make a very nice vehicle for transport of our troops, comment is made that we need amphibious/tracked vehicles...i'm not convinced. If we need to get across a river that's what the engineers are for. This discussion could go on forever. I think Lav's are choice.

I was of the same school of thought, but a quick study of the NZDF explains why wheeled LAVs and not Tracked ones. I'll try and explain it, but the explanation requires some knowledge of the effects of military doctrine.

The easist explanation is cost. A tracked vehicle costs more to run that a wheeled one (at least double). Very hard to justify when you have a population limiting fixed budget

The best known Tracked vehicle is the british Warrior with a 30mm Rarden cannon, a Hughes chain gun, and lmg. It has crew of 2 (important) and carries 8 troops. The other vehicle is the tracked AFV432 which is due to be replaced and does a similar role to the LAV.

The reason why the British use these two vehicles is one of doctrine. Their entire combat facing force is now structured using the concept of the battlegroup. In fact, each one that exists is now a fully armoured battlegroup. Each battlegroup consists of 600 personel and equipement to be fully self sufficient. They are also joined together when needed.

The big key point is that their Battlegroups are combat forward facing. This means they are likely to see combat in a combat scenario (you need to understand the 3 layer positional doctrine they use). So equipment needs to withstand being shot at by some pretty heavy muck when working in the layer 1 role.

In layer 2, soldiers are not directly facing and interacting with the enemy. They may come into a hostile scenario, but its usually only because they are attacked (dont confuse this with rear echelon, or supply/logistics/engineers - these guys are still combat troops, but they are to hold objectives, rather than seize them).

In layer 2, you dont need heavily armored muck, but you do need mobility - this is what LAVs are used for - and every country uses them (NZ is not unique). They only use a 7 man squad rather than an 8 man squad which also changes the way the infantry unit can be used (not to mention crew sizes).

If you study NZs proposed military doctrine, you will find that the NZ armed forces are being designed (unfortunately, the local military planners are crap) to be layer 2 only. So they wont be put in forward facing combat roles (eg. fat chance of going to Iraq), but they may find themselves being attacked (mad mullahs in afganistan).

So, why waste money on purchasing expensive equipment designed for strategic combat when you will never use it. Its much better to spend that money on getting stuff that you really will use.

Personally after some thought on the issue, I agree with the strategy. NZDF personell are much better suited to layer 2 at the moment, primarily because to move forward to layer 1 means a shitload more communications and transport and artilary systems need to be purchased and that isnt due to happen for at least the next decade (although they are going to do it). From a more personal view - l dont think the key people in the army (in command situations) actually have the skill to work at layer 1.

SARGE

23rd August 2005, 17:26

you seem to have a great grasp of the Military TwoSeven.. im guessing NZ Army?.. good for you man..sending greenies your way for your service

TwoSeven

23rd August 2005, 18:13

i'm a pom - so no NZ army.

I just study the politics of military stuff - its related to business strategy, which is something I do :)

Hitcher

23rd August 2005, 20:48

Personally after some thought on the issue, I agree with the strategy. NZDF personell are much better suited to layer 2 at the moment, primarily because to move forward to layer 1 means a shitload more communications and transport and artilary systems need to be purchased and that isnt due to happen for at least the next decade (although they are going to do it). From a more personal view - l dont think the key people in the army (in command situations) actually have the skill to work at layer 1.
Condemned to a future as pogues only. Sad, very sad. So the LAVs are designed to take NZ forces forward for medical attention if they get paper cuts...

inlinefour

24th August 2005, 02:45

And why do we need to celebrate it? The only good thing about past wars is that they are over...

Lou Girardin

24th August 2005, 08:46

And why do we need to celebrate it? The only good thing about past wars is that they are over...

I don't know that we celebrate them, but remembering is a good thing. It helps us avoid future conflicts, it's a shame that so few do remember. The Merkins for one, if they remembered Vietnam, they wouldn't have gone to Iraq.

TwoSeven

24th August 2005, 11:36

There is an old quote: Learning from the past helps avoid the mistakes of the future.

The thing that worries me is that kids (under 20s) no longer learn history. All they learn is from those celibrations each year. Half of em dont even know why they celibrate stuff.

rammstein636

24th August 2005, 15:46

-Who ever it was that said we could purchase a rover for each person in a LAV probably dosn't realise a 5.56 round would be lethal to anyone in that vehicle.

-And after that huge message about the LAV's Two Seven, I'm almost convinced you know what your talking about. Yeap perhaps we are 'behind the lines' for the most part, but we do have people in Iraq. (but yeap not frontline).
However your P3 project joke calling needs revision, Constists of 1 orion being kitted with Thales systems?

How about 6 orions being completely overhauled with new navigation and communications equipment, new crypto equipment enabling the messages to be sent straight from air instead of relaying via HF/other old methods, Ground radar imaging, and top of the line video monitering enabling the tracking of both naval vessels and aircraft from a huge range thus massively increasing the SAR/Maritime patrol capability.

And to the nuclear topic...I don't really know the true effects of it, but isn't it greener than using gas? I mean sure there is a very small risk of meltdown or whatever, but the actual waste is fairly minimal and easily contained...and as for it being huge and ugly......i'd have to say that's what a hydro dam is.
I'm all for windpower though. Not sure that's efficient enough though...but pretty cool.