Sick and tired of Cullen

[rainman]

We are fooling ourselves if anyone thinks NZ could realistically defend itself in any military sense.

...

The trade-off for the tacit help of these large nations is that we have to pull our weight and make some effort in military terms. UN peacekeeping is the clearest way the NZ military can get experience, mix with other armies, and contribute to the worlds trouble spots. Never mind that we only add a teaspoon-full of logistics, stepping up to the plate and being willing counts for a great deal at diplomatic and political levels.

So....we do need a better equipped military, but a jet fighter wing just isn't practical, or necessary.

So, pretty much what we're doing then - maybe with a modest spend-up on some new toys/maintaining what we have? That'd be fine with me.

[davereid]

We are fooling ourselves if anyone thinks NZ could realistically defend itself in any military sense.... a jet fighter wing just isn't practical, or necessary.

Not true, New Zealand is one of the easiest places in the world to defend, and a Maritime Strike force is how its done.

If an aggressor wants New Zealand, he needs air-superiority. Without it, he can't get ships, landing craft or men within miles of the place.

That means he needs aircraft carriers.

Trouble is, they are very expensive, and extremely vulnerable, so a massive force is required to protect them.

And that force neds supplies of food, fuel etc, creating a long chain of potential targets for an isand based defender.

And even the biggest aircraft carriers don't carry that many aircraft - US Nimitz class boats are good for about 80 aircraft, but selom actually have more than 60-65.

The bottom line ?

If NZ has a modern, well equipped maritime strike force, then we are very very difficult to defeat.

Back that up with a white water Navy that can take the battle to the attackers supply lines, and a fleet of small submarines that ensure the enemys aircraft carrier is almost a liability, not an asset, and you just became too hard to pick on.

[Robert Taylor]

Why would any country want to attack us there is no strategic gain in taking new zealand

I beg to ask what the implications would have been if the US carrier forces had been wiped out at the Battle of Midway? To quote a very well used but very appropriate statement '' those who havent studied history are condemned to repeat its mistakes''
Prior to the Falklands War there was an agenda to sizably cut costs in the British military budget. Lucky they didnt and that they had a strong leader who wasnt going to accede to an attack on British soverignty and its citizens.
Pacifism or pseudo pacifism makes me sick.

[Delerium]

The biggest threat is to beleive there is no threat at all. Your dreaming if you think we are not being eyed up by somebody else. The attitude of its ok, australia will defend us. If its coming to that, then they have hard times ahead of them too, who do you think they will look after first, their own troops in trouble, or little brother that didnt beleive it was necessary to maintain a valid force?

[Ocean1]

Here:

http://www.staplesrodway.com/index.cfm/resources/tools_and_links/tax_freedom_day/index.html

Wot, on account of it being topical an' all...

[Ocean1]

Tad later for some...

https://secure.acclipse.co.nz/staplesrodway/index.cfm/Hidden_Tax?SecureSwitched=1&

[Swoop]

Prior to the Falklands War there was an agenda to sizably cut costs in the British military budget. Lucky they didnt and that they had a strong leader who wasnt going to accede to an attack on British soverignty and its citizens.
Pacifism or pseudo pacifism makes me sick.
Interesting to note that the carrier Hermes, was in the process of dismantling prior to scrapping, when that all happened. The brits had the same mentality of "we're alright mate" and defense was suffering. (A few similarities here).
It is interesting to see that the Hermes "being out of date and needing replacement" is still in service with the Indian Navy, and serving well.

In addition to the resources that Hitcher has mentioned, we also have a large amount of land...
Inhabitable land.

[Hinny]

I thought we had been invaded.

[Robert Taylor]

I thought we had been invaded.

Well thats certainly a very agreeable point with many different interpretations dependent on ones outlook.
If at some stage in the future we are ''physically'' threatened by a belligerent nation( and I sincerely hope not ) lets hope that the silence is deafening from those who disagree with having a first line of defence i.e an air strike force.

[Ixion]

I beg to ask what the implications would have been if the US carrier forces had been wiped out at the Battle of Midway? ..


I have debated this question on several occasions with some very knowledgeable people. The general consensus, which I share, is that an Allied defeat at either Midway or Coral Sea would have made things very difficult indeed for Australia , with a real probability of invasion.

However, it is very much less likely (to the point of 'ain't gonna happen') that NZ would have been invaded . Which is not to say that we might not have suffered seriously from naval raids and bombardment.

If the Japs had been able to secure a east coast Australian port, it is probably that NZ would have been cut off and isolated. However, we were self sufficient in food so we could have survived indefinately . Not in petrol though so there would have been a total ban on its use for anything other than military purposes . Fortunately, we had lots of coal, and steam locomotives.

The reason that NZ would not have been invaded is simply that the Japs would need to pacify and consolidate Australia first. Otherwise any action against NZ (other than a hit and run attack) would leave their long flank too exposed.

And, assuming that no catastrophic disaster overtook either the Empire or the US, Japan could not fight long enough to make good such a subjugation . They just didn't have the resources.

Bear in mind that Japan didn't actually want NZ or Oz, we would have been bargaining counters for what they did want (and already had conquered). The Dutch East Indies and China. So the deal would have been "Leave us alone in our conquests of the DEI (which no-one actually cares about anyway, cos our German allies have occupied Holland); and China. In return we will pull back from Australia (and leave NZ alone)"

The primary military essential for NZ is to safeguard our sea lanes. The Navy is still our best defence, and one that has never failed us (well, hardly ever. The Dutch didn't fight fair).

[Robert Taylor]

I have debated this question on several occasions with some very knowledgeable people. The general consensus, which I share, is that an Allied defeat at either Midway or Coral Sea would have made things very difficult indeed for Australia , with a real probability of invasion.

However, it is very much less likely (to the point of 'ain't gonna happen') that NZ would have been invaded . Which is not to say that we might not have suffered seriously from naval raids and bombardment.

If the Japs had been able to secure a east coast Australian port, it is probably that NZ would have been cut off and isolated. However, we were self sufficient in food so we could have survived indefinately . Not in petrol though so there would have been a total ban on its use for anything other than military purposes . Fortunately, we had lots of coal, and steam locomotives.

The reason that NZ would not have been invaded is simply that the Japs would need to pacify and consolidate Australia first. Otherwise any action against NZ (other than a hit and run attack) would leave their long flank too exposed.

And, assuming that no catastrophic disaster overtook either the Empire or the US, Japan could not fight long enough to make good such a subjugation . They just didn't have the resources.

Bear in mind that Japan didn't actually want NZ or Oz, we would have been bargaining counters for what they did want (and already had conquered). The Dutch East Indies and China. So the deal would have been "Leave us alone in our conquests of the DEI (which no-one actually cares about anyway, cos our German allies have occupied Holland); and China. In return we will pull back from Australia (and leave NZ alone)"

The primary military essential for NZ is to safeguard our sea lanes. The Navy is still our best defence, and one that has never failed us (well, hardly ever. The Dutch didn't fight fair).

A plausible outcome perhaps but nonetheless very very bad. We must not also forget how barbaric the Japanese were. General McArthur pulled out of Manila and declared it an open city, by implication a non combative zone. The Japs bombed and destroyed it nonetheless. The pyscopaths were in control of that very nasty regime.

[Robert Taylor]

I have debated this question on several occasions with some very knowledgeable people. The general consensus, which I share, is that an Allied defeat at either Midway or Coral Sea would have made things very difficult indeed for Australia , with a real probability of invasion.

However, it is very much less likely (to the point of 'ain't gonna happen') that NZ would have been invaded . Which is not to say that we might not have suffered seriously from naval raids and bombardment.

If the Japs had been able to secure a east coast Australian port, it is probably that NZ would have been cut off and isolated. However, we were self sufficient in food so we could have survived indefinately . Not in petrol though so there would have been a total ban on its use for anything other than military purposes . Fortunately, we had lots of coal, and steam locomotives.

The reason that NZ would not have been invaded is simply that the Japs would need to pacify and consolidate Australia first. Otherwise any action against NZ (other than a hit and run attack) would leave their long flank too exposed.

And, assuming that no catastrophic disaster overtook either the Empire or the US, Japan could not fight long enough to make good such a subjugation . They just didn't have the resources.

Bear in mind that Japan didn't actually want NZ or Oz, we would have been bargaining counters for what they did want (and already had conquered). The Dutch East Indies and China. So the deal would have been "Leave us alone in our conquests of the DEI (which no-one actually cares about anyway, cos our German allies have occupied Holland); and China. In return we will pull back from Australia (and leave NZ alone)"

The primary military essential for NZ is to safeguard our sea lanes. The Navy is still our best defence, and one that has never failed us (well, hardly ever. The Dutch didn't fight fair).

It must also be stated that any navy or land going force is very vulnerable without overhead air cover. If Frankensteins sister was so keen to wield the knife it should not have been to our air strike force.

[Winston001]

Not true, New Zealand is one of the easiest places in the world to defend, and a Maritime Strike force is how its done.

If an aggressor wants New Zealand, he needs air-superiority. Without it, he can't get ships, landing craft or men within miles of the place.

That means he needs aircraft carriers.

Trouble is, they are very expensive, and extremely vulnerable, so a massive force is required to protect them.

And that force neds supplies of food, fuel etc, creating a long chain of potential targets for an isand based defender.

And even the biggest aircraft carriers don't carry that many aircraft - US Nimitz class boats are good for about 80 aircraft, but selom actually have more than 60-65.

The bottom line ?

If NZ has a modern, well equipped maritime strike force, then we are very very difficult to defeat.

Back that up with a white water Navy that can take the battle to the attackers supply lines, and a fleet of small submarines that ensure the enemys aircraft carrier is almost a liability, not an asset, and you just became too hard to pick on.

Yes well thought-out and I agree. If we had a hardened shell in the military lingo, we'd be ignored.

But - we can't financially afford it, we are just too small. Bring back ANZUS.

Besides, NZ today is not self-sufficent. We've got food, a bit of oil and gas but damn all else. Any sort of blockade 500km out would starve us of technology.

[Winston001]

So, pretty much what we're doing then - maybe with a modest spend-up on some new toys/maintaining what we have? That'd be fine with me.

Well yes. However we do need that spend-up on the modern toys and to link with other military wings in other nations. Relationships in defence are born of human interaction just as much as they are in every other facet of life. Our defence force needs to be raised in terms of public respect and valued too.

I don't for a moment suggest we just become peaceniks and expect other countries to look after us. But seriously, OZ and the US don't expect us to have nuclear subs, frigates and carriers of every hue, plus squadrons of F16s etc. So long as we show willing and exercise with them, NZ can legitimately rely on the big players to stand quietly behind us.

Hell - if the US can risk soldiers in the anarchy of Somalia (no oil, no cotton, no....anything) they'd keep an eye on us if only for our Antarctica access.

[rainman]

But - we can't financially afford it, we are just too small. ...

Besides, NZ today is not self-sufficent. We've got food, a bit of oil and gas but damn all else. Any sort of blockade 500km out would starve us of technology.

Bingo.







10 chars

[davereid]

I have debated this question on several occasions with some very knowledgeable people. The general consensus, which I share, is that an Allied defeat at either Midway or Coral Sea would have made things very difficult indeed for Australia , with a real probability of invasion.

However, it is very much less likely (to the point of 'ain't gonna happen') that NZ would have been invaded . Which is not to say that we might not have suffered seriously from naval raids and bombardment.

If the Japs had been able to secure a east coast Australian port, it is probably that NZ would have been cut off and isolated. However, we were self sufficient in food so we could have survived indefinately . Not in petrol though so there would have been a total ban on its use for anything other than military purposes . Fortunately, we had lots of coal, and steam locomotives.

The reason that NZ would not have been invaded is simply that the Japs would need to pacify and consolidate Australia first. Otherwise any action against NZ (other than a hit and run attack) would leave their long flank too exposed.

And, assuming that no catastrophic disaster overtook either the Empire or the US, Japan could not fight long enough to make good such a subjugation . They just didn't have the resources.

Bear in mind that Japan didn't actually want NZ or Oz, we would have been bargaining counters for what they did want (and already had conquered). The Dutch East Indies and China. So the deal would have been "Leave us alone in our conquests of the DEI (which no-one actually cares about anyway, cos our German allies have occupied Holland); and China. In return we will pull back from Australia (and leave NZ alone)"

The primary military essential for NZ is to safeguard our sea lanes. The Navy is still our best defence, and one that has never failed us (well, hardly ever. The Dutch didn't fight fair).

I saw a reference many years ago that I have just googled, but can't find again... such is the internet.

It claimed the japanese in early war planning seriously considered invading New Zealand BEFORE Australia.

(Its one of the reasons Yamamoto councilled Japan AGAINST an attack on Pearl Harbour - he rationalised that USA would quickly base troops here, giving the allies the strategic advantage, not NZ)

They noted that an invasion to the North of Australia didn't really give them much, except a hard and long slog across a tough country, until the real prizes of the south-eastern cities were claimed.

And Australia would be reinforced, fed and supported from NZ.

Plan B - Capture NZ first. Then NZ food, coal and other resources are japanese, not australian. Long supply lines WERE an issue, but as already pointed out, most shipping would be in the revese direction - ie From NZ to Jap forces in the pacific.

Japan would also have good ports, a good engineering infrastructure, and would be able to support its fleet from NZ ports, effectively choking off the Tasman sea.

The japanese used this back door stratergy several times during the war.

[mmm]

I think a good idea for protecting our borders is let the yanks set up there Top Gun school in the South Island,from hearsay they were interested in doing this a few years back about the time we were going to upgrade our fighter jets from them,offers them a great training ground in the mountains,having hundred or so F16's down there makes a great ready made airforce,sure might upset a few with the noise but a far better alternative than have 50 odd million Indonesians deciding to set off in there boats and set up shop in little ol' NZ cause they ran out of room up there?.......maybe sound a little far fetched,but if someone told me on Sept 10 a few years back that a few nutters are going to fly aeroplanes into the twin towers,I would of thought that a bit far fetched too...

[Hinny]

Our defence force needs to be raised in terms of public respect and valued too.

I don't for a moment suggest we just become peaceniks and expect other countries to look after us. But seriously, OZ and the US don't expect us to have nuclear subs, frigates and carriers of every hue, plus squadrons of F16s etc. So long as we show willing and exercise with them, NZ can legitimately rely on the big players to stand quietly behind us.

I'm sure everyone in NZ beams with pride when they hear reports of the success of our forces in joint exercises. I particularly liked the story of the army guys who played by completely new modus operandi resulting in the US observers asking them to do the exercise again so they could get their heads around what the Kiwis had done.

The US and Oz do expect us to have nuclear subs and carriers (visit), frigates (purchase) plus the US crooks did, remember, try to sell us fighters that they had already sold to Pakistan. Had been paid for them , didn't refund the money and didn't supply the planes. For the NZ govt. it was a bit like buying something that had fallen off the back of a truck. An absolute bargain.
As for willingness for the big players to stand behind them look at the Iraq experience. They were a major ally in the middle east and purchaser of huge quantities of military hardware and no doubt 'weapons of mass destruction'.
The US played both sides in the Iraq/Iran conflict supplying hardware and intelligence to both sides.
Just doing their business.
When their former allies lay down their arms in surrender they launch a genocidal invasion.

Look at the US response to identifying the French plan to blow up the Rainbow Warrior. Did they pass on that info? Like hell they did.

Our threats aren't like the threats of old with identifiable forces lined up at our doorstep. We are more likely to be threatened by unseen,subtle, insidious threats.
Asian fishermen raiding our economic zone was a problem. High speed naval patrol boats would have been the best defence option here. I personally don't think the boats they did get truly qualify for the moniker 'high speed'. It would appear these economic raiders have circumvented that defence by simply buying up large shares of NZ fishing coys or joint ventures.
We negotiated a free trade agreement with Australia. This was a free trade agreement with the Federal Government but not binding on State Govts. so exporters find themselves given the green light to sell into Oz but having State Govts. not allowing them to. Ponsonby Pies and Talley's ice cream found this out the hard way. It seems that Aussie politicians like their businessmen can be very slippery customers.
And as for the psychopaths in charge of the American people. How many people were involved in 'the new Pearl Harbour' (911) to enable them to subjugate the world. the world.the world. I curse them every time I go to fill up.
The census figures try to tell us the number of new immigrants we have. Does anybody believe those figures. I knew a land agent in the Eastern suburbs who carted prospective clients around in a bus with 'Asian Invasion' written on the outside. I didn't think it was as funny as he did. In a class of thirty four my daughter was one of three non-asian students.

Trying to counter the new threats with hyper expensive military hardware is like turning up to a gunfight with a knife. It may be a particularly pretty knife but it ain't much use against a flying slug. Love that swordsman scene in Indiana Jones.

A bit more thinking is required to identify situations that may degrade our standard of living.
Being able to identify those threats may take a bit more thinking but determining measures to overcome those threats is even more difficult.

Of note now is the recruiting season for priests and ministers.
That could be the answer.
'In God we trust'.

[MisterD]

,sure might upset a few with the noise

Equally there'd be plenty (several KB'ers included) heading down there with their cameras

[Swoop]

Equally there'd be plenty (several KB'ers included) heading down there with their cameras
Sit on a hill with beer, camera, and spare beer.
Watch stuff like this (http://www.airshowaction.com/axalp06/page1.html)...

[Winston001]

The US and Oz do expect us to have nuclear subs and carriers (visit), frigates (purchase) plus the US crooks did, remember, try to sell us fighters that they had already sold to Pakistan. Had been paid for them , didn't refund the money and didn't supply the planes. For the NZ govt. it was a bit like buying something that had fallen off the back of a truck. An absolute bargain.

There is the minor issue of Pakistan exploding a hydrogen bomb which upset a few people - sort of put all arms deals on hold.



As for willingness for the big players to stand behind them look at the Iraq experience. They were a major ally in the middle east and purchaser of huge quantities of military hardware and no doubt 'weapons of mass destruction'.
The US played both sides in the Iraq/Iran conflict supplying hardware and intelligence to both sides.
Just doing their business.
When their former allies lay down their arms in surrender they launch a genocidal invasion.

Er No. Certainly the US supported Saddam Hussein because he offered secular moderate peace in an area of the world fraught with tension. Bad call IMHO.

But then he got cocky and invaded Kuwait. Even worse call. So I'm not sure where you get the "lay down arms/genocidal invasion" from. The current Iraq War is a Western attempt at introducing stability and removing a tyrant - which hasn't been a success so far. As for the deaths in Iraq, almost all of them are caused by sectarian violence by Iraquis themselves.




Look at the US response to identifying the French plan to blow up the Rainbow Warrior. Did they pass on that info? Like hell they did.


Yep, but understandable. Look at it from a foreign intelligence perspective. Greenpeace were an annoyance, it was only a small boat being scuttled (but sadly a guy died), France and the US are in NATO, NZ gave the finger to the US military.....NZ would learn that terrorism could touch our distant shores....maybe appreciate ANZUS.....hey, it was a win win. Cynical yes, but intelligence is a dirty game.




A bit more thinking is required to identify situations that may degrade our standard of living.
Being able to identify those threats may take a bit more thinking but determining measures to overcome those threats is even more difficult.

Of note now is the recruiting season for priests and ministers.
That could be the answer.
'In God we trust'.

Agreed.

[Coldrider]

HMNZS Te Mana is in the Pursian Gulf under the command of the Royal Bahrain Navy on security missions, such a long way from home.
Do you think the Afganistans don't know that (assuming they can tune into & decipher Stuff.co)

[Delerium]

Yes well thought-out and I agree. If we had a hardened shell in the military lingo, we'd be ignored.

But - we can't financially afford it, we are just too small. Bring back ANZUS.

Besides, NZ today is not self-sufficent. We've got food, a bit of oil and gas but damn all else. Any sort of blockade 500km out would starve us of technology.

NZ spends approx 1% GDP on defence. our allies spend in the region of 3%. small percentage makes many billions difference. We can afford a lot more for national survival I beleive.

[Hinny]

Hey Winston, You forgot to add p/t to the end of your post.

[Ocean1]

I particularly liked the story of the army guys who played by completely new modus operandi resulting in the US observers asking them to do the exercise again so they could get their heads around what the Kiwis had done.

Blink, Malcolm Gladwell. Very good read about institutional vs intuitive strategy. (Sorta).