VJ Day (Victory over Japan)

[MikeL]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Biff]

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]

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

[WINJA]

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]

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.