VJ Day (Victory over Japan)

[Kickaha]

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...ng_011005.html

B) Submarines don't carry Aeroplanes

Wrong again http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...chi_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]

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]

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]

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]

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..

[rammstein636]

"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]

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]

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.

Ahh, but you can put 'em where you need 'em.
So you put in Auckland so you don't need pylons going the length of the NI.

[mstriumph]

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]

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/milita...tions/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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.