Forum whore
However, if our strategic value lies in our relative inconspicuousness, then surely that implies that all parties have an interest in NOT making us a focus of overt military operations?Originally Posted by SARGE
In other words, if our value to both sides is as Spook Central (rather like Spain in WW2), then is either side going to start a shooting war around us ? (Again, Spain in WW2 may be a relevant case) .
LOOK.. ZOMBIES!
right ... little patch of grass with no standing defenses .. sounds like prime pickins to me ..
lets just have a look at a few scenarios shall we?.
1) suicide hijackers take a few aircraft from Auckland International and run them into the RNZ Navy and infrastructure
2) Princes Wharf Friday night at midnight/ All Blacks V. Australia match .. 4 suicide bombers kill 2000 people and wound 5000
3) truck bomb at the Ports of Auckland etc targeting foreign ships and freight handling, cutting your badly needed supply lines
how fast will Uncle Helen hand over the keys?
France would look like WW2 Russia in comparison
Last edited by SARGE; 29th April 2007 at 12:43.
Forum whore
You basically confirm my point, Sarge. When the US announced it was going to invade Iraq, and we don't need to go over the reasons as we're simply discussing strategy, here, I knew two things for certain. A/ It was going to be a relatively short war, Iraq had no answer to the military might of the US, and very few countries do. B/ It was going to open a real can of worms and those who said it would be quick and clean and resolve the issues were talking through a hole in their hats! Now it's never going to end.
Open warfare is increasingly irrelevant in the modern environment. Subterfuge and terrorism is the way it's going and you can't fight that with the big guns. Al Qaeda said their goal was to make every single person on Earth, afraid. That no-one would know who the enemy was. How do you think they got into the "green zone"?
This ties in with the second point and you make it yourself. NZ is not going to be invaded militarily, there's no point and no need. If anyone, and I can't imagine who, wanted to invade, there are too many, too powerful allies ready to defend the country for principle's sake. Same with the Falkland's, of no consequence to anyone, economically, strategically or otherwise, just a principle.
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
LOOK.. ZOMBIES!
agreed ..the WoT is being fought with Kid Gloves because of the Media .. ban reporters and lawyers and lets use the Extremists rulebook.. this war will be over in 6 months ..
only problem with that is the fact that NZ has this tricky Anti-Nuke policy that keeps the people who would and could defend NZ at arms length..no Nuke Carriers .. no Force Projection .. how many Excocet Missiles would it take to send the RNZ navy to the bottom of the sea?
thanks hippies ..
Forum whore
Well. Yes . A *little* patch . And of grass. Most potential assailants don't actually have much interest in grass.
Question is: why is someone going to go to the very considerable cost of launching a major amphibious operation, with no feasible supply depot for thousands of miles (I'm assuming that the Ozzies don't declare war on us); suffer the opprobrium that would attract; the continuing losses to guerrilla action (believe me , there'd be plenty of that. Kiwis are NASTY when they're really mad ) ; the likelihood of retaliatory terrorist action ( Like I said, we get NASTY; and we're spread out around the world); and all the concomitant risks: for a patch of grass.
The one likely scenario would be a war between Australia and an Asian country (everyone says Indonesia, but I'd look closely at Malaysia or Thailand myself), into which we get drawn. And the enemy seeing NZ as a "soft underbelly" to strike at Oz. But that's not something that's going to blow up overnight.
And military action by any of those Asian countries against Oz, is almost as problematic as against NZ.
Starting wars is easy. Ending them (as Mr Bush is discovering) is much harder.
Oh,and 50% casualties for an opposed advance from Northern Australia to the useful and worthwhile south, with 50% casualties? Try 99.5%. That desert is harsh. And BIG.
The question I think is not whether NZ should spend money of defence (or offence. Best form of defence). Everyone except a few tree hugging peaceniks agrees on that. It's how the money should be spent.
Do we try to be a micro USA with our own tiny weeny Tonka Toy Army Navy and Airforce (How big is the Houston Air Force?) Or the Miami Navy?
Or do we spend our money and efforts in a focused niche?
The Navy is I think, a given, for an island nation with a major fisheries resource.
But if the question is how could we contribute to an allied force, then we should think commandos (which really are terrorists in a good suit). Kiwis are good at sort of thing, improvisation , small scale operations.
And we quite like blowing stuff up.
LOOK.. ZOMBIES!
as in ALL US cities ..
I wouldnt attack Houston or Miami personally ..too many Rednecks and Gang members with better arms than most police departmentsAmendment II
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.
hard to turn an invasion back with .22's and Air rifles
but as i said .. i doubt a full anphibious attack would happen to NZ .. they would just cruise through Customs and Immigration..
Forum whore
It's only posturing, really. I doubt that the US gummint really cares a toss about NZ's stance, they've got far more important things to worry about. They just have to say something to be politically correct. NZ would merely be an incidental, a means to slap the face of the big guys, and for that reason would be defended. But as I say, the invasion would be done by, well, you said it yourself, immigration, and for what purpose? NZ means logistical difficulties which outweigh the innocence of the population and the relative freedom the baddies can have here. Harder to hide here, too, with the small population.
It's proven surprisingly easy to use the US itself, to train and equip terrorists. Which emphasises my point that you can't fight what you can't see.
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Forum whore
A well regulated Militia it says. Rednecks and gangs, no matter how bling their ordnance, do not comprise a Militia, let alone a well regulated one. And a professional Navy or air Force is several steps up from that.
You know (better than anyone) how long even a huge mob, no matter how well armed, will survive in the field against even a small body of professional, disciplined, well trained troops.
Fighting in city ruins, another matter. As Mr Bush is discovering. But that strength lies with the defenders not the attackers.
EIT: Has anyone ever determined what percentage of US gun owners DO actually belong to a "well regulated militia". I bet it's a small percentage.
e mare libertas
But only for a regular military force.
Wouldn't make any difference to anything substantial. Terrorists can't take and hold ground. Tobacco smoking, road crashes, domestic violence and lightning strikes are all far greater threats to us than terrorism. In fact, that applies equally to the USA, although nobody there seem to have figured it out yet.
For that matter, terrorists operate to get invaders off their own land, or to influence a foreign power to change its policy. Neither of those motivations is likely to relate to attacks against NZ.
Hand them over to whom? Hijackers and truck bombers can't take our country away. That requires infantry divisions.
And, let's face it. If a large Asian or Southeast Asian nation decides to annex NZ by force, there are only two possible outcomes - either they sweep in with a minimum of fuss, or a large European country decides that it's in its own best interests to intervene in NZ's defence.
And I second Ixion's points about the stickiness of the ongoing position for any invading force. There wouldn't be armour opposing them on the beaches, but they'd find that the highways, hills, forests and surburbs would suddenly become very unhealthy places to stick their heads up.
Welcome to the insurgency, motherfuckers.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Hardcore Biker
The American army are a self supporting machine, They require so much money and energy to keep moving they have to be grabbing sizable assets to keep afloat and at the same time they make more enemys than they defeat. America is insuring that they have a sustainable terrorist enemy to harvest, what a great way to justifying having such a huge standing army.
The US has a bleak future unless it can do something huge to get out of the potential of its dollar being worth the same as the paso. The only thing is, what the huge thing will be.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Quite correct, however it can be argued that the "fleets" losses were self inflicted...
As for the Argentinian carrier not playing a part? The General Belgrano was not sunk without reason.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Forum whore
The Belgrano was a cruiser (heavy I think - amazing how hard it was not to spell that crusier). Their notable carrier was the Dos de Mayo (I think. Summat of May anyway), which was not sunk. The subs had it in their sights but Admiralty hummed and hawed and pussied around about whether it was in a bay or not . No I never understood what difference it made either, just sink the bastards is my motto. Nelson wouldn't have bothere asking permission. But anyway the carrier sneaked out with its tail between its legs and headed for home port at flank speed, whence it did not emerge again for the duration of the war.
Kiwi back at home!
Well they only just announced the new carriers..... there were mutterings that was not going to happen
oh and the S.A.S were in a position to destroy a sizeable chunk of the Argies Air Fleet but called it off at the last minute....
See above they had oppurtunity to fix their land based air but it didnt pan out. Oh and as someone said above blame the loss of one ship on poor driving by the captain who turned in front of the ship about to save his arse.
Oh and the states have looked in to your missile boat idea, having simple unmanned missile ships in the Battle Group controlled by Aegis cruisers so they are basically a floating magazine..... would look damn impressive if they got hit!
Little Man and Fat Boy ring a bell Ixion? Past US presidents haven't had trouble quickly ending a war if need be....
Look at the new protector fleet we are getting. It like you say a way to spend money on things that we need, four Patrol vessels for inshore fisheries and customs work, 2 Offshore Patrol vessels for doing the same thing at a further distance such as the Patagonian tooth fisheries, and finally the Multi Role Vessel so the Army can finally take their LAVs somewhere and to be used in disaster relief etc. All the new vessles haves berths for customs and fisheries and they are expected to be on board for all patrols.
Our Defence Force can be utilised effectively in providing personnel not to simply defend New Zealand by force but to buddy up to some nice big friends (bar the US thanks greenies) through peacekeeping(all over the world at present) and Special Ops (SAS in Afghanistan) and other things.
Moped rider
Special forces units are NOT terrorists in a suit. they do not deliberately conduct mass targetings of civilians.
Do you really expect ANY country to help another in a military situation if they are not prepared to help themselvs?
Dont forget NZ is the gateway for antarctica. Lots of oil there too.
There has been many comments that have been incorrect in the media. Army helicopters? nope sorry we dont have them. navy and airforce do though. Skyhawks are old and useless. Nope, the israil's have used them just as long as we have, and may still do so. heard of the 7 day war?
And remember, a military can carry out peacekeeping, a peacekeeping force cannot conduct warfare.
when it comes to military equipment its like comparing the 2007 formula 1 car with an averge joe driving it to the 1960s with a professional driver. except in warfare you only get one crack at it. Have a read of shooting from the lip. has a few interesting points regarding this and its a damn funny read.
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Veinticinco de Mayo
The carrier was involved in a two part pincer movement against the British carriers (I'll find the date tonight once home). 25May was to the north west of the group with several escorts and the Belgrano was to the south west (with HMS Conqueror in trail). The 25May could not find enough wind to launch her aircraft due to unusually calm seas and an aged steam catapult which lacked sufficient "Oomph" to launch an armed up arcraft.
An 801 Squadron Sea Harrier searched for, and located, the carrier/escort group. Argies didn't hang around after that and the Brits decided to get the Belgrano out of the equasion.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks