Sick and tired of Cullen

**enigma51** · 1st June 2008, 18:24

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

**Steam** · 1st June 2008, 18:30

Originally Posted by enigma51

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

Farmland. Lebensraum. Resources, Raw materials, Water. Coal. Uranium. A population of slaves.

**Delerium** · 1st June 2008, 18:40

Originally Posted by enigma51

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

Already been said, we are the gateway to antarcitca. lots of oil there. farmland, water, large economic zone, ie fisheries. Lots of space, and oh look indonesia with one of hte largest military budgets in the world is just around the corner. Ohhh, they are over crowded and need more resources too.

**rainman** · 1st June 2008, 19:26

So let me get this right. There's little we can actually achieve, in real terms, by re-establishing a strike force, but we should do it anyway? What's that going to cost then? Or are you also going to fund this by axing the embassy in Sweden?

This is indicative of the problem with current political debate in NZ - it's full of pompous ideologues who appear to not have any interest in or capability to fully think through the real issues. It's all about appearances, personalities (both hatred of and devotion thereto), and team allegiances.

I'm so not looking forward to the next few months.

**enigma51** · 1st June 2008, 19:28

Originally Posted by Steam

Farmland. Lebensraum. Resources, Raw materials, Water. Coal. Uranium. A population of slaves.

Well were fucked then

**Hitcher** · 1st June 2008, 19:33

Originally Posted by enigma51

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

Coal, oil, gas. Freshwater. Clean air. Titanium, uranium, gold. Seafood (ever seen the size of our offshore economic zone?), dairy products, meat. Pine trees. I'm sure that the air space above us could also have strategic importance.

That makes me wonder why we're not doing more with this natural abundance in terms of improving the lot of just over four million New Zealanders...

**rainman** · 1st June 2008, 19:55

Originally Posted by Hitcher

That makes me wonder why we're not doing more with this natural abundance in terms of improving the lot of just over four million New Zealanders...

Now that is a good question.

**FLYMO** · 1st June 2008, 20:01

yeah record is true
time for a change
if it were up to the greenies thought wed all have pedals

**rainman** · 1st June 2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by FLYMO

if it were up to the greenies thought wed all have pedals

Bzzzt. Wrong.

**Winston001** · 1st June 2008, 21:39

Rainman: So let me get this right. There's little we can actually achieve, in real terms, by re-establishing a strike force, but we should do it anyway? What's that going to cost then? Or are you also going to fund this by axing the embassy in Sweden?

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

But that isn't the point. For defence we rely upon friendly Western powers, Australia, and yes, like it or not the US of A. Possibly the EU would help too but no guarantees.....

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. Just read a book about the SAS in Afghanistan which makes the point that there is no substitute for a man on the ground. That's why the US never caught Bin Laden - they didn't want to commit their soldiers early enough, relying instead on laser bombs and satellites.

**rainman** · 2nd June 2008, 09:58

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 2nd June 2008, 11:59

Originally Posted by Winston001

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** · 2nd June 2008, 12:37

Originally Posted by enigma51

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** · 2nd June 2008, 14:37

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?