|
Post by baronbeeza on Sept 17, 2012 22:02:56 GMT 12
Many of the guys here are interested in air power. I have not researched it recently but I did hear that the provinces just south of the Vietnam DMZ had more ordnance dropped on them than all of Europe during WWII. It may even be just one province.
It sure did sound like a lot of 'compelling' force .... probably out of all proportion to the end result.
I still think we could save a lot of grief if we used just a little Defence funding to put some individuals through the Command and Staff College courses. Those that need them most, - the politicians.
The money spent on teaching me Cold War tactics was a waste of time and money that is for sure. I learnt much more backpacking through Vietnam. A visit to My Lai is sobering, very much the same feeling as a visit to Dachau.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Sept 17, 2012 22:32:43 GMT 12
I was with the RAF during the Falklands, power can be different in it's meanings. I was in Somalia during 'Blackhawk Down' and saw the 'other' side of the western powers. Having spent weeks in Vietnam and chatted with various expats there it is interesting to see their opinions. Some countries may be better off without the 'Western' influence. A 300 year old country with 2000 year old religious beliefs may not be the way forward in trying to influence thousands of years of culture. China would be well ahead in cultural terms and would have been a world power eons ago. www.presentationsunplugged.com/blog/While the internet has a lot of cr*p on it I found this to be easy reading. A lighter side of life.. Reminds me of a pic in a New Zealand book about the kiwi vietnam war. A roadside bunker that had been in use off and on for over 700 years(!),seen a few colonial nations and others come and go.Recent history...the Japanese left ,for the French to follow ,for the USA..all passing by this bunker,oblivious to its history or the futility of the imposition by another foriegn power. Seems none of them learned from history,so were/are destined to repeat it!
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Sept 18, 2012 0:29:46 GMT 12
Quang Tri Province was the scene of some of the fiercest ground fighting of the American war, especially from 1966 to the end of the war in 1975, and it was subjected to the heaviest bombing campaign in the history of the world, more than the amount of ordnance used in Europe during World War II. At the war’s end in 1975, the entire province was devastated, and most of the population had evacuated. Quang Tri Town, at that time the Province capital and Dong Ha Town were both destroyed. Not a single building remained standing or useable. Of 3,500 villages scattered throughout the province, only 11 remained at the end of the war. It is interesting to note that this was 'friendly' territory, ie they were bombing the land of their allies. www.foxco-2ndbn-9thmarines.com/quang_tri.htmeconomics.ucr.edu/seminars/winter05/ped/ped01122005.pdfI still see a massive disparity between airpower and political power. Those guys that have worked in the mob will realise the effort required to conduct all these bombing missions. The hours flown, the bombs loaded along with all the manning and logistical support. Didn't someone ever wonder what was really going to be gained from bombing a rural province ? The pilots, the armourers, intelligence teams, the generals or even the politicians. Nope, if you have the military might then you have to use what you have. The fact that Herr Helen is anywhere near the UN has to be a worry also. I did a few days in a UN camp during the Sudan war. Questions were definitely being asked but the answer was if we stop what we are doing then we are all out of a job. Fair enuf.... seems a good reason to keep quiet and carry on ! This is the environment the present Labour leader has come from. For the record, - the militants were milking the media and the UN for funds. Without appropriate media coverage they would be out of funding and hence a job as well. How bad do your forces need to be to drag a war out for 23 years ? What can the Israeli's do it in ? What would I wish for from the visit this week ? Perhaps a senior political appointee with a realistic view of the region he is in. Hopefully he is not here to try and sway our Government in any way... naaw, I am just dreaming..
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 19, 2012 11:58:53 GMT 12
This is headline on Stuff website today: Resumption of US warship visits to NZ?For that to occur two things have to happen. 1) NZ changes or gets rid of the nuclear act and that aint gonna happen. No Kiwi pollie is going to tamper with that act because it would be political suicide. 2) The US govt and USN change their neither confirm nor deny policy and that won't happen unless they were in extremely desperate straits. So this announcement could be about anything. I am thinking that Coleman may use the visit to announce winner of tender for the advanced pilot training aircraft. Well whatever announcments are going to be made, we will find out in due course.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 20, 2012 14:09:33 GMT 12
This is an american take on US Sec Defs visit to China, Jap and and NZ. It looks like the US wants to reach some agreement about USN ship visits and our anti-nuke law. In reality there has been nothing stopping the USN sending conventially powered vessels and it is public knowledge that no USN surface vessels are carrying nuke weapons. I think its more the US attitude about being told it can't do something. Mind you this in yesterdays NZ Herald doesn't help matters much. Fodder for the great hairy unwashed.
|
|
|
Post by John L on Sept 20, 2012 15:07:08 GMT 12
Leon Panetta - the guy's a war criminal by any evaluation, but........
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 20, 2012 15:35:32 GMT 12
Leon Panetta - the guy's a war criminal by any evaluation, but........ but ......he is US Sec Def and it's in NZs best interest to talk to him. It is also significant that he is not Schultz who ranted and raved in 1984 - 1987. I think Panetta will listen more. Like it or not we have to have military connections with the US in order to strenghten and bolster our own security. In the South Pacific its us, the Aussies, US & French. We also have to remember that even though China is a major trading partner for NZ Inc, we don't have a long term relationship with them. Secondly the Indians are building CVs, SSBNs and have a Russian Akula SSN. We have ties with India through the Commonwealth. Thirdly Pakistan is also a nuke power and anenemy of India but we also have ties with Pakistan. Finally the security situation in the Pacific, IO and SE Asia is not benign and those areas are where our SLOC are. Late addition: Today (Thursday) Panetta has invited the Chinese to participate in the next RIMPAC (2014).
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 20, 2012 19:43:29 GMT 12
Leon Panetta - the guy's a war criminal by any evaluation, but........ Are you going to elaborate on why he's in the same category as Sadam Hussein, Ratko Mladic or Heinrich Himmler? Leon Panetta - the guy's a war criminal by any evaluation, but........ but ......he is US Sec Def and it's in NZs best interest to talk to him. It is also significant that he is not Schultz who ranted and raved in 1984 - 1987. I think Panetta will listen more. Like it or not we have to have military connections with the US in order to strenghten and bolster our own security. In the South Pacific its us, the Aussies, US & French. We also have to remember that even though China is a major trading partner for NZ Inc, we don't have a long term relationship with them. I'd also add that Australia's real interest in an alliance with a New Zealand that is at odds with the US is fairly minimal. Sure, they'd appreciate NZ contributions to Timor like scenarios, but realistically that's not what the Aus government sees as the real regional threat, or the reason for spending $30billion a year on defence. As for China, the current push and shove with Japan is a pretty clear indication of what their real diplomatic style is. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19632042
|
|
|
Post by nige on Sept 20, 2012 21:13:25 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 20, 2012 22:02:40 GMT 12
I was using the 2012-13 Portfolio Budget Statements (Table 7) which include (i) annual appropriations (ii) special approprations - covers a lot of military personnel entitlements such as superannuation, and (iii) administered appropriations ie defence related funding that is managed by the DoD, but which is not directly used to fund DoD and ADF activities. All up that's around $30bil.
Some of those savings are not as grim as they first appear: bringing the C-130Hs retirement forward a couple of years is in part a reflection of the purchase of 2 additional C-17s that was made after the C-130H retirement date was originally set - add to that the KC-30s coming into service; rescheduling payments for F-35s was pretty much inevitable after the US DoD rebaselined the program, and shifted their purchases out; and of course operations in the MEO starting to wind down. Also the Aus DoD has a long history of underspending its appropriation.
However, i don't disagree that the coming years could well be a challenge, or that 2.5% of GDP would be a better insurance premium given the risk it would cover.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 20, 2012 22:14:39 GMT 12
Someone somewhere else mentioned that the Aussie govt expenditure on defence is less than NZs 1.1% of GDP (or there abouts) I think the figure of 0.9% of GDP was the Aussie figure. My own opinion is the Vote: Defence should be 2% of GDP and 2.5% for the next 5 years to bring NZDF someway back to better conditions.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Sept 20, 2012 22:16:50 GMT 12
and where is that money coming from
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 20, 2012 22:28:31 GMT 12
All we are doing is doubling Vote: Defence from $2 billion to $4 billion. And that's the problem because both National & Labour don't see defence as worth investing a lot of money in. They treat it as a luxury not a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 20, 2012 22:33:12 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Sept 21, 2012 13:21:43 GMT 12
Boeing E4B 73-1677 Landing on 05R this morning. C-17 08-8190 Support aircraft landed later seen here taxing to hard stand. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 21, 2012 16:59:05 GMT 12
My apologies and I was out in my GDP figures. This the quote from elsewhere: I didn't realise that we were spending so little on defence this year I kept hearing of all the reductions in spending etc but when I heard of the delay to the AWD I decided to have a look into it closer. Is getting a surplus so limportant? to neglect our ADF so much in funding? I had a look at New Zealand who are a country doing it a little tough at the moment after earthquakes etc I see they are still maintaining defence spending at 1.9% of GDP and we have dropped down to 1.56% surely we can do better than that. I feel that our lovely media has a lot to answer for in regard to this! giving that opposition leader idiot so much air time now everyone seems to believe that a surplus is the be all and end all, this forces the government to react to please the masses. Yes a surplus is not a bad thing to have but not at the expense of things we really need! and after all our spending percentage of GDP wasn't really that high to start with. sorry rant off just needed to get that off my chest. I don't normally quote directly from elsewhere because it is bad manners and frowned upon especially by the elsewhere. The above quote was from an Australian.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 21, 2012 17:09:43 GMT 12
and where is that money coming from Well thr govt would have to reprioritise a few things and some could be taken out of Vote: Health because a lot of the money there goes to bureaucracy and managers. I was looking at how health money was being spent a while back and the big problem is that what the program states is going to the sharp end actually is significantly different to that which reaches the sharp end, especially if goes through a DHB. The DHB will takes its cut which can be 25% or so citing costs. Also the NZG could significantly increase is revenue quite easily but it won't becasue of political philosophies.
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 21, 2012 17:13:38 GMT 12
The Boeing E4B 73-1677 that bought US Sec Def here, what is the hump on the top of the fuselage? It reminds me of the B747 the USAF used for the airborne laser tests way back.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Sept 21, 2012 17:57:22 GMT 12
I thought he would have just had a C32
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Sept 21, 2012 18:14:11 GMT 12
The E4B is an airborne command post, and the hump on top contains satellite comms equipment. Surprisingly the aircraft is protected against the Electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion, so it can continue to function throughout an attack. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-4The Sec Def always travels in one in case there is an emergency somewhere in the world and he needs to commumicate with his troops in a hurry. I wonder if he gets sick of never having a window to look out of!
|
|