|
Post by angelsonefive on Nov 5, 2009 16:11:58 GMT 12
I am fairly sure that the infamous " Geriatric generals " slur was made by Lange back in the 80's during the ANZUS withdrawal controversy.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Nov 5, 2009 16:53:44 GMT 12
I'm sure Helen used it as well during her tenure as PM to try and discredit these fine gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 5, 2009 17:01:04 GMT 12
Politicans never seem to learn to keep their noses out of military planning. It's an age old problem. It usually costs lives in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 5, 2009 17:26:36 GMT 12
I am fairly sure that the infamous " Geriatric generals " slur was made by Lange back in the 80's during the ANZUS withdrawal controversy. The comment about 'cold war warriors' and 'defence dinosaurs' was made by Helen Clark in response to comments from such military luminaries as Sir Richard Bolt, Gerald Hensley, Ewen Jamieson,Robin Klitscher,Denis McClean, and Sir Somerford Teagle. There is well over 150 years combined military knowledge in the servicemen alone, not to mention the two top Def Secs. Helen had precisely zilch, other than as a professional protestor.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 5, 2009 17:34:34 GMT 12
I'm sure she was very experienced at running a cold war at home behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 5, 2009 21:14:36 GMT 12
I'm sure she was very experienced at running a cold war at home behind closed doors. yeh no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by motoxjase on Nov 6, 2009 4:59:13 GMT 12
Politicans never seem to learn to keep their noses out of military planning. It's an age old problem. It usually costs lives in the long term. But why here in NZ do we have such a history of Politicans making such rash judgements regarding the Armed Forces as a whole??? For the life of me I so cant understand why a Goverment can go against a world-wide trend and scrape an entire Combat-Wing without even batting an eye-lid and then a new goverment who so vermently voiced their opposition to the axing of the Combat-Wing now say that there is no need for such a force?? One only has to get on Defencetalk and read all the Military news from around the world and see that the world is in a worse position that when the Skyhawks were cut, China is getting into the Space race, Brazil has just received the 1st 220odd German Tanks, India is buying amazing amounts of Fighters and the list goes on and on but just like our flawed Anti Nuclear stance we have to be different. Its something that since 2001 I just cant get my head around and prob never will.
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 7, 2009 15:58:16 GMT 12
Politicans never seem to learn to keep their noses out of military planning. It's an age old problem. It usually costs lives in the long term. But why here in NZ do we have such a history of Politicans making such rash judgements regarding the Armed Forces as a whole??? For the life of me I so cant understand why a Goverment can go against a world-wide trend and scrape an entire Combat-Wing without even batting an eye-lid and then a new goverment who so vermently voiced their opposition to the axing of the Combat-Wing now say that there is no need for such a force?? One only has to get on Defencetalk and read all the Military news from around the world and see that the world is in a worse position that when the Skyhawks were cut, China is getting into the Space race, Brazil has just received the 1st 220odd German Tanks, India is buying amazing amounts of Fighters and the list goes on and on but just like our flawed Anti Nuclear stance we have to be different. Its something that since 2001 I just cant get my head around and prob never will. Because the pollies think Australia will probably save our shirking asses if the time ever comes. key words - think and probablyWe all know how you feel jase. Firstly, Yes the mind boggles and there really is no excuse, but for one reason or another (mainly public opinion because I think that in reality this is the main guiding force for all pollies; that and helens personal vendetta) the last Govt. felt that if the s*** did ever hit the fan then our small force of skyhawks and macchies would not be enough to make any kind of difference anyway therefore making them redundant. This is of course a gross underestimate of our venerable little jets and the super skilled pilots and crews we had. But a likely assessment from the last govt. Secondly, it seems to me that helen and her minions appear to have deduced that Australia would protect us or at least be obligated to 'shield' us because any attacker would have to 'go through australia to get to us'. The only problem there is we also need to have a defence force that is capable of offence as well and be in a position to actively support our allies. We should be able to deploy to wherever needed no matter how far flung and be able to operate on our own steam and if need be all on our own with air cover for our own troops being provided by (but not restricted to of course) our own jets. like you say most of the rest of the world knows this but it seems to be an impossible equation for NZ - freaking - government. I suppose at least we got the roll on roll of transport, if they had purchased an aircraft carrier to supplement this I would be a happy man haha. Anyways.. where was I... oh yes australia and why swamp donkey (helen) was incorrect. now for an epic tangent I have time to kill and I have been mulling some ideas over lately. As some of you may have seen I posted some info that covers the ideas I am going to jot down here from the Australian perspective. However this is my attempt to expand on the scenario from the New Zealand situation and perspective. So hypothetically.. if someone were to decide they wanted to conquer australia... what then. Well first of all one would have to conquer New Zealand. Yes? For two reasons. firstly to eliminate the possibility of US forces camping out here and using our country as a base and launching point for their deep strike air attacks. using our ports for repair, refit and resupply of naval assets etc. and a probable launching point for a counter invasion (due to its size and suitable location in comparison to all other pacific island nations). Secondly because any potential invader of Australia would need our country for the same reason as our allies would in an initial invasion. New Zealand would be a great place to occupy, easily conquered (comparitively) hard to retake when occupied because of our distance (oh how ironic would that be....also our allies may just figure its too difficult to liberate us and in any event it would take them a long long while to accumulate all the required hardware and supplies to do so) And a perfect place to stockpile all the necessary hardware and supplies to enable ' them' to take ozzy. So to sum up, no one would ever take Australia and THEN take NZ the most likely scenario is that New Zealand would be the first on the chop list due to logistics and necessity of a comparitively short supply line to complete the end goal. That is why they were wrong thinking Australia would protect us by 'default'. I think we must be prepared for any event no matter how unlikely is seemsvery few people thought the attack on pearl harbour was possible or likely. Neither did anyone think singapore would be so easily conquered yet both these things happened. For some reason these lessons have to be constantly RE-learned by pollies.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 7, 2009 18:04:23 GMT 12
This is what makes us different from most other countries - lots of wet stuff which must be crossed to stage and maintain any attack.
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Nov 7, 2009 18:22:14 GMT 12
This is what makes us different from most other countries - lots of wet stuff which must be crossed to stage and maintain any attack. Well that was no problem for the Brits in the Falklands War, so a motivated and well equipped invader could do it. We have plenty of open space, resources, fresh water and agriculture which might be tempting to acquire by force some time in the future...........or am I just being paranoid?? Hopefully it'll happen well after I am gone. It might not happen but it could, isn't that what the Armed Forces are supposed to prepare for potential scenarios and the peacekeeping and SAR and disaster relief stuff is simply a 'bolt on' capability to their main role of attack and defence? Correct me if I'm wrong...
|
|
|
Post by yogi on Nov 7, 2009 19:53:16 GMT 12
This is what makes us different from most other countries - lots of wet stuff which must be crossed to stage and maintain any attack. Well that was no problem for the Brits in the Falklands War, so a motivated and well equipped invader could do it. We have plenty of open space, resources, fresh water and agriculture which might be tempting to acquire by force some time in the future...........or am I just being paranoid?? Hopefully it'll happen well after I am gone. It might not happen but it could, isn't that what the Armed Forces are supposed to prepare for potential scenarios and the peacekeeping and SAR and disaster relief stuff is simply a 'bolt on' capability to their main role of attack and defence? Correct me if I'm wrong... zing. gold star for obiwan!
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Nov 7, 2009 20:24:38 GMT 12
Well that was no problem for the Brits in the Falklands War, so a motivated and well equipped invader could do it. No problem!! Thats a huge rewrite of history. Admiral Woodward admitted he was about to declare the Task Force was no longer viable the day Argentina surrendered and there is the famous quote by a senior RAF officer 'six better fuses and we would have lost'. Remember Britain were only able to project two Brigades. An invader would require way more than that to occupy NZ.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Nov 7, 2009 20:56:32 GMT 12
No need to invade, drop a decent amount of mines across our main shipping lanes and hey presto. No more imports of raw material, fuel etc, and no exports of dairy, timber and all that other good stuff we do. Near instant economic collapse, job done.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2009 21:11:05 GMT 12
With our open immigration policy no country needs to invade, it would be cheaper and less costly to simply all move here at once legally.
Les, it only takes an All Blacks loss for near instant economic collapse in this country. ;D
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 7, 2009 22:29:20 GMT 12
It will cause much embarrassment when the new owners arrive courtesy of Air New Zealand...the national flag carrier! On the other hand, for much less government cash per year than it costs to have a transport command and an airline you could have a defence force which includes a real fighting capability!
There is a lot to be said for a wide moat, and NZ certainly has one. (great map, 30sqnatc!) This is definitely a line of defence which should hold secure in most instances. Modern defence is not all about protection from invasion though. Much needs to be done in an uncertain world to maintain stability. If one small nation sits off on the side basking in the glory created by others, at some point there comes a reckoning. For Australia it happened when the UN refused to take action in East Timor without an Australian lead. I know NZ goes places and does stuff...good on you! But are you pulling your weight? Right now you are depending on others to keep you safe!
Some countries take defence seriously and some don't. NZ purports to be a first world country and maintains a defence posture firmly set in amongst those countries that do not pull their weight. One day NZ will have to pay the price for not significantly participating in world affairs...if they continue down the path of appeasement and pacificism.
Nobody expects NZ to be anything more than they can afford. They simply expect them to pull their weight. Aerial combat assets, deployable ships and ground forces...that's what it's about. And it's not whether you use them or not...it's whether you have them. Everyone else calls it insurance IE something you have but you never want to use. If you ever have to use it, you are glad you had it! If you don't have it and you need it, you are stuffed!!!
|
|
|
Post by corokid66 on Nov 7, 2009 23:15:55 GMT 12
Bingo. Could not have said it better myself Old Navy. Of course we can afford at least a minimum credible defence posture. Go back Old Navy and have a quick read of the post I made yesterday on the Ideal Fighter thread regarding the NZ Government Budget and where some of money is wasted. Yet we do not spend enough to give us a credible NZDF for our first world pretentions. Ever since mankind crawled out of the caves defence of his sovereign territory has been his first responsibility.
A naval standoff in the Asian region that shuts down sea lanes (and potentially commercial air traffic) forces countries on the periphery like NZ to use their naval and air assets to escort their merchant shipping, would expose us big time. We would get one hell of a wake up call when exports/imports crash, shipping and insurance companies become risk adverse and refuse to head our way, our dollar implodes, oil prices in the region skyrocket, our strategic oil reserve is enacted and Joe Blogs car use is banned and fuel is for essential services, Joe blogs is laid off … )
A week or two of that might actually give the collective complacency of this country a good boot up the backside regarding Defence.
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Nov 7, 2009 23:53:19 GMT 12
corokid66, I saw that earlier post on the ideal fighter thread about where the money goes, and support your stance wholeheartedly. It is people like you speaking out who will bring the change. Judging by the broad support on this website, "apathy rules" is no longer an acceptable position. Keep taking it to them, guys!
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Nov 8, 2009 10:17:49 GMT 12
It will cause much embarrassment when the new owners arrive courtesy of Air New Zealand...the national flag carrier! On the other hand, for much less government cash per year than it costs to have a transport command and an airline you could have a defence force which includes a real fighting capability! There is a lot to be said for a wide moat, and NZ certainly has one. (great map, 30sqnatc!) This is definitely a line of defence which should hold secure in most instances. Modern defence is not all about protection from invasion though. Much needs to be done in an uncertain world to maintain stability. If one small nation sits off on the side basking in the glory created by others, at some point there comes a reckoning. For Australia it happened when the UN refused to take action in East Timor without an Australian lead. I know NZ goes places and does stuff...good on you! But are you pulling your weight? Right now you are depending on others to keep you safe! Some countries take defence seriously and some don't. NZ purports to be a first world country and maintains a defence posture firmly set in amongst those countries that do not pull their weight. One day NZ will have to pay the price for not significantly participating in world affairs...if they continue down the path of appeasement and pacificism. Nobody expects NZ to be anything more than they can afford. They simply expect them to pull their weight. Aerial combat assets, deployable ships and ground forces...that's what it's about. And it's not whether you use them or not...it's whether you have them. Everyone else calls it insurance IE something you have but you never want to use. If you ever have to use it, you are glad you had it! If you don't have it and you need it, you are stuffed!!! Hmmm.... you're wielding a pretty broad brush there ON! ANZ is a strategic asset; without a national carrier we would be at the mercy of every other airline in the world, and they would dictate the cost of air freight and travel to the detriment of NZ. They would, without hesitation, screw us in new and previously unimaginable ways, including some previously thought anatomically impossible. ANZ also returns a revenue to the Government. I disagree that we don't pull our weight; we have always been keen to get into other people's wars, and given what we have, we do very well. That is not to say we couldn't do more, but given the lack of a cohesive Defence Policy and the need of all governments to make a choice between defence and domestic spending, more is likely to be less! AS for the ditch, I doubt even Helen saw that as a reason to dump the ACF. Our security is now, and must always be based on collective assurance. Claims that we cannot afford our own security, and insinuations that we are happy for other countries' taxpayers to carry us are, in my opinion, unimpressive! On a more pragmatic approach, all my time in a blue suit taught me that, fundamentally, time wasted on things you can't do anything about are just that; pissing over high walls. The ACF is gone, and all the hypothesizing in the world ain't bringing it back!
|
|
|
Post by caromeg on Nov 8, 2009 10:43:07 GMT 12
Military invasion of NZ would be an incredible human enterprise. Not impossible but outstanding if it was pulled off. It amazes me sometimes how people trivialise the realities of doing this. I saw a staff study on the practical realities of a Japanese invasion of NZ. It worked out that they would have needed 6 -7 divisions -for the north island alone and that they would have serious supply issues about month 3 -4 . An insurgent campaign (as per the Philippines) would have had them very busy. The staff study (always favouring the Japanese) and found that their issues got worse the longer they stayed here (including winters). Occupying is a real pain. The only real way to do it is to kill everyone outright. - nice. So a modern equivalent could be more efficient with better tools, but there would need to be a huge will to win and significant resource as that big oggy moat is not nice its often very bumpy and cold therefore treacherous. At present only the united states has the sheer military hardware to pull this off. We are just too far for the Russian bear and china is not quite ready... yet. (she also has a few internal issues to deal with soon). On another issue when a member of the OECD is attacked outright, I think there would be some serious global ramifications.
I doubt a Normandy D-day, terrain based conquest and pillage is on the cards for anyone in the next 20-50 yrs. However, there are two things that may stir the apple cart in New Zealand's 1. we have water - the commodity of future resource war. 2. we make food something that will be vital in the long run.
The world's population is growing and the three favorites plague pestilence and war are still with us (Plato was right). Population control is still the key ingredient to stability and environment, not the ambulance at the bottom of the hill of carbon trading guff et al. We have to find another way apart from those three time honoured traditions.
That being said, we need to use our foreign policy and all the tools of the government to manage the defence of NZ and avoid the above being attacked in trade war. Once a clear policy in this area is defined (nigh on impossible based on human failings). We could configure the NZDF with the tools and structure to do the job. One thing we should probably do to keep our options open for the future is ditch this cr@p of niche defence force - you need to be across the board balanced so you can strategically re-enforce any area as required without the huge set up costs.
My money's on submarines. Four nasty little diesel electric boats would deter anyone from mucking around in our eez. Then I would send Hone Harawira apparently he's bullet proof.
Oh I think we seriously under estimate australia. if NZ was invaded first, I'm sure they would realise they were next and do something. Its not like them to be lame or cowardly. we are cousins after all and blood is thicker than water.
|
|
|
Post by nige on Nov 8, 2009 11:30:30 GMT 12
So looks like "we" (as in NZ) needs an advocacy group for defence (I believe there's such a thing in Australia, Old Navy? If so can you elaborate for us folks?).
Apart from the defence boffins (eg former Chief's of Staff and so on), the group needs a legal representative(s) - a bit like when Save Our Squadrons took on board legal beagles, didn't they? - to understand the obvious legal, law and statute areas.
Plus some economic or business representative(s) to precisely outline to the media (who listen to credible players i.e. people that know more than them but can articulate thus etc), the true economic situation that will wreck havoc on the NZ people and economically, as articulated recently by Corokid & others etc..... so that the media and the "people" don't et caught up in the politicans trap and argueements about, "ho ho, so called aircraft were never used and exactly who is going to invade NZ, hah hah, etc" bollocks which they use and confuse the people into agreeing with them! Geddit!
Get some money together, employ some public relation strategists etc, have community involvement (and some RSA public information days ... shoot, those codgers need to get more political rather than sitting around and drink and chat all day (no offense intended))!
Campaign about the economic effects (to which everyone, well most NZ'ers are concerned about during these world wide resessive times etc), and how NZ plays a part in protecting our trade routes. We're too small to do everything ourselves hence explain to the people what "collective security" is about and thus how for the Air Force (air combat sqn + Orions), Navy (Frigates), Army (Infantry, SAS, artilliary) plus the wonderful support and logistics systems (Hercs & Helos, Navy tankers, Army logistics and medical etc) are vital.
Shoot, we're not asking for 3 or 5 or 15 air combat squadrons (or 20+ like in WW2), we're only asking for a measily one primary squadron and a second training/conversion unit squadron etc backed up with a jet training squadron!
Hmm, economic impacts, eh? Say why not get the Unions on side! I can see it now, Unions protesting for better defence to protect workers jobs! I love it. But it reality, shouldn't it be that way? I bet it is in France, when they protest they shut down portions of the countryside!
Seriously, there are individuals and perhaps groups of people in NZ that can and should do this! But they need organising or an organisation etc.
We here can't be tasked with changing things ourselves for we here lack the clout. Although we have ideas and people in the know here, and civvies too who can say anything they want to, because they're not restricted etc, so we could help in our own way!
After all, this is exactly what the anti-US, anti-ANZUS types do. They start off small, get a bit of traction, some dedicated people, media attention and pollies that will listen etc ....
Hey on the other side of the coin, are there no more dedicated people then the men and women of the NZDF (and MoD etc) that actually get out there, overseas, under fire from bullets and bombs, living in tents, experiencing extreme cold or extreme heat, no family around, no cafes or swanning down to the beach, etc, etc, giving their 101% for the good of this country and those others that we inter-depend on for economic security, be that Australia, Singapore, Samoa, Timor, South Korea, the UK, the US or Malaysia etc? The people and media should be listening to these guys, not protestors who afterwrds have the luxury off going back home to the fireside and a nice cuppa (or vodka)!
All things being equal, this is how it should be, rather than this previous 20 year abonomality, which needs to be kicked back out of touch (although, on our terms seeing we are supposedly independent, of course)!
Really the Government does not need to fear the re-establishment of a Macchi training squadron at the most basic level, or a small F16 type air combat force even, or something joint with Australia (Hawks/Hornets). It is affordable and if that opens the doors to FTA's with the USA (and other Asia-Pacific/South American countries) then a small air combat squadron is the signal that NZ is wishing to play its part, especially in these changing super-power times.
China is our friend. So is the US. China respects power. But NZ (and others) will never be on equal terms with China (superiority complex - but hey, that's ok, that too is no different to the US's superiority or any other power with aspirations be that Iran today, or the old British Empire yesterday etc - they all have complex's. So do we)!
But China would respect NZ (economically more) if we were back in the collective security game, in our own modest way of course. An interoperable air combat force would be a relatively cheap way (for NZ) to be known and a country that will defence collective economic interests in this wider region. But NZ (along with its bigger cousins) play the bad-cop/good-cop game rather well. On the other hand a sympathetic NZ wouold lend itself well to listening to the concerns of our new Asian bigger cousins. We also have an independent streak and say our mind, so when I write this I am in no way saying NZ becomes subservient to the big powers (within reason of course. We're still too small economically to be totally independent a la France, but we've acquired a bit of an attitude to make others listen etc. Better to be on the table so all these various bigger powers can listen than to be off the table and in another room like we have been since the mid 80's).
The US should help NZ. The peanuts they could spit out of their massive defence/military aid budget would help quick-start things going (the Aussies and Brits are actually under strain themselves, to then be asked to soley help out NZ get air combat capability back quickly).
There's the way and there's the political will.
NZ (by stroke of luck or unintended consequnces eg the rolling of Brash) is in a very, very fortunate time in its history where the PM and deputy PM understand economic realities and dynamics. Perhaps they simply haven't thought about the defence diplomacy aspect (although by now they would have, but even like most of us here, the last 9 years or so has been so ingrained, it's hard to see or make a change in attitude). But if anyone is going to do it, it would have to be this Govt. It's now ... or not so much never, but much later down the track when things start changing geo-politcally wise, but then NZ could be further behind in the queue with less traction with the bigger powers because the likes of Australia stepped up and we were only there to support them and get the crumbs as a result. Hey, the Govt is emabrking on a plan to catch up with Australia economic wise. Wouldn't a restored air combat force play a part behind the scenes, economically?
|
|