|
|
Post by exkiwiforces on May 22, 2016 12:34:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on May 22, 2016 14:13:55 GMT 12
I don't think his views can be taken too seriously when he calls the C-17 a Starlifter.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 22, 2016 18:30:23 GMT 12
If that is all that is holding up the white paper, well its not worth waiting for.
We need to ditch this balanced Force BS quick smart, marine force projection (air & space based) is all that we can afforded in sufficient quantity to defend New Zealand.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on May 23, 2016 1:37:21 GMT 12
If that is all that is holding up the white paper, well its not worth waiting for. We need to ditch this balanced Force BS quick smart, marine force projection (air & space based) is all that we can afforded in sufficient quantity to defend New Zealand. The purpose of the NZDF is more than just defending NZ Under the Defence Act 1990, New Zealand’s Armed Forces are raised and maintained for: The defence of New Zealand and the protection of its interests, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere.
The contribution of forces under collective security treaties, agreements or arrangements.
The contribution of forces to the UN or other organisations or States for operations in accordance with the principles of the charter of the UN. |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on May 23, 2016 3:21:41 GMT 12
A pretty basic article that answers little and provides nothing that we don't know already. Investigative journalism this aint.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 25, 2016 15:10:52 GMT 12
If that is all that is holding up the white paper, well its not worth waiting for. We need to ditch this balanced Force BS quick smart, marine force projection (air & space based) is all that we can afforded in sufficient quantity to defend New Zealand. For that to happen NZ politicians would need brain transplants. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 26, 2016 9:36:18 GMT 12
The defence of New Zealand and the protection of its interests, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere.
The contribution of forces under collective security treaties, agreements or arrangements.
The contribution of forces to the UN or other organisations or States for operations in accordance with the principles of the charter of the UN.
That does not prescribe a set force structure, we could learn from our history, or even then (god help us) the ozzies, they have bet the navy on subs and they are not a lot of value for UN work (they are going to have more submarines than surface combatants). Note that I think we should not even think about manned subs for NZ.
Only a fool would maintain capabilities for UN roles etc at the expense defensive capability, and that assumes that those assets would be not be of value to those operations. Infantry is two a penny for UN ops, and of little value to NZ defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on May 26, 2016 14:21:43 GMT 12
MadMac I agree with everything you have said. Since our politicians are fools the outcome of future events can only reflect this point.
|
|
