Comments on: National’s Defence Cuts (1)

By: SPC

SPC — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:52:33 +0000

The major local/regional security issue is ensuring the 200 mile economic zone disputes are resolved by international law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18765094

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:28:12 +0000

Missiles require either a location or a delivery system – they would be taken out by missiles with a longer range or other military capacity with a longer reach.

Which means that we need the anti-missile tech as well.

This quite apart from anti-missile tech constantly advancing leaving our past investments obsolete.

/facepalm

That happens all the time and is usually the driver of investment.

Security of the nation isn’t something you leave to chance when the global systems are collapsing.

By: Spud

Spud — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:07:16 +0000

By: Paul B

Paul B — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:22:57 +0000

Our best long term survival strategy should be by way of a strong United Nations… so God help us – but it still ‘tries’ to do the proper and decent thing. It is just possible that real moral authority will carry some weight
Powers come and go- the US seems on the slippery slope – It is ‘Rome’ and past its peak . Evidence is that the next administration running the show may be just plain Loopy… ‘Nero Mit’? The States is now where the priviliged & powerful in a society just want to become more wealthy at any cost, and at the expense of the ‘others’.
Selfish, selfdestructive; and stuffed soon?
China is just scary. We should not give them an opportunity to dictate to us – eg by selling lots of land and assets and soon realising that we are just serfs – and then, too late perhaps, attempt to change the rules to recover the situation – they may not allow that!!! We should be very very wary of ANY nondemocracy that treats minorities & dissidents badly – it may soon be us? We should never compromise sovereignity, – trade deals will likely bite the little fellows -the big boys just ignore the fine print when it suits, but they will for sure crucify the weak.
‘We’ might not be around, but our Kids kids deserve better from us – but, like in the States, our wealthy consider that they have the right to sell ‘their’,AND, ‘OUR’ assets, into an international market’ Seems great BUT for just a very little while.
Key and co, and parties of the right, preach long term objectives but play a short term game. Profit for their followers, and soon, is their real policy!
…Seem to have strayed from ‘defence cuts’, but clearly we can only ever be a tiny bit player.
A decent independant ethical foreign policy, and a strong United Nations is our best hope… OR… perhaps we could just succumb and become a South South China province…. -
A ‘pragmatic’ arguement could be made?.. by some others

By: SPC

SPC — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 08:47:54 +0000

Draco – those with the capacity to invade us can buy what they want – and also appararently force trade deals, such as TPP, to get all they want. Groser “our” negotiator equates American concern about international disputes resolution authority (our win) with us having to accept international corporate litigation against government sovereignty in domestic law (our loss).

In the abstract case of how we could stop an invasion force – anyone capable of organising one cannot be stopped by us. Missiles require either a location or a delivery system – they would be taken out by missiles with a longer range or other military capacity with a longer reach. This quite apart from anti-missile tech constantly advancing leaving our past investments obsolete. It’s a contest we would always have to be winning or be caught out. It would result in security paranoia – such as last seen during the USSR-USA Cold War prior to SALT.

Multi-lateralism is incorporated within a forward defence collective security framework – UN peacekeeping. This includes de-militarising the Artic (as well as Antarctica) and the 200 mile economic zone disputes being resolved by international law.

By: James

James — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 23:32:03 +0000

Will Labour advocate a cessation of the four year pay freeze for NZDF personnel?

By: Allen

Allen — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:33:03 +0000

Labour wouldn’t know what peacekeeping was unless it was bited in the bum.

Like Labours so called lessons learnt from East Timor (Interfet).

Like not taking up the option for 8 new C-130Js that National ordered in the late 90′s, instead lets take a short term/ more high risk option and upgrade the the crap out ones which entered service in 65-66.

Labour went against Navy advice and brought the high risk COTS Navy Ships instead of getting proved MOTS Ships for Navy. RNZN has a ship that can only 70% of it taskings even then it has to be in sea state 2 for some taskings, the 2 OPV’s are 100 ton over weight and now this whole project has now cost the poor taxpayer an awful amount of money than it should’ve.

No short haul tactical aircraft replacement for the Andovers that National scraped in the 90′s and they can take pressure of the C-130′s.

The new NRH 90′s are not fitted with its Forward Infa Red turrets (Standard fit for all NRH 90′s) for night flying dropped for cost reasons and auto folding rotor blades were dropped for the same reason.

Cut backs to the Army’s TF units with manning under Labour dropping to low levels some say it was worst than National in 90′s and it was awful under National believe me I was in the NZ Army in the 90′s.

By: bbfloyd

bbfloyd — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 02:21:12 +0000

Hey spud….:-)

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:19:53 +0000

What a load of nonsense.

No, the last government specialised the armed forces for use in UN peacekeeping forces rather than actually defending NZ. It’s, IMO, the wrong weighting for the armed forces.

By: Alby

Alby — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:53:48 +0000

@ Paddy that was funny!

Who needs the Yanks they have tanked. Let’s go play war games with the new super power China!
They may even throw in a much more modern aircraft carrier then the mighty USA have, so we are competitive.