Locke supports Defence Chief
April 30th, 2005 at 7:23 am by David FarrarKeith Locke is backing the NZ Defence Chief, against Australian criticism.
Poor old Air Marshal Ferguson must be appalled, because to most in the defence forces, being backed by Keith Locke would be like having Brian Tamaki endorse the head of a gay lobby group 
April 30th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Perhaps Keith Locke has realised if you want our freedoms then he have to be ready to stand and fight for them or at mleast have a credible defence force with alliances that can do the job. The trjedy of the Labour Party is they have weakened our alliances so we are left defenceless and we gamble no-one wants to take us on. I am glad John Howard “snubbed” our ANZAC day ceremony he is sendling a message that Australia nonlonger thinks NZ is pulling its weight as it did on those beaches in Gallipoli.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
tim
Who do you think is going to attack us?
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Dim… New Zealand’s trade is secured by the US Navy, amongst others. And don’t you forget it.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
The US Navy does not give a stuff about our trade. I do not know who might attack us. Perhaps one day Australia will, especially if they look like being wiped out by Indenesia and we will not accept Australian refugees. I just do not know. Given the state of our defences anyone could take us on and our response will be “we surrender”.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Major sea-routes are secured by the US Navy, and other navies including Australia and Singapore. That is why there is little piracy on our major trade routes.
I wasn’t suggesting the US Navy pants whenever it sees a 40-foot container holding kiwifruit.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Arguing that the US Navy ‘secures our trade routes’ is a little like pointing out that the NZ police force keeps our streets safe for Albanian tourists. It’s true, but not very meaningful or relevent to the topic at hand.
It’s a common refrain amoung the right in New Zealand that the Labour Government has left us ‘wide open to invasion’, but there doesn’t seem to be any idea of who this mythical invasion force actually IS. (The suggestion that Australia is poised to attack is too moronic to respond to.) If Indonesia does decide to invade they’ll either have to go through Australia or use it as a base – and if either of those contingencies are met I’d suggest that all the strike aircraft in the world wouldn’t save us.
The reality of the situation is that we are tens of thousands of miles away from any real threat. Our geographic isolation has plenty of drawbacks, so we might as well take advantage of the few benefits it provides. Most countries invest in defense because they have to, not because they want to.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
We invest in defence becuase we need to pull our weight in terms of collective security in the South West pacific.Freeloading off the US Navy is just the sort of thing we get from the left who make a career out of freeloading on someone else’s confiscated income. We spend because we can afford to and should as part of our obligations. 1% of GDP is freeloading when the US spends I think about 4%.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Ferguson is a labor party toady apparently hand picked for the job well ahead of numerous other better-qualified military leaders.
There is no middle ground NZ either has creditable defense or becomes totally isolationist. We cannot take part in even meaningful peace keeping unless other countries divert resources, military or otherwise for our benefit thus rendering our international position as irrelevant.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
If you design defence policy around today’s forseeable threats then you are a fool and you’ll eventually get done. Strategic situations can change dramatically within a few years. It takes a lot longer than that to build up a fighting force ready to respond to it. The important thing therefore is to have a reasonably balanced force in all three arms, whose capabilities are wide and varied. It’s not so much the actual equipment or even the numbers that one holds at any one time, but the knowledge and ability to use a wide range of it and if you have the knowledge then you can train up others very quickly.
Clark has fucked the country, in many ways, for example by (a) removing strike jets which not only removes it from the air force but also removes the interaction training from the other forces and (b) spending a great deal of the available budget on LAVs which means it’s not available for other purchases.
She has done this with malice aforethought, leaving this nation wide open to attack, and thus neglecting the first rule of govt: to protect from external and internal threat.
If you want a current threat analysis, then look to China-Taiwan and the possibility that Australia will be asked to act as a sherrif if anything erupts there. North Korea is a wildcard possibility. It looks to me like the Asian nations of Japan, China and the two Koreas and actually building alliances, despite smokescreens such as the recent history textbook issue (what a perfect excuse to hold summit talks). The purpose being to secure the pacific rim from nuclear conflict that could otherwise arise between the US and China. Who knows? Not us, that’s for sure, since no-one here I imagine, can access top level intelligence intercepts. So we’re stuck with speculation, which may be completely wrong or unbelievably perceptive. Point is, we are living in interesting times Dim, we have been for years. And it’s not a good time to have a pacifist PM who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care (pick one – there’s no third choice) about the dangers of implementing her philosophy.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
It doesn’t take access to top-secret intelligence to realise that neither Australia (or New Zealand) are ever going to ‘act as a sherrif’ in a showdown with nuclear armed China. And I’d be curious to know how these hypothetical NZ strike aircraft were going to ‘secure the pacific rim from nuclear conflict’. Could they even fly to Sydney?
You’re correct when you say that Helen Clark has left the country open to attack. But I repeat my previous point – there is no one to attack us. THERE IS NO ONE TO ATTACK US!!! Invoking some currently non-existant hypothetical future enemy (Watch the skies!) as an excuse for a massive arms build up sounds a little Orwellian for my tastes.
And let’s humour your theory that the governments of Japan and China are only pretending to despise each other and are secretly plotting to invade New Zealand (I can’t believe I’m writing this) I’m at a loss to explain why they would bother to invade us (these things cost money, you know) and, if they did have a reason, exactly how New Zealand and our few thousand odd troops – with or without strike aircraft – would be able to withstand Chinas standing army of several million?
Getting back to the real world, there are excellent reasons to maintain an army, navy ect. Civil defense emergencies, patrolling our territorial waters, assisting in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions ect. Of course, we already do most of these things (some better than others) and it’s Labour party policy to continue investing in these areas. I’d much rather see my tax dollars go towards sane, relevent uses than defending against a threat that doesn’t and probably won’t ever exist.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
You misunderstand the implications of a Sino-Japanese rapprochement but never mind it’s not relevant I was simply pointing out the world’s not static not in our region nor the rest of the world.
The point Dim of a strong military in peacetime was touched on by another poster which is that it allows us to exercise with our alliance partners and that has spin off benefits in many areas.
You know what a bludger is? You know how unpopular a bludger is, with everybody? You know why a bludger is unpopular with everybody?
It’s pretty simple, isn’t it?
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
We need a stronger defence to respond to reasonable crises and to forge a more independent foriegn policy without needing to be dependent on the USA. Our present defense strategy is OK for peacekeeping but not much good for fighting a real war. We do not know what foriegn governments ambitions are and what strategies they would use. Our present defense policy is too risky.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Interesting comment :
..Ferguson is a labor party toady apparently hand picked for the job well ahead of numerous other better-qualified military leaders.
At last they used a selective process of choosing the best qualified CDF. The old system , for those who didn
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
In terms of bludging it’s hard to think of anyone more guilty of this than Canada – except maybe Japan, but for different reasons. And hey! They’re Americas two biggest trading partners! The US doesn’t care if we ‘bludge’ (which we don’t – we assist them with intelligence gathering and lend them our specfors, which are currently far more valuable than a flock of cut-price aircraft).
Tonto – I ask again – who do you think NZ is going to be fighting a real war against? Who’s ambitions and strategies do you feel we need to worry about?
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Falklands Islands 1982; The invasion was carried out on 19 March 1982 by a group of Argentinean civilians who posed as scrap metal merchants in order to establish a camp on South Georgia and raise the Argentinean flag. Wikipedia
Vote:The militia that fought against the ANZACS in Timor in 1999 were Indonesian soldiers.
Defence costs a lot more to stop things and start up again then to keeps things running continually. Helen and the Labour leaders can up and leave for another country if things get to hot, 99% of New Zealanders have not got that choice. Could you peaceniks have predicted the Rainbow Warrrior bombing? At least then we had something to chase them with.
April 30th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Dim. It is not a question that can give an easy answer. Indonesia are angry that the ANZACs intervened in Timor and look at the results since that time, Tampa and the Bali bombing are examples. Army AirForce and Naval officers have got time on their hands to constantly plan things and we do not know what is going inside Defence headquarters in Jakarta, Beijing, Tokyo and Washington Everything is top secret so therefore it is very hard to speculate what actions they might take. One thing we can be sure of they will be looking eagerly for areas they can exploit and where there is little defence.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
As much as I hate to say it, I thought the Australian criticism was justified given the very undignified jibes poked at Australian defence on ANZAC day of all days, I for one cringed at the lame NZ attempt to finger wag at Australia. Utterly inappropriate, and utterly confirmed by Keith Locke jumping to defend our guy. That we are so represented should cause us to hang our collective head in shame.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 1:10 am
Dims right , no country would bother attacking NZ . There would simply be no point. If they could knock Australia out and push the US back New Zealand would have to agree to whatever terms they wanted.
AS for enemys there are always plenty to go ., round , Indonesia, a change to a hardline muslim goverment.
China may get another gang of four.
A coalition of muslim states.
A coalition of asian states.
Who Knows even India is not to far away.
One minute you are at war with a country and the next your fighing along side them ie: the British and the French. Although the French only have one side and thats their own.
So choose to go your own way ,NZ is lucky enough not to be directly threatened but if Australia and the US put the boot in you can`t have it all ways.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 6:38 am
We do not know what is the future so therefore we cannot predict events accurately. In the 1930′s there would have been quite a large number of Kiwis who would not have believed in the possibility of New Zealand being attacked and possibly invaded. Britain was the same. If it was not for the victory of the Battle of the Coral Sea Australia would have been invaded. It is not a case whether NZ has enemies or not it is a case of NZ or parts of it being used as a base for something else. We are part of the British Commonwealth and that consists of a lot of small vulnerable nations. At least with the Falkland Islands in 1982 we could help out with a frigate. If we are going be consistent with only defending ourselves we must pull out of the British Commonwealth and anything else that might make us responsible for the welfare of others. I do not agree with the defence policy of the USA and at present we should keep them at distance but one day we might be in a situation where we have both the same enemy. If we have to fight under present means we will lose more people killed and injured than if we spent more on defence. New Zealand could be taken over in 24 hours easily.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 7:10 am
well argued dim..they still have no answer as to who is poised to invade us..and the commonsense stance of if they(?) get down here, things will be so pear-shaped being surrender monkeys will be our only option..
tonto continues his resolute march through a universe quite different from any other..and reids’ yellow peril fantasies are a real hoot..
of course when talking about any issue around gleaming weapons and tightfitting uniforms in this rightwing environment you have to contend with the mindset of those who drool over/get off on, pictures of aformentioned gleaming weapons and tight fitting uniforms..go figure..
yiam (whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 8:05 am
The so called militarists will be defending the rights of left wingers.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 9:09 am
Just keep up fighting the prevous wars guys. The defence force professionals have better things to do, but we dont mind you having fantasy fleets, and coalitions of countries that hate each other even more. Just dont expect the taxpayers and the voters to pay up for this incontinent daydreaming. Lucky we have elections then where the voters can choose between a part who wants to double our defence spending( a politicians promise mind you) and the main parties who have only a minor change from the current spending
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 9:10 am
New Zealand could be taken over in 24 hours easily? (Actually, I don’t think that’s true, since the country is awash with hunting rifles, experienced trampers and back country trails and huts. I think occupying NZ would be like occupying Vietnam). But you STILL haven’t specified WHO is going to occupy and invade us.
Go take a look at a map of the South Pacific. We’re an incredibly isolated island nation. Anyone invading us will need a fleet of aircraft carriers. Do you realise how much that would cost to deploy?
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 9:19 am
Both PhilU and Dim miss the point which is that even if a threat’s not visible now it doesn’t mean it won’t ever be and by the time you can see it, it’s too late to build up a response force. The consequences of invasion (torture, rape, murder, complete loss of all property, slavery) are kind of bad. Therefore it behooves a wise nation to act cautiously in these matters. Finally, just because YOU look at the current horizon and don’t see anything there, doesn’t mean there’s nothing there.
It’s very simple, except to people who psychologically can’t bring themselves to accept that in the real world, individuals and nations do actually really want to harm others and they will expend considerable effort and treasure to do so.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 9:27 am
Ned, don’t forget that if the British people in the 30′s had their way, Hitler would have won the war. Most people are not well versed in these sorts of issues, as you can see in NZ today in another arena, whereby people are giving credit to Labour for the last 6 years of growth.
Sad to say, but it’s true. Most people, world over, are only interested in their own private lives and they never look beyond what’s on the telly. Sad to say, but it’s true. It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s just that they never look up.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 10:54 am
reid..let’s just say you get all your wishs and we get armed up to the max..given that, who do you think we could then beat in a battle/war..?
sweet f.a. really, eh? certainly nobody who counts..
you guys/gals live in this lala fantasy world..full of gleaming thrusting barrels and the like…cor!
what we do now, (except for lending out our kilers for hire to the american empire), is mostly right, just not enough of it (as in aid etc)..
this is how we build our profile (if we really want to,sigh)..humanitarian and practical aid..how about a tak force of engineers deployed to sink wells in 3rd world countries etc etc.?
yiam (whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 11:00 am
A take over means that you sieze key areas which are not rural areas. The Afghans needed missiles and RPGs to fight off the Russians and there is none in NZ. Germans in WW2 were easily able overpower guerilla groups with rifles but stopped short of having a go at militaristic Switzerland becaused they were quick to mobilise [by the tens of thousands] armed and trained and still are. Sure guerilla warfare is a resort but it is a last one. If there was a referendum NZers would vote for an effective air force. 20% of Kiwis living overseas who is going to rescue them if one, couple, few or a group are held hostage? Do we bludge off e.g the British SAS who have credible military resouces behind them or rely on our diplomatic negeotiations so therefore all we can do is talk.
Vote:May 2nd, 2005 at 10:53 am
Since we are all living in the thirties and some how think it applies today. The French, Poles and Russians all had huge armies and invested heavily in defence spending since they had well founded fears about Germany.
Still lost to the Germans though. ( Russia hung on just saved by the weather and Allied support and the vast size of the country- geographic advantage).
France even had a larger Tank force than Germany.
Vote:The Maginot Line was the equivalent of the air combat force
So based on the past wars , which I believe has no bearing on today, even if we spent at the same rate as Australia it doesn’t mean its even value for money.
The only country left that is invading others (Kososvo, Iraq, panama, Haiti, Somalia. … etc is the US and we are nominally aligned with them.
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:24 am
“The Maginot Line as the equivalent of the air combat force”
What? The line is static an air force is not. France may have had more tanks, but they were not deployed correctly and superior German tactics trounced them.
Mind you took the Brits a while to get the hang of tank deployment coordinated artillery/infantry attacking and they (the Brits) didn’t design and produce a decent tank until the ’50s.
If we do not learn from past combat we will only repeat the casualty rates in future combat.
Vote:May 2nd, 2005 at 8:49 pm
The maginot line is the equivalent to the aircombat force, THEY BOTH WERE NEVER USED!!
How many times in all the military interventions NZ has been in since the end of WW2 has the aircombat force been Used ??.
So you accept my point that huge armies and large defence expenditure didnt save most of the armies of Europe. The Brits were saved by a small stretch of water, the same would happen to us.
Vote:That is if we still all lived in the thirties and some people still think like that.
May 4th, 2005 at 8:21 am
Technology can bridge obstacles like water and if you believe that somehow we are saved from attack by ocean you could be mistaken. Look at the Falkland Islands for example. An invading army eg the British were also meant to have a 10 to 1 superior numbers according to military doctrine to retake the islands and they took it and did it with a 1 to 1 ratio. Better to have the means to defend and not use it than not have the means and need it. An invading force will not send a naval force first. Some of us do not want to learn by experience to see if our theories are right.
Vote:May 4th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Ned, the maginot line WAS used. The Germans had to go around the long way, and attacked from a direction the French did not expect. And the Brits and the Poles tried to stop the flow from the “unexpected direction”, while French gave up enmasse.
You said “So you accept my point that huge armies and large defence expenditure didnt save most of the armies of Europe.”
What are you talking about?
Vote:May 4th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Lucyna… the ‘long way around’ was over the Flanders plains of Belgium, which bought Great Britain (and us) into WW1 in the first place.
QED the Maginot Line was rather useful for the French.
And France may have had a larger ‘tank’ force than the Germans, but thats like saying our old Scorpions comprised a better tank force than the Australian Leopards. The French tanks were under-armoured and under-gunned. Now can’t think what that reminds me of (cough LAV cough) … Its all very nice buying pretty little armoured cars, but when their weapons can’t even dent a real tank then in a real war you’re up **** creek without a paddle. And kiwi soldiers will pay the price.
Vote:May 4th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Remove the armed part of the nuetrality in Switzerland and international money would disappear out of there.
Vote:May 9th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
‘”The Germans had to go around the long way, and attacked from a direction the French did not expect’”
So they didnt expect the Germans to invade through Belgium like they did in WW1 .
And as for the Falklands war, well the only country that could that was the UK, or USA. Even the USSR couldnt lauch an amphibous operation to the bottom of the world during the height of the cold war ( why would they ?). Today the numbers of countries that have that reach is …. USA.
Lucky then we are (nominal) allies with the US. And since democracy is allready here, GWB doesnt have to export it.
The LAVs didnt replace tanks, ( the Scorpions were dumped by national in the early 90′s when they cut a Billion dollars from the defence budget over 10 years), the LAVs replaced landrovers and unimog trucks , since our light infantry had no proctection whatever. And nobody expects us to have a heavy mechanised brigade for fighting the REd Army in Europe
You should look up the German army tanks of the late 30′s, they too were only small/undergunned by the standards of the end of the war.
The main point was that NEW weapons and tactics won the war , not a reliance on old (cavalry, trench warfare), The same happened with the allies by using masssed fleets of bombers and the invention of proper amphibious warfare.
Some things dont change , submarines , mines, but the days of skyhawks supporting the NZ infantry in vietnam are over (oops that never happened,)or the RNZAF supporting the NZ Army in the North African desert,( that never happend either).
Remind me again when the RNZAF did fly its aircraft in support of NZ ground troops, my sources only go back 60 years
Vote:May 9th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
What new weapons are going to replace fighter aircraft which seem to do a lot of reconnaisance with human beings on board? Computers get things wrong and heaven help us if we have to rely on them primarily.
Vote:May 9th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
recon: the early 1980′s was about the only time the USSR could launch an amphibious invasion. By then it had several new amphibious craft-carring ships. Its aircraft carriers were crap, so it would have had problems with the air-support side of things.
Vote:May 9th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Our troops since 1943 have needed air cover and because we did not have much had to rely on the British and the USA provided it. It would be bludging if we are able to provide it now and did not. Even the Skyhawks were better than nothing. The war in the Pacific was pretty mechanised. The theories change fast when real bullets with the potential to do real damage are flying around. The first statement by the peaceniks and theoreticians in the front lines when the bullets are whizzing around will be “Where is the air force?” Whats eg $25 million for a fighter when you are being shot at.
Vote:May 10th, 2005 at 8:30 am
Let me get this right, when we did have our own strike aircraft, but still relied on the US and UK airforces, we weren’t bludging. It was alright then if the strike aircraft were useless, it was better than nothing. That’s an interesting distinction , useless is better than nothing.
Essentials like army radios were Vietnam era, but that’s OK because useless is better than nothing.
Even if we sent our combat infantry to Iraq today to be with US, UK , Australia, but without the LAV and having no protection against IED or RPG is alright since its better than nothing – hang on it is nothing but its OK since we have leased F16′s instead. Then again they are useless in the current Iraq situation, so they are alright after all.
And may I remind you it was labour in the late 1980′s that ordered THREE Anzac frigates, but it was National in the late 1990′s that canceled the option on the 3rd ship without any ideas of what to do instead(were back to nothing again ). Now labour has actually signed a deal to buy 2 large corvettes AND a roll on roll off support ship. That support ship , especially built ,replaced a second hand former orange carrier that National bought that was …. well useless.
Vote: