Nuclear powered ships
November 5th, 2010 at 10:16 pm by David FarrarNZPA report:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says her country’s nuclear-powered warships are safe and reliable, and whether they visit here again is something New Zealand has to decide.
US submarines carry nuclear weapons, surface warships don’t but most of them are nuclear-powered.
No, they are not. In fact few ships would be ineligible to visit.
The US Navy has 289 ships, being:
- 11 Aircraft carriers – nuclear powered
- 10 Amphibious assault ships – non-nuclear
- 9 Amphibious transport docks – non-nuclear
- 12 Dock landing ships – non-nuclear
- 22 Cruisers – non-nuclear
- 55 Destroyers – non-nuclear
- 30 Frigates – non-nuclear
- 71 Submarines
- 18 ballistic submarines – nuclear powered and armed
- 53 attack submarines – nuclear powered only
The ballistic submarines don’t really do port visits. They sit under the ocean waiting to blow Russia up 
The aircraft carriers are also very unlikely to visit NZ, even if no ban. They’re too large for most docks, and more to the point they tend to be needed in hot spots a lot.
So really the ban on nuclear power (which is illogical but is now “iconic”) only stops the attack submarines from visiting.
Going back to the NZPA article which said most surface warships are nuclear powered, it is in fact only 11 out of 218, or 5% of the surface fleet.
Related posts:
- Nuclear Ships Ban
- Palmer calls for US ships to visit
- So what are we banning?
- Armstrong on ship visits
November 5th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Wasn’t the issue more to do with the fact that the US would neither confirm nor deny whether a visiting ship was carrying nuclear armaments? If that policy has changed (and why shouldn’t it given the public nature of the above statistics), then there shouldn’t be any problem for those ships visiting under NZ’s current policy…
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
When did a US sub last dock at a port in NZ? I have a vague recollection of visiting one in the port of Gisborne in about 1965.
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
The horrid US is the guarantor of western freedom. If and when China starts flexing it’s new muscles this childish band-standing will stop quickly enough.
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
@wat – China and Samoa a getting to be best buddies. Flexing? Perhaps a little …
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
The ballistic submarines don’t really do port visits… although I bet they like the Kaikoura crayfish !
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Did I really write “it’s”?
Be kind and put that down to these cans of Old Speckled Hen
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Nuclear powered ships don’t generate any CO2. So NZ will only allow ship visits that contribute to climate change? (*) National should work with the Greens to encourage the use of nuclear power in a high proportion of visiting warships. Setting a target might help… maybe aim for 40% of visiting ships being nuclear powered by 2020?
(*) If climate change existed, of course, but let’s assume it does for the sake of argument.
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Old Speckled Hen… OK, look if that’s the only mistake you made then cautiously proceed to the next can.
Vote:November 5th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
No disrespect to the boys and girls of the RNZAF, but they probably couldn’t tell if a US sub was in NZ waters anyway. Mainly due to decisions made by the last govt and Helen that subs weren’t important enough to find.
@Burt.
Vote:Don’t you mean west coast whitebait and blue cod? There’s plenty of stories about weird things being seen round that way that point towards subs having been in NZ waters, if even only transiting to a different preprogrammed launch location.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Yanqui Go Home!!
Oh, and take me with you.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 3:45 am
So at a measly 5% then National have all the excuses needed to repeal this embarrassing cold war ban. I remember speaking to somebody who was attached to the state department and he said that they would immediately invest in our military and allow us to buy ships etc for far cheaper than what we paid for our frigates. The longer we hold out, the more it will cost us.
If National won’t bring it up then I am sure ACT will.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 4:16 am
John Key should send the invite immediately for a US Destroyer to visit Wellington.
It’ll be good fun.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 4:34 am
The price of the anti-nuclear policy has been considerable and when I say price I mean $$. The extra cost to the NZ military over the last 25 years would run into hundreds of millions due to being shut out of preferential equipment pricing and not being allowed to have access to certain new and better equipment. Whilst much of the slimmed down size and function of the NZ armed forces has been deliberate government policy (eg Labour scrapping the Skyhawks), the cost benefit analysis of upgrading to F 16s would’ve been a whole lot different and maybe the government of the day, had we still been an ally, might’ve decided against what is still a radical downgrading of NZ’s military capability.
In my days in Labour it became apparent that Lange saw the anti-nuclear row as a way for him to burnish his left wing credentials with the Labour base after the hammering it took when he allowed Rogernomics to be implimented. The row, the Oxford Union debate and all the ensuing positive NZ media coverage became a perfect cover for the blitzkrieg that Labour unleased as Roger Douglas undid NZ creaking and over regulated economy. The narrative of the plucky South Pacific minnow sticking in the eye of the mighty USA appealed to the U 50 age group in NZ who at the time were not the WW2 generation who saw America as the military power that protected NZ from Japanese aggression in the war and saw the value of the ANZUS alliance.
When you marry rising anti-American sentiment to a centre left political bent that underpins the entire NZ body politic, its no wonder the anti-nuclear policy has become the third rail of NZ politics. No centre right government will touch it especially after the Brash “gone by lunchtime” comment and how that (and the Exclusive Brethren) essentially blew the 2005 election for Brash. National under Key is as popular as a centre right government will ever be and yet Key would never contemplate a switch.
When I was young I thought it was cool and I argued with my father (who is a military historian and knew exactly what the negative implications were after a suspension of ANZUS). Now I see the cost of the policy and wish it were reversed and yet I am a realist and it’s cost is part of the package deal of New Zealand – like the fact that the wage gap with Australia will likely never close because there is no political will amongst NZers to do the things that need to be done to close that gap.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 6:20 am
The price of the anti-nuclear policy has been considerable and when I say price I mean $$.
That isn’t the price of the policy, it’s a cost the US chose voluntarily to impose on us because it wanted to and because it could. If you’re looking for someone to blame for those costs, you need to look overseas – no New Zealanders were involved in imposing it (except perhaps a few duplicitous National MPs, but they wouldn’t have counted for anything in the decision-making).
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:10 am
Why would the US want to send her ships here anyway?
Vote:Its not like China or anyone is expanding in the Pacific?
Anyway, at any given time, half of NZ is present in San
Diego and can see the fleet at Coronado anyway.
November 6th, 2010 at 7:17 am
KIA
Thanks for the summary – concise and informative.
The last US nuclear-powerd vessel to visit NZ was, I believe, the USS Long Beach, which was given the ususal ‘Yankee go-home’ reception by the wh are the usual suspects in such matters – Minto, Shadbolt (yes, ‘Mayor Tim’ before he saw the light and became a conservative capitalist member of the establishement) and all their mates – anything to ‘stick it to’ the hated, loatheerd (and envied) Americans.
That the same policies rmain in place are an indication of the ideological hatred and anti-American policies of Clark et al, and an example of the brainwashing of several generations of school pupils under their administration., but as the means justified the end . . . Unfortunately, with the likes of Locke, Norman DeLahunty and (especially) Bradford still around, it is unlikely to change, and no doubt Minto would be leading the charge. . .
If however a Chinese or Russian Nuke-powered or armed vessel arrived, at our gates, there is no doubt that the silence would be resounding . . .
Finallly, by way of light relief, at least two of the USS Long Beach’s sailors aquired ‘trophies’ during that vessel’s visit to Auckland, and several Kiwi girls married sailors they met when the vessel was in port, which says a lot about the supposedly solid ‘national anti-nuke stance’ that was being peddled at the time. Having said that it, was also very, very noticable that the female-wing of the ‘anti’s’ absolutely hated the young women concerned (two of whom I knew personally – and they were both gorgeous), a stance which probably had very little to do with the protest and alot to do with jealousy and envy . . .
Evidently, despite all protestations to the contrary, some things transcend politics.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:22 am
I wonder how many US subs have been in the auckland habour in the last 20 years…
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Caleb
Short answer – none, the last ‘official’ visit bing the USS Haddo in 1979, while because the harbour is relatively shallow, ‘undisclosed’ sub-surface visits are unlikely to have occured, but then again . . .
The public will of course never know.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Considering that the US has declared all its surface vessels to be nuclear-weapons-free, the neither confirm nor deny stance becomes academic WRT conventionally powered vessels and the question in theory at least does not even need to be asked. Yet still we do not have them here.
Vote:It would appear the the anti-US sentiment is now so deeply ingrained in the country’s consciousness that no politicians are willing to disturb the sleeping giant within.
I for one would welcome nuclear powered vessels if only that it would stimulate the debate over clean energy sources and force a few closet greenies to examine their souls. As for conventionally powered vessels, they should be common but then we haven’t seen the Royal Navy for a few years either, only Chile and China it seems.
November 6th, 2010 at 7:40 am
I think the last Nuke ship to visit was the USS Texas in 1983. Long Beach and Truxtun visited in 1976, and Truxton returned in ’82.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Did our no US warship visit policy come before or after the rainbox warrior?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Hey Kiwi-in-America at 4.34 AM. I haven’t read such good sense on this blog in many a long day.
Oh, if only a few more of the vociferous young – and I have to say misguided – anti-nuclear-istas of the ’70s had reached your conclusions in time for NZ’s international defence reputation to have remained intact. (And, I might add, before we’d been forced to spend top dollar for big ticket defence kit that we could have obtained via US sources at a fraction of the price we had to pay)
I’m now a Kiwi of 35 years standing, but, when I came to this fair land in ’74 after serving in the Cold War UK Royal Air Force for 22 years, I thought Kiwis were out of their tiny minds to turn their backs on the alliance with the rest of the developed Western nations.
Now, of course – as many of us realised at the time – it turns out all this holier-than-thou anti-nuclear posturing was just the ol’ Labour party and its fellow travellers making what amounted to a debating point. I’d like to say that fortunately people in NZ have a more mature view of international power politics and defence issues these days, but I don’t honestly think that’s the case.
Guess we’d better carry on pretending to be cute little hobbits in our Middle-earth bolt holes, eh? Maybe then even more visiting VIPs will go on telling us what ‘nice’ people we are and how ‘nice’ it must be to live in Godzone! Punching above our weight? Don’t make me laugh!!
(And, before someone suggests it, I will not go back to where I came from!)
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Carrier porn!, an artists rendition of the USS Gerald R. Ford which is due to be in service by 2015. She will be capable of launching 90 aircraft on 220 sorties a day, including the F-35C Lightning II, and she will defend herself from attacking missiles, aircraft and surface threats with the Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM.
Oh, and she will cost a cool $8.1 billion making her the worlds sixth most expensive single object.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:27 am
The USS Gerald R. Ford? I must say, there is something defiantly American about the sheer hubris of naming a flagship after one of your most accident-prone leaders…
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:34 am
How typical of DPF to let a few salient facts get in the way of good anti american sentiment.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Akaroa Well said and you are more than welcome.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Slightyrighty: “I think the last Nuke ship to visit was the USS Texas in 1983. Long Beach and Truxtun visited in 1976, and Truxton returned in ’82″
I believe the last Nuclear vessel to visit NZ was the the USS Queenfish (Sturgeon Class Attack Sub) which visited Auckland in 84′. I was 8 y.o at the time and my Father was involved in the NZ Police security detail which resulted in my brother and I being invited on board for the day.
The crew on board that day gave us both a memory that will last a life time and they treated us like kings. We were allowed to play with the periscopes while they put the control room into battle conditions, demonstrated sonar systems etc. The highlight had to be the personal tour by the Captain including to the torpedo rooms, which if any one still cares about the confirm/deny ruling I can confirm they were carrying nuke torpedo’s. These were under armed guard by a sailor (rifle and pistol). One thing which amused my brother and I was that while we were able to be shown the torpedo’s our father was made to wait outside the secure area, I guess there is at least one advantage to being a kid.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Twenty plus years later and NZ is still bound by this crock concocted by the obese Lange and his Labour disciples. It is time to scrap that awful piece of legislation.
Will Labour-lite do it? Never ever.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:02 am
“That isn’t the price of the policy, it’s a cost the US chose voluntarily to impose on us because it wanted to and because it could.”
Psycho Milt, isn’t that naive? Lange would have read about the consequences before he launched the policy and he didn’t care and neither did Hulun. The damage those two have caused NZ is un-freakin-believable and yet many many useful idiots still think they were wonderful in their day. Fuck they’re dumb.
I disagree with KIA when he says the warm-tummy policy was a counter to Rogernomics, for Lange didn’t know what the consequences were until very late in the day when it was all too late. Douglas was a very smart man, the way he did and thank fuck he did, for we would be a banana republic like Cuba if he hadn’t. It has clearly escaped the attention of all but the more fanatical lefties and every single useful idiot in the whole country, that the fact that every single successful economy uses a similar variety of Hayeckian settings, means that its the way to go. And NZ along with Thatcher in the UK, were the very first in the world to begin applying them. Now how can every single successful economy in the whole world be wrong, and the NZ lefties and gajillions of useful idiots that sadly live here, be right?
Sorry for thread diversion, it just pisses me off that many people just look straight past that gaping reality.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:07 am
The US navy is being truculent on this issue. They demand we admit all ships and until we do, they stay out. The US Government has now narrowed this to a “Navy” problem and has stepped around it and with pressure from Australia has now normalised the relationship. The US is clearly concerned about Chin’a interest in this region and will have noted the free trade agreement we have. It will be interesting what our response to be to a visit by a Chinese navy vessel, to be quickly followed by a request by a US one – perhaps??
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Well, remember even Geoffrey Palmers was recently suggesting it would be in NZ’s best interests to resume US (non-nuclear) warship visits … after all nuclear weapons were removed from the US surface fleet 19 years ago now !
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10638487
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:15 am
The girls from the hut valley will be so pleased for a us warship to visit. They love seamen
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Does anybody still believe that the 84 Labour parties “no nukes’ policy was really about keeping NZ nuclear free?
The policy was led by Klark, Screaming Wilson, Dyson the drunk and the rest of the hard left faction, even when Lange had negotiated a way of keeping face with the Yanks by sending the USS Buchanan on an official visit to NZ they found a way to back Lange into a corner.
It was never about keeping NZ nuclear free, it was (and remains for Labour’s hard left) all about being anti American and anti capitalist, ANZUS was effectively sabotaged by relics from the 60′s anti Vietnam peace movement.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:25 am
I reckon our best defense is the “keep quiet and pretend no-one can see us” approach.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:42 am
“…our best defense is the “keep quiet and pretend no-one can see us” approach.”
Our best defense is distinguishing ourselves from Australia in the eyes of China, which so far we’re successful in doing. It’s not that we should be anti-Australia, no way am I saying that. It’s just the US right now is where the UK was 100 years ago and this is China’s century so deal with it.
Hopefully it won’t end in confrontation but it might and if it does Australia will probably be considered an enemy. So where should we be if that happens, is the cold hard question.
It’s pointless to argue we should stand up to the aggressor, because we’re not going to win. The only way China could be defeated is if Japan, India, Russia and the US all align and that’s not going to happen.
However one feels about it that is in fact the cold hard reality.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:44 am
As long as the US declares a ship isn’t carrying nuc’s and obviously isn’t nuc powered then yeah..Hello sailor. After all we’ve had visits from military ships from Australia, Canada, the UK and even an armed US coastguard ship in recent years. And while we’re at it how about a friendly visit from the Chinese Navy.. open to all, enemy of none I say. Just leave the WMD’s at home.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@david 07.39
French vessels too occasionally:
Vote:http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/97441/french-vessel-pays-goodwill-visit
November 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am
# OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,327) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:16 am
John Key should send the invite immediately for a US Destroyer to visit Wellington.
It’ll be good fun.
And besides I recall that when they do visit the “girls” round town make a lot of dosh, just like they did diuring R&R for the Vietnam guys.
Now I know the yankee dollar ain’t worth much currently but the girls can do cut price deals like everyone else. Or maybe the Wharehouse can hire a shed and run “where everyone gets a bargan” and Bunnings of course could do a “15% off’ for the same deal elsewhere.
# Monty (580) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 9:15 am
The girls from the hut valley will be so pleased for a us warship to visit. They love seamen
Hey Monty you spelt semen wrong!!!
And the ships might visit Auckland, greater choice of fine young South Aucklanders.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
reid: Hopefully it won’t end in confrontation but it might and if it does Australia will probably be considered an enemy. So where should we be if that happens, is the cold hard question.
Yeah, the policy of The Netherlands just before World War II. Didn’t help them.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Richard H –
As long as the US declares a ship isn’t carrying nuc’s and obviously isn’t nuc powered then yeah..
I hear that this is exactly the reason America has been so pissed off with NZ for so long. They thought that they had come to an under the table agreement with Lange that all their ships would not carry nuclear weapons, but, for obvious reasons, that they would not declare it as such. Lange went against his word on this agreement for political point scoring with the hard-left. I guess Americans don’t like people who break agreements made in secret, that they think that they are untrustworthy and that they saw political alignment with the hard-left (communists) as contrary to their own views.
You don’t kick over the beehive if you want honey and we have been paying for it in many ways since then.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:23 am
There have been good debates about this on Kiwiblog in the past:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/armstrong_on_ship_visits.html
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/04/palmer_calls_for_us_ships_to_visit.html#comment-681206
The latter includes some good points made by Paul Buchanan (no right-winger to be sure):
and I’ll repeat some of my own:
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:25 am
“Yeah, the policy of The Netherlands just before World War II. Didn’t help them.”
The Netherlands happened to be in the way of greater targets, that’s why. We’re not, we’re at the end of the line, geographically speaking.
Like I said, even if Australia and China engage, that doesn’t mean we have to.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:31 am
But we would, though; the defence white paper released recently unequivocally states that if Australia was attacked, we would certainly come to her aid.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Reid – If Australia and China engage we’ll be a necessary part of the Chinese supply line for an assault on the east coast. I dont think Fiji and Samoa have the infrastructure needed.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:44 am
After 25 years we have proved
Vote:1. We are no less secure without ANZUS
2. We get international respect by not being a US lap-dog
3. The world did not end
4. The US still trades with us (and lucky for us we don’t have a free trade agreement in their favour)
5. We became happily independent with a huge increase in National pride
November 6th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Sorry to burst your bubble BB but anti nuke sentiments preceded Lange and co by more than thirty years. The first protests were in Britain in the late fifties with the Aldermaston marches but even those protests were preceded when 1950s Europe was gripped by a very real fear of nuclear conflict.
Vote:In the early sixties the anti nuke movement made ground with support from religious leaders and I can vividly remember my mother being absolutely distraught over the prospect of a nuclear war during the Cuban crisis with first test ban treaties signed in 1963.
The negotiations for a non proliferation treaty began in 1958 but the final agreement was not reached until 1968.
The anti French testing protests began in the early seventies and continued through to the mid eighties.
There were anti nuke protests in Europe during the seventies, three mile island protests in the US, huge rallies in the US in the early eighties and the Greenham common womens peace camp which began 1982 and remained in place until 2000.
Sure, the Lange government were the first to actually ban anything that could carry nuclear weapons but the anti nuke sentiment was hardly a new thing.
November 6th, 2010 at 10:54 am
“…we’ll be a necessary part of the Chinese supply line for an assault on the east coast. I dont think Fiji and Samoa have the infrastructure needed.”
If I were China I’d first destroy her air power then blockade her. This is after I’d destroyed her air power. Australia’s forces aren’t equipped to deal with two simultaneous strikes: one up North launched and supplied from Indonesia and one into the NSW coastline. The NSW strike could re-supply themselves from conquered territory. This is of course assuming that large armies had been raised in SE Asia esp Indonesia and Malaysia because this wouldn’t happen unless China was already busily engaging the US as well so it’s not like it can devote herself to this full-time.
The US submarine force would be a formidable problem for them, it could easily defeat them were it intact and available but would that be the case.
The fact the Russians have got a missile called Sunburn which has terminal evasion capability a high speed and enough kinetic energy to sink an aircraft carrier using that alone: i.e. without a nuclear warhead, is a big big problem for the US battle groups.
That’s the context of the situation in which we may one day have to ask ourselves: which is the best course of action from here?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:00 am
The anti-nuclear ban was always based on a lie: that the nuclear-powered ships were potentially unsafe (what about accidents, the Left screamed) and that their coming here with their nuclear-tipped weapons in their seaborne holsters made us targets.
Which might ot might not have been true.
The answer then, according to the Left, was to make ourselves seem harmless and neutral by banning nuclear-powered and -armed ships from our fair shores. That obviously affected the United States and Britain.
If the Left had paid heed to some fairly recent history they would have noticed that countries trying to wear their harmless and neutral colours did not necessarily deter aggressors if they happened to be in the way.
In 1914 neutral and harmless little Belgium was essential to the success of the German Schlieffen Plan — the rapid, outflanking advance into France that was needed to knock it out before the troops could be shifted to the Eastern Front before Russia fully mobilised.
In 1940 neutral and harmless little Belgium was essential to the success of the German blitzkrieg into northern France that outflanked and bottled up the French and the British Expeditionary Force at the port of Dunquerque.
Neutral and harmless little Holland was invaded to secure the right flank of the same blitzkrieg. Neutral and harmless little Luxemburg was invaded because it enabled the Germans to attack from a frontage no-one dreamed they would erupt out of.
A couple of months earlier, neutral and harmless little Denmark was invaded because it was the step-off to the invasion of Norway, also neutral and harmless, but not little.
Grand Admiral Raeder, the chief of the German Navy, demanded the invasion of Norway because he needed to widen his flanks and make it more difficult for the Royal Navy to operate against his ships in the North Sea and stop them escaping out into the Atlantic.
Earlier that year the destroyer HMS Cossack had bailed up the Altmark, one of the supply ships for the armoured ship (‘pocket battleship’) Admiral Graf Spee, in a Norwegian fiord, and freed the hundreds of Allied and neutral sailors she carried in her holds.
That convinced the Herr Grand Admiral that Norway was a risk. His Fuehrer also became convinced that Britain and France could use Norway as a launching-pad for an invasion.
It is not generally known that he had good reason to believe that, especially when Britain and France began shipping troops to harmless and neutral Norway before the Germans invaded.
Anyway, Norway had been determined to be so harmless and neutral that it had all but abolished its army (the government were Socialists), passed resolutions declaring peace and love to all men (and, I suppose, vimmin), and locked up what few tanks they had.
So when Der Fuehrer ordered the invasions and occupations of his neutral and harmless neighbours, there were few to resist him.
The Norwegians salvaged some national honour when a unit launched torpedoes at the Bluecher, a passing German heavy cruiser, and sank her. She was carrying a battalion of infantry, and they, from memory, suffered heavy losses.
One could say that the Norwegian campaign cost the Germans dearly. It did, but the losses were mostly inflicted by the British.
One harmless, neutral and small neighbour that Der Fuehrer did not try to invade was Switzerland. Lots of speculation about that. One was the obvious: Switzerland was armed and possibly dangerous — General Guisan mobilised 600,000 men in early 1940 and it became plain to Herr Hitler (as The Times unfailingly called him for years) and his generals that their goose-steppers might have problems trying to fight the Swiss in their mountains and valleys.
Other speculation was that Germany needed Switzerland for its banks ability to handle money and trade.
But the point is, Switzerland was deemed too dangerous and too costly to invade.
And my point about this Saturday morning ramble was that the Left and Labour lied to New Zealanders in the 70s and 80s. If the Balloon Really Had Gone Up, New Zealand’s anti-nuclear posturing would not have saved us.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
If you were going to attack Australia (mainly for its mineral wealth and space) it would be useful to get control of NZ airspace and ports. The Greens would just roll over and say “peace” which is code for we surrender. Indeed the Hauraki gulf would be a useful deep waterport. A chinese navy anchored there could then hit Aussie. I guess the Americans would wipe that navy out with the few nuclear weapons. Bye bye Auckland and much of the North Island. But wait we are safe our anti nuclear weapons legislation would stop them.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
cha
Never said that the anti nuke sentiment was a new thing, my point is that the Labour govt of the times hard left element element used the anti nuke argument to push their real agenda which is anti American.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:04 am
China is expanding in the Pacific,our stance with Fiji is not helping either!
Vote:This is not China’s century but they sure are pushing. I read recently the USN were shocked that in the middle of one of their exercises a Chinese sub cheekily popped up undectected among the fleet! This shows a new and dangerous technical ability on their part. China and India are building massive naval facilities on their coasts in an incredible arms race and here we are in Hobbit land giving the fingers to our closests mates in the region the US and Australia! And it’s not about trade dollars,it should be about principle and what’s right ,the democratic way. The US ,NZ and Oz stand for that in this region China doesn’t. It’s shameful that we don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with our old allies. But then new Labour never saw it that way.
To those who think the screaming pinkos would shut up in an emergency ,think again ,they’d be the ones to run up red flags and sing the internationale when the comrades were marching down Queen St, Franco called them “sixth columnists”,everyone knows who they are.
The reason the anti nuclear issue is “iconic”(that over used NZ media favourite term) is because state institutions keep pushing that mantra. RNZ, TVNZ, govt departments , the education establishment,Labour unions etc keep banging on about it.Time for National to put an end to that indoctrination esp in our classrooms and universities.
To reid: China will not engage Oz in isolation,they’d have to take on Korea,Japan,Taiwan and the US at least. It would be a regional issue and NZ would be morally bound to support Oz.
Being at the end of the line didn’t stop the Japs from trying!
November 6th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Hmmmm….. It’d take a small assault force to capture NZ and set up a defensive perimeter. (Nobody would come and bomb them as they’d be bombing us). However, for instance, a Chinese Carrier grp in the Tasman would be very vulnerable to a submarine/air attack. Forget Sunburn – in time , as is the nature of developing of military technology, there will be a counter measure.
Our best course of action would always be neutrality, but we may not have a choice if it comes.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Sorry,off topic.
Vote:tripewriter. I read somewhere that Admiral Canaris.,tipped the Swiss off to the invasion plan,thus the mobilisation that forestalled Hitlers invasion. The intelligence aspects of the War will never be fully known and of course Canaris was executed for his anti Nazi activities.A true martyr.?
Perhaps a lesson from the Swiss is that fast mobilisation is a good defence,is NZ prepared?……..that was a pig flying past the window!
November 6th, 2010 at 11:16 am
“The US ,NZ and Oz stand for that in this region China doesn’t. It’s shameful that we don’t stand shoulder to shoulder with our old allies.”
kowtow I hate to say it but unfortunately that’s sentimental argument and the question as to which is the correct approach has to be based on a factual analysis of the potential outcomes and on nothing else whatsoever. When you’re talking about potential national survival, that is only sensible approach.
Like I said above, I don’t agree with people who say it’s inevitable we’ll be invaded as a stepping stone to Australia. It might be desirable for China to do that but it’s not essential. That being the case, we do have an option and if we stand with the west we also fall with it and is that what we want, based on our factual analysis of what that would actually mean in terms of the real things that would happen to our country?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Why do you assume South Korea, Japan and Taiwan would be western allies? I think that’s highly questionable bearing in mind that various things that would need to have happened to bring us to this potential event. You can run a number of scenarios where none of those countries would be anything but neutral or allied, to China.
It would be more than a regional issue it would be a global issue, as I said above.
Being at the end of the line in 2020, will have a completely different set of dynamics operating to those that were operating in 1943.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:36 am
reid
You are a defeatist. You have already decided that China’s might cannot be realistically challenged .That being the case we get out of the way.
That is cowardly and immoral.
If Britain had taken that attitude and there were a few in govt who wanted to then last century would have been the Axis century! it wasn’t,thanks to Churchill and the Dominions across the sea! (and a lot more besides).
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Psycho Milt, isn’t that naive? Lange would have read about the consequences before he launched the policy and he didn’t care and neither did Hulun. The damage those two have caused NZ is un-freakin-believable…
Not naive, merely accurate in identifying cause and effect. If you know an acquaintenance is a strong and ill-tempered man, you stand up for yourself in a disagreement with him anyway, and he beats you up, there isn’t really any case to be made that you damaged yourself. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the ship visits, there is no basis for saying Labour was responsible for the resulting financial damage to New Zealand – the responsibility for that lies solely with the United States govt.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
What a whining, miserable bunch most of you are. History happened, there is nothing you can do about it now. Suck it up and move on.
Of course those who support bending over as a nation and having numerous nuclear missiles stuck up our whatsits have to face the fact that the vast majority of Kiwis support the policy, so much so that even the Nats have had to come into line. The answer is simple: we have all become deluded because we don’t agree with the jingoistic right wing rump.
History suggests we have nothing to fear from China. Apart from Tibet, which China has always claimed as their territory, China does not have a history of imperialism or expansionism.
You cannot say the same about the USA.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Let’s see now China intervened in the Korean war against the UN,and continues to support one of the most repressive govts in the world there;
Has had border wars with Taiwan
Russia
India
Vietnam
supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge
massacred millions of it’s own people and continues to suppress dissent
wants to buy vast streches of Africa
and is now engaging in territorial disputes with Japan.
No nothing much to worry about comrade! Yankee go home.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
How prescient! That wouldn’t be out of the realms of possibility tvb. If it were to occur in this fashion the whole anti-nuclear legislation would come tumbling down pretty quickly, by necessity.
You know, this kind of scenario would make the “benign” security comment of Helen Clarks look like the piece of idiocy it is.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Maggie. Still dishing out bj’s to the commies? Your talking points are sooooo old….lol
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I just find it incredibly vexing we have managed to come back to the fold with the US just short of accepting war ships back
and therefore revenue.
Sevicemen contribute directly to economies and the govt has managed to completely isolate that very substance.
That tells me the agenda is police state anad continued harrassment of drivers to prop a failing economy.
With international servicemen there would hardly be a need for increased taxes and definitely not the additional GST.
We can blame the ETS on the US HAARP technology that was doubtless employed to undermine the Sth Isld to promote
population move to the Nth Isld and centralise and control the nation.
Kiwi’s are estimated to flee by the tens of thousands shortly to Oz which will leave us with a immigrant nation all centred in
the North. By the end of next decade I should think.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
I’m not sure that China currently has the sealift capacity to launch an invasion of Australia and/or NZ. Most of their amphibious forces (about a division) are primarily poised as a deterrent to China’s more immediate and local threats. Having said that, they could probably ramp up their production and training pretty quickly.
I would imagine that in a scenario where it all turned pear-shaped, and Australasia was under threat of invasion, the US would be at the stage of resorting to strategic nuclear strikes.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
You’re quite wrong Maggie and you’d see it yourself were you not so blinded by your mindless ideological hatred.
For history does in fact suggest we can say the same about the USA. Ever since she first existed she has never not once ever expressed one iota of hostile invasive intent toward NZ. Quite the opposite based on her sterling performance in the Coral Sea which saved us from Japanese invasion.
Maggie, only an idiot thinks that whether or not we had the “right” to do it is in anyway aposite to the real question: which is, what precisely has the policy done in terms of actual real things that have happened and of those things, which are positive and which are negative. That is the only repeat only repeat only question that makes any sense to ask. Sorry to keep repeating myself but your blind hatred seems to run especially deep. So in terms of that question, here’s a list of damaging things that have actually truly really in fact happened to us as a direct outcome of the policy:
Immediate cessation of a great deal of shared intelligence. The minimum amount continued to be supplied but nothing like what we were getting. Only our participation in the Echelon network continued and only this prevented a complete cut-off.
Immediate increase in price for spare parts and new equipment for the military. [The offer of the F-16s being an exception a decade or so later, Bolger's rejection of which was unbelievably foolish.]
Withdrawal of invitations to joint-exercises and elimination of ANZUS which was a cold war alliance and remember, the cold war was still happening and dangerous and the collapse of the USSR was not even on the event horizon in 1984.
Loss of access to many ears of influence for diplomacy, trade.
Failure to secure FTA with the US at earliest possible time.
Now, here’s a list of positive things that have actually truly really in fact happened to us as a direct outcome of the policy:
A warm feeling in some people’s tummies: i.e. a sense of “yes, we won, we took on the US and we beat them and oh wasn’t it wonderful and it makes us so peaceful and loving and just really really special to the whole wide world and it just gives me such a wonderful glow deep in my tummy, tum, tum.” You know, one of those feelings. And that happens to about 3/4 of us.
Now by all means add things to either list if you can but I bet you can’t for that is, in fact, all there is and all there has ever been. Equally, dispute anything whatsoever if you don’t think they’ve actually in fact happened.
Now, do you suggest the policy is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
So does this mean the hippies prefer the fossil-fuel powered ones?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Also I find it extremely intriguing that the US has waited to make an official visit here by a top dignitary until we had a PM of real and international substance. I don’t think a Liarbour govt would ever have received a top US delegation
Of course, Big Bruv is complpetely correct that the US has been dissuaded by Liarbour’s anti US stance.
This is why they boycotted Fiji. To assist a Chinese takeover in teh Pacific. They must be reeling the US has been invited in.
Not to mention China!
But uneasy to forget is the US huge debt to China. Be intriguing to see how that fact applies practically.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
“We can blame the ETS on the US HAARP technology that was doubtless employed to undermine the Sth Isld to promote population move to the Nth Isld and centralise and control the nation.”
Yes, that’s what I was blaming it on as well, wiki.
Seriously though, it’s fascinating what Tesla was able to achieve. (HAARP is based on Tesla’s research and findings.)
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Sam makes a great point. The fundamental opposition by former PM David Lange was with America’s insistence of its “confirm or deny” policy. It would neither confirm nor deny which ship was carrying nuclear capabilities. American arrogance is responsible for our nuclear-free policy and I for one oppose any upcoming ‘appeasement’ on this position.
This is a matter of principle for New Zealander’s both past and present, and I would like to see this a long-term position as well.
We have strategic relations with the Asian community, in my opinion they are much more beneficial than any “American partnership”. America’s foreign policy is notoriously one-sided and self-motivated, NZ should play no role in its dirty little schemes.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Big Bruv @ 11:02
Since the Ship ban thing, National have had 10 years to overturn it.
Why didnt they ?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Thanks Reid. Someone knows what I’m talking about.
Climate change is HAARP.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
The US would probably already have done that I reckon. One of the most likely scenarios for WWIII is it starts with nuclear salvos, not ends with them. Who the hell knows what happens next. Everything depends on how the US responds to China’s rise to power. To understand a nation, especially in wartime, you need to understand its people not its govt. Personally I was expecting Chinese communism to collapse when every village got a TV set but I was wrong. However how long can the govt keep a lid on a One Party state. It’s an inherently unstable form of govt and has never been tried in this age of mass global communications where comparisons with conditions in every other country in the world are but a mouse click away? (I’m aware of the Great internet Wall.) My hope anyway, if not my expectation, is that China will transition internally and peacefully to a democracy but obviously how to get there from here is another question.
I think Maggie does have one good point from her 12:43 in that China throughout her exceedingly long history has indeed never shown colonial inclinations. The only issues she’s got currently are with the border states of Taiwan and Tibet and Tibet’s for strategic reasons not expansionist reasons. Chinese are also highly intelligent people and although they have what to us seems a strong streak of ruthlessness in them that’s not an uncommon trait in many Asian gene pools.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
kowtow, if you can’t distinguish realism from defeatism then get out of MY way for you are a complete moron.
I haven’t said anything about whether I like it or not I have simply said this is what could happen and it could. That’s the point, not whether any of us like it.
If you wonder, of course I don’t. I’d love for us to be on the side of the good guys and vanquish the enemy good and proper. Duh. Of course I would.
The question is, as I keep repeating, is whether that would be the case and if it’s not, which is quite conceivable, what do we do?
I haven’t actually given my answer to that question yet, so I’m a bit puzzled as to why you seem to think I have.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Psycho Milt, I’ve often wondered whether the effect of the 1987 crash weren’t exacerbated for NZ as a result of certain actions being taken by people with CIA connections in the finance industry. We certainly suffered harder and longer than Australia and the rest of the world. We’ll probably never know whether it was or not, so I didn’t include it in my list of actual costs above.
Lange knew the consequences. What do you think he and George Schultz talked about when he came over and they talked?
Remember this was in the context of the cold war and you have to analyse the US and the world of that time not of this time. This is vital to understand. Retaliation was to be expected and in the end it was pretty mild and that’s because the US was generous. Honestly people who think the US had no justification whatsoever for taking the actions it did, are completely mental. They truly are. This is basic international relations, as taught at the primer school level.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“Since the Ship ban thing, National have had 10 years to overturn it. Why didnt they ?”
Easy to answer: they lack balls and a spine, they are cowards.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Actually, it’s basic bullying as taught at primary school level. Yes, the US was run by unpleasant cold warriors at the time who could be expected to punish disobedience by lesser countries. That doesn’t mean the NZ govt’s job was to appease them. “Lange knew the consequences” is hardly any better than “Well she wouldn’t have got those bruises if she’d just made me the fucken eggs.”
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Uhh Milt, international geopolitics where it’s real and not pretend, is not a school yard.
Highly intelligent serious people work in it all day, every day. The US is not at fault in anyway, for doing what it did.
It did not behave like a bully, at all.
It told NZ that IF it chose this path, these were the consequences, which then ensued. What’s bullying or even aggressive about that?
It’s childish to think that either a person or a nation can do what it wants, without consequences. Life isn’t like that and neither is geo-politics.
I can’t be arsed discussing this point anymore for as I’ve repeatedly said above, it’s meaningless. How about giving me some real benefits of the policy, if you think it’s so great?
Just one real actual benefit would do. Just one, but it has to be something real that exists in the world, like a single nuclear warhead that was destroyed as a direct outcome of the policy, something like that.
Just one. C’mon, you can do it, can’t you?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Clint Heine (1,077) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 3:45 am
So at a measly 5% then National have all the excuses needed to repeal this embarrassing cold war ban. I remember speaking to somebody who was attached to the state department and he said that they would immediately invest in our military and allow us to buy ships etc for far cheaper than what we paid for our frigates. The longer we hold out, the more it will cost us.
If National won’t bring it up then I am sure ACT will.
***************************************************
If you were told that you were told wrong, the US always charges full price on its new gear. Just ask the UK and Aus.
Where we get an advantage is with preferential deals on things like those F-16′s, older aircraft but virtually no airtime on the airframe, and easily upgradeable to a better standard as and when the money allows.
As for the US ‘investing’ in our armed forces, who are you trying to kid? do you think they just give their stuff away for free?
Our frigates cost so much because of where we built them, in Australian yards that did not have the same economy of scale advantages as their German equivalents.
We have the same advantages as any other NATO country when it comes to arms purchases from the US, if not more so. The problem we have is our politicians, a myopic populace who think the entire world is the south pacific, and lack of money in the defence budget.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Hey, Reid, when did you start channeling Quisling and Petain?.
Vote:Besides if the Chinese want to kick off against the west, it goes nuclear, end of story.
November 6th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
It told NZ that IF it chose this path, these were the consequences, which then ensued. What’s bullying or even aggressive about that?
She coulda just made the fucken eggs… See what she made me do?
How about giving me some real benefits of the policy, if you think it’s so great?
I do recall supporting it at the time. The benefits were mainly intangible, feel-good stuff like giving us more credibility as a disinterested party in that business of international relations you mentioned earlier. Meh – not all policies are about cash in the hand. So, what were the benefits of allowing the visits, beyond keeping the US govt from punishing us for disobedience? Intangible, feel-good stuff, wasn’t it?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
“Besides if the Chinese want to kick off against the west, it goes nuclear, end of story.”
Depends Stuart, it depends. MAD applies in war as well as peace. I doubt it will go unlimited but I’m fairly sure it would happen.
Also, et tu Stuart? Don’t you understand the difference between realism and defeatism either?
“So, what were the benefits of allowing the visits, beyond keeping the US govt from punishing us for disobedience? Intangible, feel-good stuff, wasn’t it?”
Milt my 1:37 names five significant negatives that actually arose from this policy, have a read and deny any that you can. You can’t, because all of them played out as events, for real.
So you can’t point to a single real benefit, and I point to five significant downsides, and you still think it’s OK?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
The benefits of allowing the visits were we didn’t experience any of those significant downsides.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
To answer the question ‘[Is China threat to Australia’ and the West’?
The short answer is YES – but not militarily, although that will come with time.
The Chinese administration (Communist if you care to recall, and idologically anti Western Democracies), is extremely clever and has carefully studied Western Imperialism in its bid to expand throughout the world and secure what it considers to be its rightful place – in charge of a large part of the world – especially Asia and its environs. As a result, having carefully analysed what occured, they correctly concluded that rather than indulge in ‘head-on’ confrontations with the West , China should ‘go around the corner’ and by quietly buying-up key infrastructure and businesses, establish its presence within a country and region. Actions have folllowed the word. China also supplies funding and ‘essential supplies’ to the local leadership (the more despotic the better), and subsequently uses this very effectively as a ‘lever’ to get its way. Zimbabwe is a classic example, where China is quietly, unobtrusively operating in this way. Additionally, and to reinforce their presence, ‘emigration’ of Chinese under the guise of ‘experts’ and ‘workers’ also takes place, and a secure enclave is established – an enclave from which further ‘tentacles of settlement’ take place. Doubting that this is happening? Have a careful look at current and continuing Chinese settlement in Africa – the continent which is the main focus of the Chines ‘imperialist’ expansion. The reason for Africa? It has everything that China wants in respect of minerals – especially rare earths and ‘strategic’ minerals.
The purchase of Australian mining properties is not accidental, and is very deliberate, as are the appearance of Chinese ‘interests’ and companies throughout the Pacific, (ie Timber in PNG, Vanuatu etc) while it is feasible that the current ‘Crafar’ exercise is also related to this policy. Nothing is ‘accidental’ where China is concerned and every move is carefully considered before a move is made.
Within the South Pacific the Chinese have established themselves in Fiji and Samoa and are on friendly terms with a lot of the other ‘micro’ states – always ‘assisting these countries in a very friendly manner by means of extremely-generous ‘loans’ and ‘agreements, which are then ‘levered’ to obtain more and more.
And as for the USA? Significantly, it is in debt to a massive amount to Communist China – albeit not directly on a government to government basis but in so many ways that they are effectively under the Chinese thumb, and the Chinese leadership only need direct that the screw be ever so slightly turned to . . . This is of course a state of affairs which various (derided) anti-communist Americans warned against (never give your ideological-enemy a lever). El Presidente’ Obama, as we know, ignored them completely.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the Chinese ‘philosophy of life’ (Confucianism) means that they have infinite patience, (and alot more of that than we as Westerner’s will ever have), and that, having considered an action they will carefully consider all the consequences that could possibly occur as a result. They will then wait. And, wait some more. Only then, will they take action. They have all the time in the world – and will only move after having ‘waited’.
They are certainly coming, indeed they are already here (yes, even in little old NZ) – we just don’t realise it, and they of course are not about to advertise their presence. Ater all, ‘softly, softly, DOES catchee Monkey’.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Yeah in the Pacific they’ve been using chequebook diplomacy for some years and with great success. A kiwi guy wrote a really good book on it a few years ago, I can’t recall the title or author.
You’re also right in that its courting the third world especially the Non-Aligned Nations grouping. This fits its socialist heritage and possibly one reason its loath to change its Developing Nation status (but not of course the real reason).
“El Presidente’ Obama, as we know, ignored them completely.”
Yeah but this started to happen during Clinton’s era. There are highly suspicious linkages between Clinton and the Chinese plus this is when off-shoring got going and Chinese imports started flooding into Wal-Marts. Detroit is just the beginning for Uncle Sam, I fear.
Yes, they are already here.
I can see Shanghai replacing NY in twenty-thirty years. That will be the death-knell of the American reign. That or a nuclear sunrise.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
reid (5,330) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Depends Stuart, it depends. MAD applies in war as well as peace. I doubt it will go unlimited but I’m fairly sure it would happen.
”
There is no depends about it, it goes nuclear. This is because the Chinese government well understands that they cannot win by conventional means. And for them the loss of a war against the US etc, means the end of the road for the communist party of China. In that respect they find themselves in the same situation that NATO did for decades facing the old USSR.
“Also, et tu Stuart? Don’t you understand the difference between realism and defeatism either?”
I well understand it, I also well understand that point where realism becomes a vice that so saps a nation that they are not worthy of the name.
Vote:As Churchill said “Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished”
November 6th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
reid (5,332) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 10:54 am
The fact the Russians have got a missile called Sunburn which has terminal evasion capability a high speed and enough kinetic energy to sink an aircraft carrier using that alone: i.e. without a nuclear warhead, is a big big problem for the US battle groups.
*********************
Sunburn ASM’s are not the big bag boogy man some make out. The US has been practicing with supersonic defence systems for more than 50 years, long before Sunburn was deployed. They have been doing this because some of their own systems were supersonic and nuclear, and rightly considered that if they could do it then so could the USSR, and planned accordingly.
It should be pointed out that the USSR could target and launch ASM missiles in greater numbers and range than the Chinese can now, and it was that greater Soviet threat that the US navy was designed to defeat.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Those earlier who think we could stay out of a conflict in Asia are deluded. 90+% of our imports and exports travel by sea through Asia. Any conflict in this area would stop all of this very quickly, no raw materials, no fuel, no outgoing products to make money, soon no economy. WE must be prepared to pull our weight if required or risk it all on the UN smacking them with a wet bus ticket.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Apropos the Chinese use of Nukes:
Many years ago (sometimes in the early ’60′s), in an el cheapo paperback novel titled ‘The Blue Ants’ (Author un-remembered), it was hypothesized that no matter what happened, nukes or not, China would always, must always, win any conflict it enters into, by virtue of the fact that it had/has the worlds largest standing military force, especially the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). The ‘Blue Ants’ in the title was a reference to the uncountable numbers of Chinese workers (in their navy-blue ‘Mao Suits’ who both fought alongside the PLA and acted as ‘scavengers’ in the PLA’s train. By shear numbers China would always win – even if by default.
The novel was at one level a very badly-written romance, but at a deeper level a reminder of a reality that hasn’t changed over the succeeding decades – the shear size of China’s military. The equipment that the PLA and its Airforce (PLAAF) and Navy (PLAN) use may not be a sophisticated as that used by the Western Allies, but if you have ‘volume’ this is not necessarily a disadvantage. and China certinly has ‘the numbers’ – and they would ‘just keep on coming’.
Something to think about really . . .
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Milt my 1:37 names five significant negatives that actually arose from this policy…
The first three were US govt choices, ie the responsibility for them lies with the US govt, not with the NZ govt.
The fourth was a US govt choice, but was in any case outweighed by the trade and diplomacy avenues opened up by the policy – ie, by the favourable light standing up for ourselves put us in with a lot of countries. You can sneer, but I notice National haven’t hesitated to make the most of it themselves.
The fifth negative is that a chimera remained a chimera – again, meh.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Komata (389) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Apropos the Chinese use of Nukes:
Something to think about really . . .
***************
No, its not. You can have the worlds largest army, but it means nothing if the nation that sustains it is a smoldering radioactive ruin. No fuel means no trucks and tractors, means no food, means starvation.
You have to realize that if a nuclear war kicks of, it will not be limited, and the northern hemisphere will cease to exist as we know it.
These links are from a guy who planned nuclear warfare and knows intimately the nature of what these weapons mean.
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html
Vote:http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_103.html
November 6th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
lesterpk (13) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Those earlier who think we could stay out of a conflict in Asia are deluded. 90+% of our imports and exports travel by sea through Asia. Any conflict in this area would stop all of this very quickly, no raw materials, no fuel, no outgoing products to make money, soon no economy. WE must be prepared to pull our weight if required or risk it all on the UN smacking them with a wet bus ticket.
****************************************
Ding! Ding! We have the thread winner! There is more that can be said with respect to economic blackmail, which seems to be the favored Chinese strategy at the moment, but you have seized of the essence of the debate.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Stuart if nothing else you can depend on China to play the long game. It isn’t an intense burn nation like the Japanese would approach it if they were China today.
China is a much more considered society but once they’ve determined then look out.
The Chinese are currently in a commanding position in the currency war that US-China is currently undertaking. China has everything to gain and not much to lose by holding its current position for as long as possible then calling a summit to discuss the currency issue re: the US-Yuan cross. The longer they hold out the weaker the US becomes and that isn’t recoverable even when the situation ends.
That’s how I currently see it panning out. Not pretty.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
reid (5,333) Says:
November 6th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
That’s how I currently see it panning out. Not pretty.
**********************************************
The Chinese are also in a position where their economy is export dependent, and if people stop buying, they go south as well.Not Pretty.
The big problem we have is that the last time the world was this economically interdependent was the years before 1914, and in all the years since we have forgotten what that can mean.
Vote:No nation can act with impunity under these circumstances and expect to get away with it, as the worlds economy showed after 1919.
November 6th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Milt’s comment:
My first three negatives of the policy:
An international agreement is a serious piece of paper Milt. Normally it spells out arrangements. In the case of ANZUS, the US bit was particularly generous owing to the importance placed on it by all parties till 1984.
What the heck is wrong with you? Can’t you even admit that the US had a perfect right to do what it did, in exactly precisely the same way that NZ also had and did? Can’t you see that your argument is completely and totally vapid?
My last two negatives:
Milt losing access to the strongest player on the Security Council as the US was at that time, is “crikey,” in diplomatic-speak. I admit that it made NZ an international cause celebre at the time on the international arena but we lost heavyweight access and gained lightweight access. In the UN numbers make a difference but in the real world, what counts?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Oh look, Maggie the trade unionist sides with the Chinese. Surprise surprise.
So tell me, who’s positioning themselves to become Interim Chairman of the New Zealand Special Administrative Region if it comes? You? Kelly? Carolan? Treen?
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
reid, not once did I suggest the US had hostile intentions towards NZ. Don’t put words in my mouth.
But I can say the US has had hostile intentions, often turning into military action, over Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Korea, most of Central America and the Caribbean, parts of Africa…..the list goes on.
And can we do without the “blind hatred” claims, please? They are just silly and make you look foolish.
HD if you want to be treated seriously, stop being a dick head. Thank you.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
It’s tough not to behave reciprocately around unionists, Maggiepoos.
Vote:November 6th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
No worries Maggie but hows about addressing the substantive claim which is that it didn’t benefit us at all instead it cost us a great deal?
That’s been the subject of this whole debate and as a strong supporter of this policy I would have thought, naturally, that you would have been able to provide dozens upon dozens of benefits but instead, from both you and Psycho Milt, the only lefties who cared to participate today, I have got precisely nothing.
Review the thread if you disagree.
Therefore, I’m forced to hold to my original opinion made back in 1984 when a young naive student: this policy is a crock of shit. It achieves nothing, and it will cost us a lot.
Prove me wrong Maggie or Milt. Prove me wrong.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Prove me wrong Maggie or Milt.
That would be impossible to prove to someone whose measure of ‘benefit’ is “What’s in it for me?” Your position is that standing up for ourselves on a point of principle against our wealthy patron had a material cost, whereas continuing to bow our heads and obey would have prevented that cost. This is certainly true, and has been true for many independent-minded people who’ve stood up to a wealthy patron for the sake of their self-respect. The benefit or value of self-respect is an intangible one, but no less significant for that. Like I said, not all policies are about cash in the hand.
Perhaps you fail to see any benefit because you just don’t consider that this was a matter either of principle or self-respect. However, the majority of your fellow citizens disagreed, as demonstrated by the fact that even conservative leaders since then haven’t attempted to reverse the policy, despite the supposedly numerous negatives and non-existent positives. Either they recognised the self-respect benefit of the policy themselves, or they recognised that a large number of voters did. Whichever, it doesn’t matter.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 7:03 am
“Either they recognised the self-respect benefit of the policy themselves, or they recognised that a large number of voters did. Whichever, it doesn’t matter.”
Yes, Milt. The leaders were (still are) so wise and clever. They recognise the power of the masses, the throbbing mob that in Germany of the 30 and 40′s used to chant ‘sieg heil’ ad nauseaum. There were no voters under Hitler’s dictatorship, but hey, who cares about this little detail.
The mass knew the criminal policies were right, didn’t it? Ochlocracy rules.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Personally Milt, I’ve never bought into this self-respect bow-our-head argument. We decided at some point in our history it would be in our national interest to enter into ANZUS which entailed obligations and benefits for all sides. For quite a few decades it worked very very smoothly, to the mutual benefit and satisfaction of everyone involved. No-one had any gripes, any complaints, nothing. Suddenly out of the blue comes this naive idiot called Lange who wants to withdraw. Right at that time the USSR was engaging in Afghanistan, Gorbachev was not even on the horizon, the Cold War was in full swing, the US had a legitimate concern that if some of the NATO countries picked this up it could lead to a serious security issue in Western Europe. This was the context – agreed?
So given that everyone involved knew all of this and in particular that this US fear wasn’t something it had just made up simply in order to pretend that NZ was a bad boy, it was a real issue at the time, with real, potentially disastrous security consequences for the whole western alliance. Given all of this, Lange still choose to give our long-time ally, who had saved us from invasion just forty years before, and who had done nothing whatsoever to provoke this action, the fingers. Whose at fault here? Don’t look at it now based on what has happened, look at it as it was at the time. No-one but no-one knew how it would turn out and if you want to talk about principle, then let’s be real about it. So in this context, isn’t it clear that Lange was in fact the one who had no principles whatsoever, for he could have, as far as he or anyone knew at the time, been sending Western Europe into the biggest security crisis it had ever had. These are facts, not arguable. You may not like them, but they were there at the time. You can’t argue that the fact it didn’t turn out like that makes everything OK, because if you say it was a principled decision, then you have to look at it when it was being made with a clear and accurate and unbiased understanding of who knew what back then and this is what they knew.
So you can’t escape the fact that Lange was quite prepared to take the risk of de-stabilising Europe and he still went ahead with it. That’s not principled it’s crazy cowboy stuff because I say again, he had no idea nothing would happen and no-one else did either. And what was his reason for doing this? Had the US been a bad ally? No. Had the ANZUS alliance been bad for NZ? No. There were no pressing reasons to change, except a naive perspective that banning nukes from NZ would somehow tell the world that NZ actually in fact thought that nukes were bad and wasn’t NZ a clever little boy cause no-one else knew that, did they.
As for self-respect, what self-respect? Newsflash: NZ did nothing it couldn’t have done any time anywhere. This wasn’t a huge achievement. Duh. All we did was sign a few bits of paper and it was done. What sort of commendation is required for that? So it wasn’t difficult to do. Was it standing up to a bully then? No, the US wasn’t being a bully, either before, or after. Quite to the contrary beforehand it was very benevolent indeed, toward us. Afterward it was less benevolent but never aggressive and it could easily have been. So it wasn’t a bully either so we don’t get any David vs Goliath points.
So where the hell is the self-respect thing coming from then? From doing it in the first place? I’ve told you, it wasn’t hard, it involved signing a few bits of paper. The PM does that every single day. Does that mean you think NZ gets self-respect every single day because her PM signs bits of paper? Well you’re easily pleased.
Personally I give someone self-respect when they do something difficult or challenging. Something that’s hard to accomplish and meaningful. Supporters of the probably implicitly assume that this policy is very very meaningful but they’re idiots. For meaningful means actually changing something in the real world. It means an idea, concept or action is translated into making a difference for the better. Otherwise what’s the point if, even if it’s a great idea, nothing ever happens because of it. Like it or not from a logic point of view supporters are required to admit this policy has in fact changed nothing in terms of making the world safer. Not a single weapon has been removed from service as a result of this policy and that Milt, is the death knell for whether or not this policy have ever done anything at all that is in anyway positive.
The only argument supporters can put logically, is that the policy makes them feel good about themselves because they believe this was about taking on the US and winning a titanic battle. As I’ve explained above, it wasn’t anything of the sort, but the supporters appear to have so much emotional investment in their fantasy that looking at facts would probably make them emotionally collapse for they’d realise they’d been so mind-bogglingly stupid for all these years, and that’s why they can’t face it.
“Perhaps you fail to see any benefit because you just don’t consider that this was a matter either of principle or self-respect.”
That’s right, I don’t. So just precisely what was the principle? That nukes are bad? You think people didn’t already know that? You think anyone actually enjoys the fact we have them? You think people whose job it is to design, build, store, maintain and deploy them just can’t wait to use them?
So if it was a principle, then it was that we would tell the world that newsflash: nukes are so bad, we won’t let them in to our country.
What right did Lange have to take the entire country down the same path followed
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Sorry folks, ignore last four paras, early draft I forgot to delete and missed the edit…
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Reid, you need a good editor.
But are you really arguing that something NZ did could destabilise Europe? You must be kidding…….
Lange did not want to walk away from ANZUS and tried to avoid it. I’ve no idea why, the words of the ANZUS Treaty were meaningless.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“something NZ did could destabilise Europe? You must be kidding”
That was in fact the case – it was called the “nuclear disease” and it was real. If you don’t know this then you’re very ignorant on the issue, for this is basic stuff.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
The nuclear disease? “Basic stuff” in your head, perhaps, but nowhere else.
Is that similar to the domino theory and trickle down?
The final test of course was that NZ went non nuclear. How many European nations followed suit, reid?
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
If I don’t agree with you, reid, that makes me “very ignorant”?
Isn’t that just a tad arrogant?
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Maggie, you’re an idiot. If you want to argue the nuclear disease didn’t exist, then use reputable history, not your own mind for clearly, you don’t understand the diff.
Read my last post again, if you think the anti-nuclear policy justification can be based on what in fact happened, for what in fact happened was not known at the time it was being done and if you think people should make policy based on their hopes and dreams as to what MAY happen, then you are an idiot.
Don’t bother telling me ad homina isn’t a good argument for I gave you good arguments all through this thread – review them, go on, and you have ignored them. You haven’t addressed a single argument I’ve made above. Not a single one. Not one. Repeat, not one. And yet you persist in arguing your idiotic and costly policy is at all worthwhile in any way.
Bedlam, London Maggie. Look it up.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Bedlam!
Teeheehee. 
Bloody appropriate I might add.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Yes the collective national insanity on this really pisses me off, John. It really really really does. Fucking mental idiots for believing in it as if it makes any fucking diff whatsoever and fucking mental wankers for promulgating it in the first place and then holding to it as it if it were some precious thing that needs to be treasured.
FFS.
Morons.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Reid, you can’t seem to decide whether this move was so significant that it risked destabilising Europe, or so insignificant it was nothing more than signing a piece of paper and didn’t influence anyone’s behaviour. It can’t really be both.
As to the principle involved, it was the principle that nuclear weapons weren’t protecting us, they were only threatening us; the principle that the nuclear powers needed to know the natives were getting restless about having their futures threatened; and the principle that the interests of a small nation and its superpower patron aren’t necessarily the same. You say:
Lange was quite prepared to take the risk of de-stabilising Europe and he still went ahead with it. That’s not principled it’s crazy cowboy stuff because I say again, he had no idea nothing would happen and no-one else did either.
One could say the same of Lech Walesa, who was playing for much higher stakes than Lange. We don’t say it, because Walesa was right, and would have been right whatever the consequences. So was Lange. Your cold-war pragmatist policy of not rocking the boat would have seen us still enjoying the cold war right now if everyone had stuck to it – I’m glad various people started refusing to follow the script. Our part may have been hardly even a footnote in the overall scheme of things, but that’s an inevitable consequence of being a little place at the arse end of the world.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
“Reid, you can’t seem to decide whether this move was so significant that it risked destabilising Europe, or so insignificant it was nothing more than signing a piece of paper and didn’t influence anyone’s behaviour. It can’t really be both.”
Er it can and it is, Milt.
It was insignificant in the context of being heroic for all it involved was signing bits of paper. No expedition required. So mental to think it was heroic, agreed?
It was significant however in the context of speading the disease. Probably much to Lange’s disgust it didn’t work. It Was significant, but it was a fizzer. Wasn’t that a shame. Or a good thing, if you count world peace as a good thing. Do you Milt? Lange obviously didn’t.
Shame it took you the entire Sunday to think of a response. What’s the matter, did it take awhile to absorb?
I’ll respond to the rest of your post tomorrow evening. Just didn’t want you to think I’d abandoned the thread, that’s all.
Vote:November 7th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
reid has a problem with his recall of the 1980s. Lange was no anti-nuclear hero or peacenik villain – he tried to achieve a compromise that wasn’t available.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 12:00 am
reid, your habit of becoming personally offensive is getting tiresome. One day you might realise that disagreeing with you doesn’t make other people idiots. You don’t have the monopoly on wisdom. Learn that and you might just be worth engaging with.
If I choose to comment on a statement of yours, that’s my choice. Live with it. Most of your arguments are shit and not worth the bother.
The nuclear disease was a nightmare existing only in the fevered minds of rabid rightwingers and war mongers. Like all of their fears it bore no resemblance to reality and is worth no further consideration. NZ’s non nuclear policy was not designed for export, simply for NZ.
Johnboy, you are like a little fox terrier chasing after the bigger dogs and yapping. All noise and no substance.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 12:02 am
reid. abandoning this thread is by far the best thing you could do. Your arguments are going round in circles and tripping up one another.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 1:03 am
A bit late in the game but by coincidence I found two well-written pieces on the internal dynamics in the Labour govt at the time which contributed to the rift between the US and NZ:
http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/article_fulbright.htm
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/royal-new-zealand-air-force-6601-61/#post191036
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 6:39 am
It was insignificant in the context of being heroic for all it involved was signing bits of paper. No expedition required. So mental to think it was heroic, agreed?
There’s a difference between publicly disagreeing with your wealthy patron on a point of principle as a matter of self respect, knowing there’ll be some consequences, and “heroic.” So, yes, it would be mental to think that.
It was significant however in the context of speading the disease. Probably much to Lange’s disgust it didn’t work.
We are agreed it was significant, although I don’t regard the end of MAD as the terrible outcome of a disease, as you seem to. As to “didn’t work,” well it wasn’t intended to be “heroic” in the sense of persuading everyone to throw down their arms, was it? It was a very minor contribution we could make towards turning away from the madness. Like I said, if everyone had followed your prescription of playing it safe, we’d still be enjoying the wonderful benefits of the Cold War today.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Actually Reid, there was no possibility of NZ actions spreading to Europe because, as a German Chancellor of the era said words to the effect of, that NZ had the luxury of our action, because we did not have the Red Army sitting next door to us.
And this is the crux of it; every government of NATO toed the line on nukes, one way or another, because of the Red Army and the fact that it could not be stopped by conventional means. There is absolutely nothing we could have done to change this equation, to argue otherwise is to ignore that base fact.
I have to agree with Milt on the question of self respect, that whole era gave us the thought patterns of an independent nation. The problem was that along with this whole new outlook we failed to retain a global view of the world. Which is why when the left talk about an independent foreign policy its downright hilarious, as in the same breath they countenance policies that reduce that independence.
After all how can you have an independent foreign policy when you are dependent on others to carry our your foreign policy? This is shown every time we have to get some else to move our forces somewhere and supply them with logistics support or other aid to ensure their ability to do a job.
Oh, btw, the Japanese never had any intention of invading us or Australia, because they did not have the logistics to support the endeavor nor could they risk reducing their armies commitment in Manchuria/China.
Vote:Tojo admitted to this after the war and various studies have confirmed it. A cursory trip to the library to look at Japanese logistics in PNG and Burma at the time, as well as Japanese Army/Navy records of the era will show you this.
November 8th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Oh, btw, the Japanese never had any intention of invading us or Australia, because they did not have the logistics to support the endeavor nor could they risk reducing their armies commitment in Manchuria/China.
Yet they came all they way down to PNG…
Do you propose that they only wanted to conquer the black/asian people – and leave whitey alone?
Tojo admitted to this after the war and various studies have confirmed it.
A completely trust worthy source if there ever was one.
A cursory trip to the library to look at Japanese logistics in PNG and Burma at the time, as well as Japanese Army/Navy records of the era will show you this.
So which revisionist historian would you suggest?
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Bevan (2,873) Says:
November 8th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
So which revisionist historian would you suggest?”
I don’t suggest any historians, I read the original fucking sources (translated, naturally).
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I don’t suggest any historians, I read the original fucking sources (translated, naturally).
Wow, and yet you still haven’t quoted your sources.
Might be different where you come from, but at my local library there’s these things called books, and they have these little things called titles and authors…..
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Funny thing is Stuart, you do not quote references. I’ll just refer to this wiki article which kind of ruins you point about there being no plan to invade Australia.
“The dispute between the Army and Navy was settled in late February with a decision to isolate rather than invade Australia. The Army continued to maintain its view that invading Australia was impractical, but agreed to extend Japan’s strategic perimeter and cut Australia off from the US by invading Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia in the so-called Operation FS. The question of whether to invade Australia was discussed by Imperial Headquarters for the last time on 27 February and in this meeting the Army stated that it believed that Australia was defended by a 600,000-strong military force. During a further meeting held on 4 March the Imperial Headquarters formally agreed to a “Fundamental Outline of Recommendations for Future War Leadership” which relegated the option of invading Australia as a “future option” only if all other plans went well. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Japanese_invasion_of_Australia_during_World_War_II
Now you are right, there was no formal plan, but they did seem to talk about it quite alot and settled on a “Future Plan” if things went well. But the real threat was if they managed to invade and conquer Fiji – doing so and then using the island as a base for naval operations would have been more than enough to knock NZ & Aus out of the war.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Isn’t this a bit irrelevant to a discussion about our current-day military relationships? Or perhaps as relevant as the previous government saying we didn’t need an air combat capability because the last independent use of New Zealand air power was in Samoa in the 1930s?
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Isn’t this a bit irrelevant to a discussion about our current-day military relationships?
Actually it can be very relevant, WW1 & WW2 was started, fought and ended with military relationships throughout the conflict. Using the events of the past it can be justified as why we need to establish or maintain security relationships with our like minded friends and allies.
Vote:November 8th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Or perhaps as relevant as the previous government saying we didn’t need an air combat capability because the last independent use of New Zealand air power was in Samoa in the 1930s?
Undoubtedly one of the dumbest things Labour did while in power. I still can’t believe the NZ public let them get away with that Samoa example.
Vote: