Is NZ correct in scrapping the combat component of the RNZAF?

[Sea Toby]

But China doesn't have 48 aircraft carriers now, nor does it have one. The closest Chinese airbase to New Zealand is further than 3,000 miles away. How many fighters or bombers in the Chinese inventory have that range? Zero. With fuel tanks? Zero. And what makes you think China will ever be an external agressor to New Zealand?

If the security situation changed, New Zealand would most likely changed their defence policies. But until then, there is no air threat to New Zealand. Being a very small nation of 4 million citizens, less than a quarter of the metropolitan population of Los Angeles, New Zealand has its hands full patolling its EEZ, much less worry about a non-existant air threat.

 

[Big-E]

But China doesn't have 48 aircraft carriers now

What you talkin about Willis?

The closest Chinese airbase to New Zealand is further than 3,000 miles away. How many fighters or bombers in the Chinese inventory have that range? Zero. With fuel tanks? Zero. And what makes you think China will ever be an external agressor to New Zealand?

The fact that China continues to expand her influence over the Southern Pacific. She intends to replace the US as the sphere of influence in the region. Economically she is more important to most of those countries than the US is. Her peaceful rise to power will only last until she doesn't get what she wants thru diplomacy. Granted this is not feasable until 2020 but that isn't very long if you think about it.

If the security situation changed, New Zealand would most likely changed their defence policies. But until then, there is no air threat to New Zealand. Being a very small nation of 4 million citizens, less than a quarter of the metropolitan population of Los Angeles, New Zealand has its hands full patolling its EEZ, much less worry about a non-existant air threat.

As I stated it takes time to rebuild an air wing from scratch. You think pilots are trained overnight? It takes years to get proficient pilots, it takes decades to be excellent. Thats what they had, now it's gone.

 

[Gibbo]

Ok, about time a Kiwi actually got in on this thread!

In the early 1990's the then newly elected National Govt (centre-right) slashed the Defence budget. There were no capability cuts, they just hacked something like 40% off the funding stream, on the pretext of the 'peace-dividend' as a result of the end of the cold-war.

As you can imagine by the end of the 1990's the NZDF was very seriously showing signs of withering away. The RNZAF's 10 Andover Transports were gone without replacement; personnel had had a gutsful of no pay-rises in almost a decade & left; the Army still largely had Vietnam era equipment; the Navy gave up it's patrol fleet (gladly some would say - they were like corks!)....etc,etc, you gte the picture.

However at that stage Naional woke-up to the fact that the NZDF had become to an extent dysfunctional and started looking at spending. The key argument was a 3rd ANZAC frigate vs F-16 cheal via USA. National took the latter option. Other than some high-profile re-equipment programmes, basic infrastructure & pay rates were largely not addressed.

2000 Labour (Centre-Left) gets into power. Faced with increasing issues of obsolesence (many highlighted by the East Timor deploymeny 1999-2001) they decided something hd to be done.

This Govt was (& still is) very much made-up of academics & it's clear spending on high-tech weaponry was / is extremely distasteful to many of those in Govt....pity they don't find the concept of unprepared service personnel dying as distasteful!

Anyway - Labour have in fact committed what is for NZ historically a huge boost in spending to get the NZDF back on track - something that's well underway. However in reality that funding boost amounts to little more than restoring what would have been the status-quo before the savage cuts in the early 90's.

The Govt has had to balance the various needs of each service & made some hard calls - the most obvious being disbanding the RNZAF's combat wing. Man was I disgusted by that - no consultation - they just did it! They commisioned the usual biased reports but even when the key one came out against scrapping the entire combat wing, they just ignored the recommendation - and Australia's disgust, and did it!

Now okay, they did have some hard decisions to make - but we still only spend a tiny amount of our GDP on Defence compared to most of the globe - yet we're enjoying huge govt surpluses (well we taxpayers aren't, the govt is!).

The idea with their defence policy is to develop a small but niche peacekeeping force based around the Army with RNZAF & Navy in support. This is an easy sell to the NZ public as most of us are pig-ognornat about Defence matters - so of course the Govt's going to capitalise on this!

What they've so far created is a Defence force designed & equipped for peacekeeping that would be largely incapable of operating independent of allies in any elevated threat sceanrio (ie: primarily Australia)....sorry fellow kiwi's, but I stand by that assessment!

My god it makes me sick to see what the ADF is having spent on it - but you can bet the NZ govt is loving it - more to leverage (bludge?) off the good old Aussies!

Okay - to be fair we have a very small population (4m) & a land mass larger than the UK - plus we're in the middle of nowhere geographically. The chances of invasion are remote (but not impossible) - but the NZDF is really about making a regional contribution - and that's where a combat wing could be used. In the past it was available to deploy to Aussie (or S.E. Asia), from where it would operate as required - can't see that this isn't still a valid option.

Okay so the combat wing's gone - but the NZDF has no significant airborne fire-power, the Navy has decent frigates that are lightly armed & need upgrading; the Army has great LAV's & decent 105mm artillery, but little modern ISR capability so again relies on others for specialsied equipment & support.

The NZDF has extremely high professional standards which have helped but at the end of the day - it can only operate under the umbrella of the ADF & others. Mind you this is a valid expectation - it's just the degree of dependency that irks me!

When the combat wing was dropped it was described as 'refocuing the RNZAF to a transport & maritime support role. The RNZAF did NOT get any additional capaicty in either area. We have 7 transport aircraft (5 x C130H & 2 x B757) - both getting decent upgrades, but (as yet) no self protection systems. There's 6 x P-3K (B) getting decent upgrades but this excludes the anti-sub systems, anti-ship missiles; & (as yet) self-protection - yah they're still cutting corners! Sorry kiwis, but I don't call that a committment to those capabilities.

Worse still the RNZAF has no capacity to support the Army - even in peacekeeping this should extend further than a Huey with 2 x M60 door guns! (very Vietnam!).

Okay to answer the question 'was NZ right to scrap the combat wing'? - the answer is NO - because it was nothing more than a (massive) reduction in capability.

The answer would have been YES - if it had been accompanied by an investment in desperately needed transport aircraft & provision of ARH (eg: Aussie Tigers etc) to enable the RNZAF to provide a meaningful capability to support deployed forces (NZ or allies) when the crap starts flying!

 

[Norm]

Gibbo as a fellow Kiwi I have to agree with a lot you are saying.A few years back I was at a function enjoying some bubbly and got talking to a former Secretary of Defence. One part of the conversation I recall well was a witty remark that the Labour Government will never buy anything that makes a loud bang!!
The Nats were moving to redress their "peace dividend of the 90's , the White Paper on defence in Nov 1997 was a fair effort with its programmed timelines, something that has continued under the present administration minus to date acquisitions (Javelin's aside) that would deliver a "loud bang".

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok, about time a Kiwi actually got in on this thread!

In the early 1990's the then newly elected National Govt (centre-right) slashed the Defence budget. There were no capability cuts, they just hacked something like 40% off the funding stream, on the pretext of the 'peace-dividend' as a result of the end of the cold-war.

As you can imagine by the end of the 1990's the NZDF was very seriously showing signs of withering away. The RNZAF's 10 Andover Transports were gone without replacement; personnel had had a gutsful of no pay-rises in almost a decade & left; the Army still largely had Vietnam era equipment; the Navy gave up it's patrol fleet (gladly some would say - they were like corks!)....etc,etc, you gte the picture.

However at that stage Naional woke-up to the fact that the NZDF had become to an extent dysfunctional and started looking at spending. The key argument was a 3rd ANZAC frigate vs F-16 cheal via USA. National took the latter option. Other than some high-profile re-equipment programmes, basic infrastructure & pay rates were largely not addressed.

2000 Labour (Centre-Left) gets into power. Faced with increasing issues of obsolesence (many highlighted by the East Timor deploymeny 1999-2001) they decided something hd to be done.

This Govt was (& still is) very much made-up of academics & it's clear spending on high-tech weaponry was / is extremely distasteful to many of those in Govt....pity they don't find the concept of unprepared service personnel dying as distasteful!

Anyway - Labour have in fact committed what is for NZ historically a huge boost in spending to get the NZDF back on track - something that's well underway. However in reality that funding boost amounts to little more than restoring what would have been the status-quo before the savage cuts in the early 90's.

The Govt has had to balance the various needs of each service & made some hard calls - the most obvious being disbanding the RNZAF's combat wing. Man was I disgusted by that - no consultation - they just did it! They commisioned the usual biased reports but even when the key one came out against scrapping the entire combat wing, they just ignored the recommendation - and Australia's disgust, and did it!

Now okay, they did have some hard decisions to make - but we still only spend a tiny amount of our GDP on Defence compared to most of the globe - yet we're enjoying huge govt surpluses (well we taxpayers aren't, the govt is!).

The idea with their defence policy is to develop a small but niche peacekeeping force based around the Army with RNZAF & Navy in support. This is an easy sell to the NZ public as most of us are pig-ognornat about Defence matters - so of course the Govt's going to capitalise on this!

What they've so far created is a Defence force designed & equipped for peacekeeping that would be largely incapable of operating independent of allies in any elevated threat sceanrio (ie: primarily Australia)....sorry fellow kiwi's, but I stand by that assessment!

My god it makes me sick to see what the ADF is having spent on it - but you can bet the NZ govt is loving it - more to leverage (bludge?) off the good old Aussies!

Okay - to be fair we have a very small population (4m) & a land mass larger than the UK - plus we're in the middle of nowhere geographically. The chances of invasion are remote (but not impossible) - but the NZDF is really about making a regional contribution - and that's where a combat wing could be used. In the past it was available to deploy to Aussie (or S.E. Asia), from where it would operate as required - can't see that this isn't still a valid option.

Okay so the combat wing's gone - but the NZDF has no significant airborne fire-power, the Navy has decent frigates that are lightly armed & need upgrading; the Army has great LAV's & decent 105mm artillery, but little modern ISR capability so again relies on others for specialsied equipment & support.

The NZDF has extremely high professional standards which have helped but at the end of the day - it can only operate under the umbrella of the ADF & others. Mind you this is a valid expectation - it's just the degree of dependency that irks me!

When the combat wing was dropped it was described as 'refocuing the RNZAF to a transport & maritime support role. The RNZAF did NOT get any additional capaicty in either area. We have 7 transport aircraft (5 x C130H & 2 x B757) - both getting decent upgrades, but (as yet) no self protection systems. There's 6 x P-3K (B) getting decent upgrades but this excludes the anti-sub systems, anti-ship missiles; & (as yet) self-protection - yah they're still cutting corners! Sorry kiwis, but I don't call that a committment to those capabilities.

Worse still the RNZAF has no capacity to support the Army - even in peacekeeping this should extend further than a Huey with 2 x M60 door guns! (very Vietnam!).

Okay to answer the question 'was NZ right to scrap the combat wing'? - the answer is NO - because it was nothing more than a (massive) reduction in capability.

The answer would have been YES - if it had been accompanied by an investment in desperately needed transport aircraft & provision of ARH (eg: Aussie Tigers etc) to enable the RNZAF to provide a meaningful capability to support deployed forces (NZ or allies) when the crap starts flying!

Agree completely. NZ has little in the way of a direct threat, but with a healthy economy and significant responsibilities in it's region there's absolutely no reason why NZ should not possess the ability to operate WITHOUT significant levels of support and "borrowing" capability from others (particularly Australia, as we are tightly stretched ourselves!!!)

Places where I see that the NZ Government needs to provide more for it's forces include:

1. Additional aerial transport (another 3 Herks should do it).

2. greater and more useful capabilities to exercise some control over it's territory through the P-3K's (Anti-ship missiles, new lightweight torpedo's, a modern anti-submarine warfare system).

3. EWSP for all of it's deployable aircraft, proper upgrades to allow it's ANZAC frigates to operate wherever necessary, whether in a coalition or otherwise and;

4. An army able to protect itself against air attack, armoured and "assymetric" threats, able to provide it's own direct and indirect fire support, troop transport through armoured / non-armoured vehicles, capable rotary wing transport, aerial reconnaisance capabilities with limited fire support (at least such as rockets and machine gun/cannon capability) and "networking" capabilites ("real time" transferrence of surveillance imagery from recon assets to HQ and line units) AND the ability to conduct "sustainable" and concurrent operations.

This doesn't mean you need "first world" capabilites in every area, but sufficient capability should be present to allow NZ to conduct operations without external support. Then they would truly be considered equal partners in a "coalition" situation and be capable of "value adding" to these coalitions. :rel

 

[Waylander]

@Big-E
Why are some Americans and Aussies so paranoic about China and try to talk NZ into an air force with a fighter/bomber component?
Who are they threaten besides Taiwan?
As I said before, sometimes it looks like some people think they need to find a new big enemy after the destruction of the Sovjet Union and with the war against terror being so frustrating.
After my visits in China and Taiwan I can say that many chinese people I talked look at the US (And also at the EU and Australia/NZ) as an example for economic success and livestyle which they want also want to reach.
Even the taiwanese people I talked to are much less curious about a Chinese invasion than many members on this board.

Do you think that suddenly China fights its way through Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia AND the USA (Which are all bigger opponents over the control of the Pacific area) and suddenly appears with a big naval/amphibious force on the beaches of NZ?
It is totally unrealistic to talk about China as thread because of which NZ should have a fighter/bomber force.
As Aussie Digger said there are many things which are more important like upgrading the orions and existing naval forces.
If NZ wants to participate in oversea missions a fighter force is the last thing they need.

 

[Big-E]

@Big-E
Why are some Americans and Aussies so paranoic about China and try to talk NZ into an air force with a fighter/bomber component?
Who are they threaten besides Taiwan?

As I said before, sometimes it looks like some people think they need to find a new big enemy after the destruction of the Sovjet Union and with the war against terror being so frustrating.
After my visits in China and Taiwan I can say that many chinese people I talked look at the US (And also at the EU and Australia/NZ) as an example for economic success and livestyle which they want also want to reach.
Even the taiwanese people I talked to are much less curious about a Chinese invasion than many members on this board.

Do you think that suddenly China fights its way through Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia AND the USA (Which are all bigger opponents over the control of the Pacific area) and suddenly appears with a big naval/amphibious force on the beaches of NZ?
It is totally unrealistic to talk about China as thread because of which NZ should have a fighter/bomber force.
As Aussie Digger said there are many things which are more important like upgrading the orions and existing naval forces.
If NZ wants to participate in oversea missions a fighter force is the last thing they need.

One thing Americans are tired of is having most nations on earth depending on me (US taxpayer and warfighter) to protect them. We/I are/am tired of playing policeman for the world. We want you to pick up your slack and provide for the majority of your own defense. If you are overwhelmed then I should be called to risk my neck for your country. But if you neglect your defense b/c you deem it too expensive I say let you sleep in the bed you have made. the Kiwi decision to scrap their organic fighter cover is IMHO foolhardy. 1 more ANZAC that isn't even upgraded is worthless compared to a squadron of F-16s. You can't take an ANZAC in support of ground operations. You can't gain airsuperiority from an ANZAC. You can't deep strike with an ANZAC. There are so many reasons other than the Chinese threat to have one.

As far as PROC goes, I don't see her becoming a partner in peace. The only thing they care about is hegemony, and this time their doing it the right way... thats whats so scary about it. Just as you stated you don't see them as a threat, this gives them the time they need to gain economic control of the S. Pacific while they build their military. They already spend almost half of the US defense budget according to DOD reports to congress. Their space program is in hyper-drive while NASA remains stagnant. The number of hulls being built far exceeds US Navy procurement. When PLAAF gets her hands on JSF or F-22 plans the **** will hit the fan as I have to go up against stealth. They are well on their way to getting a working AEGIS platform. They are studying carrier design up the wazoo and the fact they lied to get Varyag doesn't make me feel any better. I'm never happy when new boomers take to the sea as those are the hardest nukes to take out.

The way I see PROCs expansion is as follows

1) Taiwan rejoins the mainland by a peaceful referendum

2) The ensuing expansion of territory gives PROC more claims in the Pacific

3) Her claimed EEZ ranges from Indonesia to the Sea of Japan which she will more rigourosly try to enforce with a strong naval presence

4) The need for natural gas and oil will drive this at all costs pushing conflicts with her neighbors

5) Some will bow down and others will be bought but some will resist

6) This leads to military conflict with FPDA members

7) After having comparable military assets to the US PROC tries to push their luck

8) Welcome to WWIII :gun

 

[Waylander]

Ok, my answer would could be too political and off-topic so if a mod wants me to stop say it.

The US behave like they WANT to play the world police. On the one hand the US says that other nations should be able to act on their own but on the other hand they try to cancel every initiative which is not under their control.
And before you talk of the PRC as an aggressive competitor in terms of economy and aremd forces you should look at how many dictators and regimes you support (Not to talk of the past in South-America, South-Korea, etc).
Just some hints:
- Egypt
- Saudi-Arabia
- Rwanda
- Uganda
- Aqu.-Guinea
- Turkmenistan
- ...

Also look at how often the US used their Veto in the UN and compare this to the other members of the security council.

Now back to topic.
If there will ever be a thread to NZ they should have enough time to build up a defence force as big as they are able to.
And as I said before if they are part of a peace mission (Something you would call world police) the last thing they need is an air force. Better equipment for their ground forces together with some additional sea and air lift capacities is much more usefull than a F-16 Wing.

 

[Big-E]

Ok, my answer would could be too political and off-topic so if a mod wants me to stop say it.

The US behave like they WANT to play the world police. On the one hand the US says that other nations should be able to act on their own but on the other hand they try to cancel every initiative which is not under their control.
And before you talk of the PRC as an aggressive competitor in terms of economy and aremd forces you should look at how many dictators and regimes you support (Not to talk of the past in South-America, South-Korea, etc).
Just some hints:
- Egypt
- Saudi-Arabia
- Rwanda
- Uganda
- Aqu.-Guinea
- Turkmenistan
- ...

Also look at how often the US used their Veto in the UN and compare this to the other members of the security council.

Now back to topic.
If there will ever be a thread to NZ they should have enough time to build up a defence force as big as they are able to.
And as I said before if they are part of a peace mission (Something you would call world police) the last thing they need is an air force. Better equipment for their ground forces together with some additional sea and air lift capacities is much more usefull than a F-16 Wing.

I find Western nations lack of defense spending to be a contributing factor to the point of my nations forces being overextended. The reason we play world police b/c no one will step up to the plate. If we withdrew from all things military the free world would end as we know it. This could be avoided if democratic nations would stand up and offer up more assistance and I don't even mean in Iraq. Hell, I don't even think we should be in it but there are still dozens of hot spots that need less US presence and more international presence. I love the idea of UN peacekeepers but dislike the politics that run in the Security Council. It is disfunctional and needs to be reorganized. India needs to take her place as a world power then I would have more faith in their decrees.

As far as NZ 1 ANZAC equals the F-16 squadron... no sea lift or air-lift is coming out of this expenditure. I agree it would be better but they bought the ANZAC.

 

[Grand Danois]

I agree with the proposals laid out by AD.

Waylander,

I am not an alarmist wrt Chinese capabilities and military expansion and also think there is a certain amount of paranoia in the US about this.

But you should consider that the outlines of the world stage player currently being drawn up, is of a player far more cynical than the US, and totally unrestrained from the hassles of Western values like freedoms, human rights, environment... I am talking in terms of their foreign policy and how it plays out.

 

[TrangleC]

I have lived in China for about one year and i was astonished about how good the attitude of the chinese people towards the USA is.
I never heard a bad word or witnessed any resentments or heard any anti american propaganda on TV there.
There is so much agressive and paranoid talk about China and a upcomming conflict or new cold war and stuff like that in the USA, but nothing like that in China, as far as i witnessed it.
Actually quite the opposite. China seems to be one of the last places on this world where people still ideolize and adore the USA in a naive and childish way.

Chinese people don't want a cold war or any other conflict with the USA, they want to send their children to university there.

The perception that they are an agressive hegemonial power perhaps comes just from the fact that they want to be successful businessmen and therefor try to immitate the USA.

I don't want to appear a anti-american, but i really have to say it strikes me as typical that Americans either have a very strange perception of the world, or awful double standards when it comes to comparing the own actions and strategies with those of others.
When the USA act as a agressive hegemonial power that is ok and just natural because you have to act bad to do good for your people and so on, but if anybody else imitates them, that is pure evil and a provocation.
"How dare they wanting political and economical influence and cheap oil?!"

So any American who thinks China is a new "Empire of Evil" should remember how the USA acted in the last 100 years.

When you say: "Taiwan!", a Chinese can reply: "Japan (1853), Nicaragua (1854 & 1927 & 1981), Kuba (1898 & 1917 & 1940), Phillipines (1898), Hawaii (1898), Panama (1903 & 1989), Dominican Republic (1905 & 1930), Honduras (1911), Haiti (1915), Mexico (1916), Bolivia (1946), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964)!"
(I only listet the cases in which the USA colonized a country, did a socalled "punitive campaign" against a country or openly supportet gruesome acts of terror regimes. The list would be much longer if i would include all the cases in which he CIA organized or supportet coups against democratically elected politicians and installed brutal dictatorships.)


And back to the original topic:

What kind of scenario can you come up with in which China should attack NZ?

 

[Grand Danois]

And addendum to my previous post.

I don't really expect a military confrontation or cold war situation with China.

But you have to distinguish between the affable human beings the Chinese are and the current and probable future raison d'etat which is very different.

If you don't like third world exploitation and propping up of dictators, you better get ready for a rough ride.

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, there is this John Wayne mentality with many Americans, but we have our Pee Wee Hermans too. Being an American I can say this without insulting anyone.

Unfortunately, its not up to Australia or America to decide how much New Zealand spends on defence. This decision rests with the people and government of New Zealand. Fortunately, New Zealand is very isolated from the evils of the world, and doesn't have any threatening neighbors.

A European nation with similar demographics with New Zealand is Ireland. Compared to Ireland, New Zealand is an armed camp. Whle many Americans will laugh at the thought of an air force without any fighters or jet trainers, 6 Orions and 5 Hercules, and 2 Boeing 757s, this is a considerable investment for a nation the size of New Zealand. You'll notice Ireland don't have any of the equipment above, settling on smaller and cheaper aircraft. At least New Zealand realises it needs aircraft that can move their troops and equipment to Australia and beyond, and both Ireland and New Zealand have similar helicopter capabilites.

Yes, there are a few similarily sized nations that do spend more on defence, Singapore is an example. You'll notice a trend since the end of World War II that nations that have been invaded during that war have a history of spending much more on defence than nations that weren't invaded. Of course, Singapore isn't as isolated as New Zealand, having very close neighbors. Yes, Singapore has fighters in its air force, and rightly so.

Many of the improvements suggested above this post are listed on the New Zealand Long Term Development Plan. Hopefully, soon their acquisitons will occur in the next few years. Currently New Zealand is modernizing its equipment across the board. New Zealand expenditures per GDP has been steady for the past ten years, unlike many of our European allies. But yes, New Zealand didn't the ten years before, after the end of the Cold War they did cash in a peace dividend during the 1990s.

I'm sure if New Zealand ever felt threatened as the Australians feel, you'll see a similar response, an increase in defence spending. An air combat wing can be reconstituted cheaply in a few years with recruitment and used aircraft. Its my opinon New Zealand can afford to double its defence budget. Plus there are items on the LTDP list that are more vital to the defence of New Zealand before any air combat force which isn't on the LTDP.

 

[Big-E]

I have lived in China for about one year and i was astonished about how good the attitude of the chinese people towards the USA is.
I never heard a bad word or witnessed any resentments or heard any anti american propaganda on TV there.
There is so much agressive and paranoid talk about China and a upcomming conflict or new cold war and stuff like that in the USA, but nothing like that in China, as far as i witnessed it.
Actually quite the opposite. China seems to be one of the last places on this world where people still ideolize and adore the USA in a naive and childish way.?

Chinese people don't want a cold war or any other conflict with the USA, they want to send their children to university there.

The perception that they are an agressive hegemonial power perhaps comes just from the fact that they want to be successful businessmen and therefor try to immitate the USA.

I don't want to appear a anti-american, but i really have to say it strikes me as typical that Americans either have a very strange perception of the world, or awful double standards when it comes to comparing the own actions and strategies with those of others.
When the USA act as a agressive hegemonial power that is ok and just natural because you have to act bad to do good for your people and so on, but if anybody else imitates them, that is pure evil and a provocation.
"How dare they wanting political and economical influence and cheap oil?!"

So any American who thinks China is a new "Empire of Evil" should remember how the USA acted in the last 100 years.

When you say: "Taiwan!", a Chinese can reply: "Japan (1853), Nicaragua (1854 & 1927 & 1981), Kuba (1898 & 1917 & 1940), Phillipines (1898), Hawaii (1898), Panama (1903 & 1989), Dominican Republic (1905 & 1930), Honduras (1911), Haiti (1915), Mexico (1916), Bolivia (1946), Guatemala (1954), Brazil (1964)!"
(I only listet the cases in which the USA colonized a country, did a socalled "punitive campaign" against a country or openly supportet gruesome acts of terror regimes. The list would be much longer if i would include all the cases in which he CIA organized or supportet coups against democratically elected politicians and installed brutal dictatorships.)


And back to the original topic:

What kind of scenario can you come up with in which China should attack NZ?

I spent 6 months in the peace corp teaching English in Sichuan and found quite the opposite to be true. Everywhere I went all I heard was "Foreign Devil" "Foreign Devil". I wasn't allowed to associate with the professors unless we drunk like crazy and heaven forbid if they spoke out of line. We were segregated like it was the 1930s in the Southern United States or Aparthied in S. Africa. The paranoia they exhibited over anything non Han Chinese was crazy. Even the minorities are treated as second class citizens. The Uygurs and Kazaks we saw in Xinjiang on our way to see the western stretches of the Great Wall were segregated on the train.

I often had my students write compositions about what they thought of America, they were of rural decent and thought that America was a big bad dragon set on stealing their way of life. I asked them what they thought about Taiwan and before the censorship commitee stopped me I found they see the US as a roadblock to their hegomonic future.

The Chinese see themselves becoming the next super-power, it is on the agenda. There can't be two nuclear Super Powers being communist and democratic without their being a Cold-War. It is inevitable unless democracy flourishes. The lengths the Party has gone to militarize the young thru early drill and training initialized after TJ has done wonders in ensuring the party faithfull. Until I saw it myself I thought democracy had a chance... not now.

The rhetoric they spout in their class rooms of the American role thru history is reprehensable, sometimes an outright lie much less an unfavorable interpretation. I don't have a problem with China becoming a Super Power as long as it is democratic. If it's communist then there is no way we can remain peaceful. Thru my first hand experience I see little hope of it taking hold and the people will back the government rather than revolt. They are too proud to challange the state and a conflict with the US will only strengthen their resolve. We are the Foriegn Devils after all!

Your attempt to paint my nation as an "Evil Empire" only shows me examples of the attempt to spread democracy thru imperialist measures. Often the nation would get caught up in bloody civil wars as seen in Iraq today but the intention has always been to spread democracy wherever possible. Your CIA reference will show that they were not legitametly elected much like Saddam. If China will join us in the league of democratic nations I will be happy to fight at their side to spread freedom to the globe.

:usa :china

 

[TrangleC]

lol
Your experiences there are so totally the opposite of what i experienced there that it almost seems to me as if they would have played a hughe practical joke on you.

But jokes aside, i guess it's a difference whether you go there as a member of a foreign NGO or as a businessman/engineer.

And you know what, i did spend most of that year in Qingdao which was a german colony before WW1, so if there is a place in China where they might not like Germans, that would have to be it. But still i never experienced anything bad because i'm a foreigner.
I even took a longer train ride (from Wuhan to Shanghai which is about 2000 km and took me 20 hours) without being separated or treated anything different from a chinese citizen.

If you are treated different in China than only better than the citizens - in my experience.

One of the strangest things i experienced in China was when our chinese businesspartner drove us somewhere in his big black car and we encountered a slower driving police car on the fast lane of the highway. The driver drove up so close to the police car that we almost touched it while driving about 80 miles an hour and the driver honked at the police car till they changed to the slower lane and let us pass.
Do that in a western europe country or on a US highway and you might not sleep in your own bed that night. He he he.

Actually China is only a communist country on the paper. In reality "on the ground" it's pure turbo capitalism.
Who has money and a nice suit and a big black car can virtually do anything.
That is one of the most memorable impressions i had in that time.

And my fiance comes from Hunan, which is right beside Sechuan and she works with foreigners every day without any problem.

I didn't attempt to paint your nation as an evil empire. All i said is that it is a display of double standards if Americans call others "evil empire" when they do just the same the USA always did.

And i really doubt you can call it "the attempt to spread democracy thru imperialist measures" when you support facistic military coups to push democratically elected leaders out of their offices.

 

[Big-E]

lol
Your experiences there are so totally the opposite of what i experienced there that it almost seems to me as if they would have played a hughe practical joke on you.

I didn't attempt to paint your nation as an evil empire. All i said is that it is a display of double standards if Americans call others "evil empire" when they do just the same the USA always did.

And i really doubt you can call it "the attempt to spread democracy thru imperialist measures" when you support facistic military coups to push democratically elected leaders out of their offices.

I think you must have been on the coast in a rather large city. Hong Kong or Shangia maybe? Most of the large coastal areas are used to seeing Westerners. The interoir and coast are two different worlds. Go down the Yangtze thru Xian and Shichuan and you'll know what I mean. Poor farmers make up the majority in China and change has been very slow in the West.

You said "So any American who thinks China is a new "Empire of Evil" should remember how the USA acted in the last 100 years." Sounds like an attempt to call us an Evil Empire to me. No need to play coy, I've heard it before.

What facists coups have pushed legitametly elected officials out of office?

 

[TrangleC]

I think you must have been on the coast in a rather large city. Hong Kong or Shangia maybe? Most of the large coastal areas are used to seeing Westerners. The interoir and coast are two different worlds. Go down the Yangtze thru Xian and Shichuan and you'll know what I mean. Poor farmers make up the majority in China and change has been very slow in the West.

I know, but i didn't spend this whole year only on the coast and still never experienced any hostilities. Everywhere i was people were nice, friendly and hospitable.

You said "So any American who thinks China is a new "Empire of Evil" should remember how the USA acted in the last 100 years." Sounds like an attempt to call us an Evil Empire to me. No need to play coy, I've heard it before.

Well, maybe my english is not good enough. I still understand that sentence and i meant it that way that i critisize Americans for using the word "evil" too often.
It seems you always prefer to have a very clear bi-polar view of the world with a good and a evil side. Considering that both sides might have good reasons and motivations for what they do seems to be too uncomfortable to many Americans.

Maybe we should just cut the word evil and just say that both, the USA and China simply are empires and do what empires do and of course they do it for their own benefit. If Americans would just admit that instead of always claiming to be on a holy crusade of good against evil, people in the rest of the world might apreciate this honesty and develop a more pragmatic and less emotional attitude towards the USA.

What facists coups have pushed legitametly elected officials out of office?

Ouch, tell me that is a joke.

*sigh* Is it enough if i bring only a few examples? I'm too lazy to rummage through all the stuff.

1.) April 2002, Venezuela:
Democratically elected left wing president Hugo Chavez is chased out of office by a right wing military coup supported by the CIA. With help by the civil public he manages a counter coup and is in office again today.

2.) 1981/85, Nicaragua:
After the end of the US backed brutal dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza Debayle and the election victory of the left wing "Sandinists" the USA declare a embargo on Nicaragua and simultaneously support the right wing (many say facistic) "Contra" rebells till they sucessfully coup against the sandinist gouvernment after a long and blood civil war and re-establish a military dictatorship compareable to the one of Debayle.

3.) 1977/92, El Salvador:
The USA support several dictatorships not only against left wing and communist rebels, but also against liberal democratic movements and help those dictatorships to wage a long and bloody civil war.

4.) 1976, Angola:
The USA support the UNITA rebel group against the communistic (but elected) MPLA gouvernment and fuel a civil war full of atrocities.

5.) 1975, Timor:
After ending the portugeese colonial rule, the declaration of Timor as an independent state and the election of a communist gouvernment, the USA support Indonesia in it's invasion and occupation that results in 20 further years of civil war and battle for independence.

6.) 1975, Peru:
The USA openly support a coup against elected president Juan Velasco Alvarado after he disobeyed orders from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) because he refuses to cut back on social spending and therefor is declared "a communist" by US politicians.

7.) 1973, Chile:
Elected socialist president Salvador Allende commits suicide during a US backed and CIA supported coup of the facistic military hunta of General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. His brutal dictatorship lasts till december 1989.

8.) 1970, Kambodscha:
A US backed military coup of General Lon Nol topples the previous gouvernment and installes a further brutal military dicatorship with many casualties.

9.) 1965, Dominican Republic:
After a successful US backed coup against the left wing socialist gouvernment of President Juan Bosch, a military hunta takes over gouvernment and another civil war starts.
42000 US Marines are deployed to the DR and force a new election (many say it obviously was rigged) that was won by Joaquín Balaguer, a former right hand of the brutal former facistic dictator Rafael Trujillo who had ruled the country for 30 years. Balaguer follows the footsteps of his mentor and brutaly rules the DR for another 35 years.

10.) 1964-1982, Bolivia:
The USA are involved in several bloody coups and counter-coups. Usually against elected socialist and communist leaders, in favour of right wing and facist military huntas and generals.

11.) 1964, Brazil:
A (this time openly) US backed military coup ends the gouvernment of democratically elected socialist President João Goulart. The right wing hunta rules Brazil till 1982 and becomes infamous for it's brutal police state and the killer commandos that hunt down street kids in the "favelas".

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, the CIA has been busy. But in many of the above incidents, there were willing powerful forces within these nations willing to undermine Socialist/Communist electoral victories. So lets not put all of the blame on the CIA. Frankly, in most cases, most Americans are ignorant of these events. In some of the American interventions in Latin America, America has had support from other Latin American nations.

Unfortunately, another thread has been completely hijacked. This thread dealing with New Zealand has been hijacked to both an American CIA and Chinese aggression thread, neither of which sets New Zealand defence policies.

Fortuantely, the nation of New Zealand is concerned about their relationship with Australia. Nephew Kiwi doesn't wish to upset Dutch Uncle Aussie with defence matters.

 

[Wooki]

back to the original question

It was a mistake.

I'm of the school of opinion that you must have a balanced force. If it is small, so be it, but it must be balanced.

NZ (funnily enough) is in the same boat that the USA is in. USA is looked to as a world leader (which also means the USA is the global police by the by, like it or not) and New Zealand is regarded as a leader amongst South Pacific nations.

And it should be.

There is a great opportunity here for the NZDF to "get it right".

cheers

W

 

[Sea Toby]

During this ten year's LTDP New Zealand is spending over $4 billion in New Zealand dollars. In the next ten year LTDP New Zealand is facing spending up to $3 billion in New Zealand dollars just to replace the five Hercules and six Orions. As it is New Zealand is spending $352 million to upgrade their six Orions and $256 million to upgrade their five Hercules, with another $16 million and $12 million respectively for their self defence upgrades.

Adding newly built aircraft for one squadron of F-16s would currently cost over a $1 billion, two squadrons $2 billion in New Zealand dollars. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out air force jets and aircraft are very expensive compared to naval patrol ships and army vehicles. To afford an air combat force in the next ten years LTDP would force New Zealand to almost double their capital expenditures.