NZDF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

I have been pondering the viability of NZ purchasing a JORN system off Australia and operating it here. I read somewhere that the cost for Australia was around AU$1 billion, but how accurate that is I don't know because there is very little about JORN in the public domain. However I think as a long term investment it would pay for itself. Given that JORN is has all weather detection of air and surface targets out to an arc of 3000km ( Defence Materiel Organisation ) such a setup in NZ would be of material benefit in that for maritime patrolling we would know where the targets were and plan the patrols with that data thereby reducing the amount of time searching for targets.

Honestly I am uncertain whether a JORN or SECAR system would be viable for NZ. Incidentally, I think I was the one who suggested that NZ start investing in some form of broad area radar surveillance.

JORN and SECAR are bot RF-based radar systems which utilize one (or more) RF transmitters, and several distributed RF receivers, which essentially detect the RF signals bounced off the ionosphere and reflected back from the targets.

Unfortunately, for such systems to work properly, the transmitter(s) and receivers need to be properly linked and aligned. Given the tectonic activity in and around NZ, I am uncertain if the positioning of the equipment could be maintained with sufficient accuracy for the system to work properly.

What could potentially be an alternative, would be for the NZ/NZDF fund an additional JORN-type array in Oz and have that aimed in the direction of NZ, and then have a datalink to relay the info to NZ.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Honestly I am uncertain whether a JORN or SECAR system would be viable for NZ. Incidentally, I think I was the one who suggested that NZ start investing in some form of broad area radar surveillance.

JORN and SECAR are bot RF-based radar systems which utilize one (or more) RF transmitters, and several distributed RF receivers, which essentially detect the RF signals bounced off the ionosphere and reflected back from the targets.

Unfortunately, for such systems to work properly, the transmitter(s) and receivers need to be properly linked and aligned. Given the tectonic activity in and around NZ, I am uncertain if the positioning of the equipment could be maintained with sufficient accuracy for the system to work properly.
-Cheers

It depends upon the tolerances in the alignment of the equipment. For example Christchurch on the east coast of the South Island is moving towards the West Coast of South Island at 40mm per year. This movement is normal to the Australian Plate / Pacific Plate boundary (Alpine Fault) and the direction is IIRC north west for the movement. So this north west movement at 40mm / yr translates to 40cm / 10 yr and 4m / 100 yr or 1m / 25 yrs. Would that be within the tolerances of the equipment?

Then theres the earthquakes which occur at the time but only the ones over 3.0 Mag on the richter scale get noticed by the general population. The alpine fault is statistically due to let rip at some stage and has caused some concern because it a lateral slip fault and the lateral slipping hasn't happened for many (human) years. So its stuck. So when it finally lets go it could be a rip snorter. But these large quakes that cause sudden significant vertical or horizontal displacement of the ground don't happen all that often and affect only the local area around the hypocentre of the quake.

These days we have GPSS which is to mm accuracy horizontally and I believe sub cm vertically, that can accurately monitor any ground deformation or spatial changes in three dimensions. That's why its good to be a surveyor in Canterbury at the moment. All the bench marks have moved and the sealevel benchmark at Lyttelton Port has had to be recalculated because of uplift to the harbour floor. But with GPSS all this work can be done efficiently. So I believe with the use of GPSS & similar tools, any ground movements may be easily quantifed and factored into a JORN or similar setup.

 

[exported_kiwi]

I have been pondering the viability of NZ purchasing a JORN system off Australia and operating it here. I read somewhere that the cost for Australia was around AU$1 billion, but how accurate that is I don't know because there is very little about JORN in the public domain. However I think as a long term investment it would pay for itself. Given that JORN is has all weather detection of air and surface targets out to an arc of 3000km ( Defence Materiel Organisation ) such a setup in NZ would be of material benefit in that for maritime patrolling we would know where the targets were and plan the patrols with that data thereby reducing the amount of time searching for targets.

RE #2519: you're very welcome my friend.

RE: the above post. Where is NZ going to find AUD 1 billion for this? I can see the sense of such a thing but the cost, well, that's the killer there not to mention whether or not Aussie would allow us to have such a thing without possibly paying some of the development costs as well.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Honestly I am uncertain whether a JORN or SECAR system would be viable for NZ. Incidentally, I think I was the one who suggested that NZ start investing in some form of broad area radar surveillance.

JORN and SECAR are bot RF-based radar systems which utilize one (or more) RF transmitters, and several distributed RF receivers, which essentially detect the RF signals bounced off the ionosphere and reflected back from the targets.

Unfortunately, for such systems to work properly, the transmitter(s) and receivers need to be properly linked and aligned. Given the tectonic activity in and around NZ, I am uncertain if the positioning of the equipment could be maintained with sufficient accuracy for the system to work properly.

What could potentially be an alternative, would be for the NZ/NZDF fund an additional JORN-type array in Oz and have that aimed in the direction of NZ, and then have a datalink to relay the info to NZ.

-Cheers

If the range of JORN is approx' 3000KM, then what would be the point of basing an extra one is Australia? We have a massive surface area to monitor, including some Pacific islands. Our ability to do so would be massively degraded if we based a NZ owned but Aussie operated system in Aussie. Given that we have extremely limited assets, in terms of interdiction/prosecution, we'd need to have a positive ID and bearing to best utilise those assets, as far out as is practical.

 

[Todjaeger]

It depends upon the tolerances in the alignment of the equipment. For example Christchurch on the east coast of the South Island is moving towards the West Coast of South Island at 40mm per year. This movement is normal to the Australian Plate / Pacific Plate boundary (Alpine Fault) and the direction is IIRC north west for the movement. So this north west movement at 40mm / yr translates to 40cm / 10 yr and 4m / 100 yr or 1m / 25 yrs. Would that be within the tolerances of the equipment?

Indeed, it depends very much on the alignment tolerances of the system, and/or to what degree the processors can compensate. The JORN system at least seems to operate in the 10 - 100 meter bands, but if the distributed transmitters & receivers ended up changing position, it would throw off the reporting of signal returns, at least until the system could be recalibrated.

RE: the above post. Where is NZ going to find AUD 1 billion for this? I can see the sense of such a thing but the cost, well, that's the killer there not to mention whether or not Aussie would allow us to have such a thing without possibly paying some of the development costs as well.

IIRC the cost was AUD$970 mil. ~1991, and that was for a total of three arrays, the test and development array near Alice Springs, a surveillance array in QLD, and a larger array in WA. While time and inflation would increase the cost, if NZ was only looking to get a single array, then it would likely still be under $1 bil. in terms of cost.

If the range of JORN is approx' 3000KM, then what would be the point of basing an extra one is Australia? We have a massive surface area to monitor, including some Pacific islands. Our ability to do so would be massively degraded if we based a NZ owned but Aussie operated system in Aussie. Given that we have extremely limited assets, in terms of interdiction/prosecution, we'd need to have a positive ID and bearing to best utilise those assets, as far out as is practical.

Agreed that having detection occur as far out as possible would be best. However, if the system could not viably work if constructed in NZ, then the datafeed from an OZ-based array even if it only could cover 1,000 - 3,000 km (published ranges), that plus current ISR assets would still be a broader area surveillance than NZ currently has just with existing assets.

-Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

With the US SecDef about to visit NZ, the US's foreign policy emphasis on renewed engagement with the South Pacific nations, efforts such as the Pacific Partnership (humanitarian and civic assistance missions) and the "reshaping" of the NZDF as both an independent and interoperable (element of a coalition) amphibious force (ditto ADF) it would be timely if officials on both sides could talk turkey on the issue of ship visits, eg apparently the Pentagon could consider "changing its policy against sending even non-nuclear Navy vessels to New Zealand", as this article makes mention of China wary of U.S. military moves in Asia-Pacific - latimes.com

Seems like a good compromise in the interim (as the NZG has enough issues to deal with without the Opposition parties taking on a fight about changes to legislation - there would need to be bi-partisan agreement which I feel would be possible over time if other aspects "normalise" the US-NZ relationship quicker). As well as the practical training and exercising benefits for all (and any) parties involved, it would certainly raise public support (especially in the vacuum of informed debate, which is occassionally exploited by the few remaining die hards as they put out to pasture in their old age. Otherwise the general public (via dopey MSM) puzzle as to why vessels from the UK, France and China occassionally visit but not the US, even when NZ forces serve alongside elsewhere etc).

There must be a few contenders that wouldn't raise much public concern, from the likes of the USNS Mercy to the USCG to even (one day) up to amphibious assault ships like the Tarawa, Wasp & future America classes - big difference between these (plus their mission taskings) and the obvious "contentious" nuclear powered attack or nuclear deterrent subs or larger nuclear powered aircraft carriers that apparently have too large a draft to safely enter most NZ harbours and thus wouldn't visit anyway

 

[ngatimozart]

With the US SecDef about to visit NZ, the US's foreign policy emphasis on renewed engagement with the South Pacific nations, efforts such as the Pacific Partnership (humanitarian and civic assistance missions) and the "reshaping" of the NZDF as both an independent and interoperable (element of a coalition) amphibious force (ditto ADF) it would be timely if officials on both sides could talk turkey on the issue of ship visits, eg apparently the Pentagon could consider "changing its policy against sending even non-nuclear Navy vessels to New Zealand", as this article makes mention of China wary of U.S. military moves in Asia-Pacific - latimes.com

Seems like a good compromise in the interim (as the NZG has enough issues to deal with without the Opposition parties taking on a fight about changes to legislation - there would need to be bi-partisan agreement which I feel would be possible over time if other aspects "normalise" the US-NZ relationship quicker). As well as the practical training and exercising benefits for all (and any) parties involved, it would certainly raise public support (especially in the vacuum of informed debate, which is occassionally exploited by the few remaining die hards as they put out to pasture in their old age. Otherwise the general public (via dopey MSM) puzzle as to why vessels from the UK, France and China occassionally visit but not the US, even when NZ forces serve alongside elsewhere etc).

Well some of the old die hards are still around and vocal. This in yesterdays NZ Herald Brian Rudman: US defence boss likely to demand too much - Politics - NZ Herald News This one doesn't seem to understand that the world has moved on.

There must be a few contenders that wouldn't raise much public concern, from the likes of the USNS Mercy to the USCG to even (one day) up to amphibious assault ships like the Tarawa, Wasp & future America classes - big difference between these (plus their mission taskings) and the obvious "contentious" nuclear powered attack or nuclear deterrent subs or larger nuclear powered aircraft carriers that apparently have too large a draft to safely enter most NZ harbours and thus wouldn't visit anyway

Yes port visits by such vessels as you suggest would be good. The thing about the nuke visit legislation is that the visiting Navy and / or their govt only has to satify our PM that the reactors are safe and there are no nuke weapons onboard. IMHO that should be no drama. We've had French, Royal Navy and PLA(N) ships visit and no issues have arisen then. We have USAF aircraft through here regularly especially in summer when they do the Antarctic flights. No one has complained about that. I think they haven't figured out that C130s & C17s can carry nukes. Our own P3s are theoretically able to carry nukes and the RNZN does have the ability to launch a nuke missile if it had one. The Army can fire them from their artillery. I don't think the great hairy unwashed (and uninformed) have thought that far ahead or realise just how small the warheads can be.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well some of the old die hards are still around and vocal. This in yesterdays NZ Herald Brian Rudman: US defence boss likely to demand too much - Politics - NZ Herald News This one doesn't seem to understand that the world has moved on.

Yes port visits by such vessels as you suggest would be good. The thing about the nuke visit legislation is that the visiting Navy and / or their govt only has to satify our PM that the reactors are safe and there are no nuke weapons onboard. IMHO that should be no drama. We've had French, Royal Navy and PLA(N) ships visit and no issues have arisen then. We have USAF aircraft through here regularly especially in summer when they do the Antarctic flights. No one has complained about that. I think they haven't figured out that C130s & C17s can carry nukes. Our own P3s are theoretically able to carry nukes and the RNZN does have the ability to launch a nuke missile if it had one. The Army can fire them from their artillery. I don't think the great hairy unwashed (and uninformed) have thought that far ahead or realise just how small the warheads can be.

From what I recall, the actual anti-nuke legislation requires the PM to state or certify to Parliament that the foreign naval vessel or military asset is not nuclear powered, or carrying nuclear weapons/warheads. That has been a bit of a sticking point with respect to the USN since it is (rather understandable IMO) US policy to neither confirm nor deny if a particular vessel, vehicle or aircraft is armed with nuclear weaponry at any given point. It has become general US practice for most naval vessels which could be armed with nuclear weapons to not actually have them most of the time, but the US still makes it a practise not to divulge when some are so armed.

IMO it would also be to the benefit of NZ if the law was scrapped or changed, since in the current form, it denies the PM/Gov't flexibility. Then again, it could just be my impression.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

From what I recall, the actual anti-nuke legislation requires the PM to state or certify to Parliament that the foreign naval vessel or military asset is not nuclear powered, or carrying nuclear weapons/warheads. That has been a bit of a sticking point with respect to the USN since it is (rather understandable IMO) US policy to neither confirm nor deny if a particular vessel, vehicle or aircraft is armed with nuclear weaponry at any given point. It has become general US practice for most naval vessels which could be armed with nuclear weapons to not actually have them most of the time, but the US still makes it a practise not to divulge when some are so armed.

IMO it would also be to the benefit of NZ if the law was scrapped or changed, since in the current form, it denies the PM/Gov't flexibility. Then again, it could just be my impression.

-Cheers

I am of the opinion that the PMs statement would suffice. Thing is none of our pollies will tinker with that law. Be political suicide for them too. However an Order in Council may give the govt flexibility needed. I'm not sure of the legallity of that but maybe it is. All the PM really has to say is that the vessel complies with the requirements of the law and leave it at that. People can read into what they want.

 

[Lucasnz]

I am of the opinion that the PMs statement would suffice. Thing is none of our pollies will tinker with that law. Be political suicide for them too. However an Order in Council may give the govt flexibility needed. I'm not sure of the legallity of that but maybe it is. All the PM really has to say is that the vessel complies with the requirements of the law and leave it at that. People can read into what they want.

I suggested in a recent letter to the Minister of Defence (MOD) that the PM could provide a blanket exemption based on the the class and use of the vessel (i.e. MCM, LCS etc). The MOD came back and said its the US's problem by refusing to confirm or deny and ignored the suggestion that the PM could provide a exemptions.

 

[KiwiRob]

From what I recall, the actual anti-nuke legislation requires the PM to state or certify to Parliament that the foreign naval vessel or military asset is not nuclear powered, or carrying nuclear weapons/warheads. That has been a bit of a sticking point with respect to the USN since it is (rather understandable IMO) US policy to neither confirm nor deny if a particular vessel, vehicle or aircraft is armed with nuclear weaponry at any given point. It has become general US practice for most naval vessels which could be armed with nuclear weapons to not actually have them most of the time, but the US still makes it a practise not to divulge when some are so armed.

IMO it would also be to the benefit of NZ if the law was scrapped or changed, since in the current form, it denies the PM/Gov't flexibility. Then again, it could just be my impression.

-Cheers

The interesting thing about the act whilst banning nuclear weapons and vessels powered by nuclear reactors does not ban nuclear power stations, the greenies think it does but it doesn't, which is why I can't see the point in banning nuclear powered vessels, nuclear power wheither used for powering ships or homes is all the same.

New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 No 86 (as at 20 August 1998), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

 

[RegR]

The interesting thing about the act whilst banning nuclear weapons and vessels powered by nuclear reactors does not ban nuclear power stations, the greenies think it does but it doesn't, which is why I can't see the point in banning nuclear powered vessels, nuclear power wheither used for powering ships or homes is all the same.

New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 No 86 (as at 20 August 1998), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Would'nt this only be an issue if we had nuclear power stations? If we did have nuclear power stations(I doubt one would visit us) then the act would obviously alter accordingly. The difference between a power station and a visiting ship/aircraft etc is that we would have direct control over it, a right we are entitled to in our own country I believe.

 

[recce.k1]

Well some of the old die hards are still around and vocal. This in yesterdays NZ Herald Brian Rudman: US defence boss likely to demand too much - Politics - NZ Herald News This one doesn't seem to understand that the world has moved on.

It's important to note (especially people from overseas not familiar with NZ journalism) is that the commentaries from the likes of ancient "left-of-left wing" journalists like Brian Rudman isn't representative of mainstream NZ thinking. Poor old Mr Rudman probably still checks for "yanks under the bed" each night before he cries himself to sleep thinking about the "injustice" of mainstream NZer's for thoughtlessly booting out the Klarkenfuhrer administration at the 2008 elections. Mainstream NZer's would include the likes of this chap who wrote a non-political letter to the DomPost editor today etc.

But seriously aspects of Mr Rudman's article are factually incorrect (which suits his political agenda, which he articulates each week) and instead one should pay more attention to the defence analysts like Robert Ayson (Director of VUW's Centre for Strategic Studies):
US wants NZ in strategic alliance | Stuff.co.nz
US relations with New Zealand revitalised | Pacific Beat | ABC Radio Australia
Robert Ayson: NZ needs to watch out for itself - United States - NZ Herald News
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/sites/default/files/private/apb172_1.pdf

 

[recce.k1]

Guys, I could be wrong in my interpretations but the issue today isn't so much this legislation thing, after all the USG & NZG have publically stated a couple of years ago that they are working around the issue (not being held up by it anymore). Yes the legislation is a sore point for some I know but it doesn't actually prevent the majority of the USN fleet visiting (there is no outright ban on US vessels as such simply because they are "USN", as some previous lazy US media reporting has stated), hence probably why the Pentagon is apparently considering "changing its policy against sending even non-nuclear Navy vessels to New Zealand" in other words something that clearly isn't nuclear powered or armed wouldn't have previously been sent here under current US policy, like a tug-boat! Which has been at odds with vessels from other nuclear powers visiting NZ etc. Well apart from the Russians, they have never overtly visited (mind you any conscript crews might have jumped ship and claimed immunity so maybe that explains that)

In terms of the legislation I had thought the legislation was actually amended in 1987 to get around the issue that confronted PM Lange in 1985 whereby the Cabinet out-voted then PM Lange's (and then CDF Jamieson's) efforts to actually bring in a USN vessel and maintain ANZUS (and before Lange backward flipped when under constant Cabinet and NZ Labour Party pressure from the activist base). So today the PM can do or allow pretty much anything as long as it's within the bounds of the legislation without fear of groups hijacking the agenda, is this not the case?

 

[MrConservative]

Here are the relevent sections of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 that are under discussion.

Section 9 - Entry into internal waters of New Zealand
(1) When the Prime Minister is considering whether to grant approval to the entry of foreign warships into the internal waters of New Zealand, the Prime Minister shall have regard to all relevant information and advice that may be available to the Prime Minister including information and advice concerning the strategic and security interests of New Zealand.
(2) The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.

Section 13 - Immunities
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as limiting the immunities of—
(a) any foreign warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes; or
(b )any foreign military aircraft; or
(c) members of the crew of any ship or aircraft to which paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) applies.

US military aircraft have for many years landed in New Zealand under the discretionary principle of s10 of the Act. The extension of the discretionary principle for s9 (USN vessels) should not be a barrier as the PM would have regard to all the relevant information and advice.

Recce - with respect to Mr Rudman et al and their unsubstantiated "opinions" on defence and foreign policy matters - isn't it about time that factual inaccuracies by "Journalists" be met with higher standards of accountability and discipline from the NZ Press Council?

 

[Todjaeger]

Section 9 - Entry into internal waters of New Zealand
(1) When the Prime Minister is considering whether to grant approval to the entry of foreign warships into the internal waters of New Zealand, the Prime Minister shall have regard to all relevant information and advice that may be available to the Prime Minister including information and advice concerning the strategic and security interests of New Zealand.
(2) The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.

Part (2) would seem to indicate that the PM has more latitude in allowing a foreign naval vessel to come visit. I could still see the potential for a problem with a USN visit, given the historical US policy of neither confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard vessels which could be armed with them.

Given the decrease in the numbers (and types) of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal, the problem may well largely solve itself. IIRC the USN no longer has inventories of nuclear torpedoes or depth bombs/charges. Which means the smaller escort vessels should be cleared. Not sure about the DDG's, since I do not know if any ship-launched LACM's still have nuclear warheads, or if the Arleigh Burke-class was ever kitted out to launch them.

-Cheers

 

[RegR]

Guys, I could be wrong in my interpretations but the issue today isn't so much this legislation thing, after all the USG & NZG have publically stated a couple of years ago that they are working around the issue (not being held up by it anymore). Yes the legislation is a sore point for some I know but it doesn't actually prevent the majority of the USN fleet visiting (there is no outright ban on US vessels as such simply because they are "USN", as some previous lazy US media reporting has stated), hence probably why the Pentagon is apparently considering "changing its policy against sending even non-nuclear Navy vessels to New Zealand" in other words something that clearly isn't nuclear powered or armed wouldn't have previously been sent here under current US policy, like a tug-boat! Which has been at odds with vessels from other nuclear powers visiting NZ etc. Well apart from the Russians, they have never overtly visited (mind you any conscript crews might have jumped ship and claimed immunity so maybe that explains that)

In terms of the legislation I had thought the legislation was actually amended in 1987 to get around the issue that confronted PM Lange in 1985 whereby the Cabinet out-voted then PM Lange's (and then CDF Jamieson's) efforts to actually bring in a USN vessel and maintain ANZUS (and before Lange backward flipped when under constant Cabinet and NZ Labour Party pressure from the activist base). So today the PM can do or allow pretty much anything as long as it's within the bounds of the legislation without fear of groups hijacking the agenda, is this not the case?

Yes the legislation banned nuclear (everyones by the way) not US in general but I suppose the US does'nt take well to being told what they can and cannot do regardless of where in the world it is and this is exactly why they have the 'reputation' they do across the globe. It can be good and bad but generally it does not go down well in soverign nations as you would expect.

Don't get me wrong Im not bagging the US(I have happily worked with alot of yanks)in fact their presence as the enforcer around the world has kept WWIII at bay but they can't expect everyone to jump without some kind of bounce be it big or small. I would'nt walk into the whitehouse with a hand grenade in my back pocket, why? Because that is their policy and I will respect it. We made a stand, America made a stand, it is just good to finally see we can still work together regardless.

 

[USAF77]

Which means the smaller escort vessels should be cleared. Not sure about the DDG's, since I do not know if any ship-launched LACM's still have nuclear warheads, or if the Arleigh Burke-class was ever kitted out to launch them.

No. They dont. The W-80 warheads are currently stored onshore. Either way it doesnt matter. America would never change its policy concerning making public if ships had nuclear weapons on them.

Yes the legislation banned nuclear (everyones by the way) not US in general but I suppose the US does'nt take well to being told what they can and cannot do regardless of where in the world it is and this is exactly why they have the 'reputation' they do across the globe. It can be good and bad but generally it does not go down well in soverign nations as you would expect.

These kind of statements leave us kinda scratching our heads. To us it was the equivalent of someone putting a sign in front their house "Nuclear Free Zone", which Americans actually do. It meant nothing to us. We left the Philippines when asked. Even our commonwealth, Peurto Rico, was able to get our main USN target range shut down. Im tired of hearing the USA implied as some single entity incapable of making thoughtful, legal, decisions.

But Ive known some good NZ'ers, indeedly happily hunted Africa with them. So I'll leave off this tripe as just domestic fodder. As far as our defense posture goes NZ closing its ports to the USN meant nothing. It wasnt even a bump in the road.

 

[RubiconNZ]

But Ive known some good NZ'ers, indeedly happily hunted Africa with them. So I'll leave off this tripe as just domestic fodder. As far as our defense posture goes NZ closing its ports to the USN meant nothing. It wasnt even a bump in the road.

I'd have to disagree with you there, it did mean something and that is why there was such a strong reaction back fully suspending all military cooperative ties with NZ.

Imagine if European nations or any nation for that matter at the height of the Cold War started to tell the US no in regards to their nuclear weapon system or even propulsion systems. The US could not afford situations like this and had the potential to cost the US strategically especially as the US was engaged with a near peer competitor.

From a strategic perspective it may not of effected the USN however the act of a Ally refusing co-operation of this kind had much broader political ramifications for the US. Hence there disproportionately strong response.

 

[aussienscale]

It wasnt even a bump in the road.

Are you kidding ? mate they smacked into the wall at 100kph ! It had huge ramifications for NZ across a whole spectrum of things, there were a lot of pirvillages lost in that decision, although I am not in the game anymore, I would be guessing they still don't see the whole ball game