NZDF General discussion thread

[OldTex]

Thanks for clarifying as I misunderstood the situation, so after doing some quick swotting to understand that risk management in a military context (and there appears to be variations in the way it is phrased) is the process of "identifying and assessing the hazards, developing controls and make risk decisions, implement controls, and supervise and evaluate" (eg that "balance the risk costs with mission benefits"), so think I now understand one is planning for scenarios that when it happens a response is triggered i.e. reacting ... so then would a proactive strategy mean (eg) anticipating any challenges and with prioritised policy objectives, be better prepared to minimise (or deny) the ability of a threat/hazard to eventuate or present itself?

And is the issue of changing the cultures you mean (eg) the likes of having sufficient preparation/training in place, logistics at the ready, the means to deploy (rapidly) at the ready, reinforcements in reserve and so on to have any real effect?

Or perhaps in reality for NZDF, enough capability/capacity to self-deploy, and that can also be independently sustained, when slotting into an allied or coalition operation?

If so, then when or if they get started it suggests a different look to how the NZDF is resourced at present!

I see the proactive strategy with the policy directives as the NZGov setting the pre-conditions and basis for all of their interactions. In some cases this approach may reduce the likelihood of a threat evolving/increasing. But it is not the elusive cure-all because other participants will have their own strategies, policies and desired outcomes which could take a situation in an entirely unpredictable direction.

For this reason the NZGov perhaps needs to develop a range of roles that may be required to be utilised in the future. Once these roles have been agreed then the responsibility needs to be assigned to the appropriate government department(s)/ministry(ies). The NZGov also needs to define the roles with regard to them being primary, secondary and tertiary roles for the various departments. The roles need to be developed by the appropriate government department/ministry to generate appropriate effects to be utilised by the NZGov.

The NZGov would also need to define the maximum level of effort that it was willing to support. This would need to be defined on the basis of number of concurrent efforts, level of department responsibility (primary, secondary or tertiary), desired effect and distance from NZ itself.

All of these will shape the training and preparation required as well as the type and number of platforms. Ultimately if the NZGov needs X platforms to meet its specified policy outcomes (including those platforms needed for training etc) then it must fund X platforms. If the money is not there then the NZGov needs to reassess ts policy outcomes. Also if the NZGov agrees to fund X platforms then the appropriate department should not be charged for having the X platforms the government requires it to have.

 

[Rob c]

To me the problems we have in NZ's defence is simply a lack of focus and and a lack of will by successive governments. The first priority , I believe is that you have to protect our own freedom and sovereignty firstly and then deal with regional issues and support next, followed by all the other government requirements and this is the way that it is usually written by successive governments. The problem is that those same governments don't provide the tools to do this and tend to focus on the lesser tasks.
They will commission various studies or white papers/ capability studies etc. and then ignore the outcome if it does not align with their political thinking. The problem in NZ has been that the defence of NZ has become a political football non event from which various finance ministers have deducted from to level their budgets. Before we need the political will and focus to ensure that we can defend NZ, before we start looking at any other of the multitude of things that the government requires. Often by getting the basics in place first to defend yourself, you will find that you have also covered most of the other requirements. However the reverse does not apply in that setting up for the " tasks " does not give you a satisfactory defence ability.
It is my belief that with our current setup our defence forces ability to defend us is very low and we need to firstly focus on improving this and to do this you firstly need to ask military experts on how best to achieve this. this should also include personal from overseas as even the most committed people will still have background agenda's.
As I have often said I believe that the problem is quite simple, know what is happening in your area and have the ability to counter it before it reaches here. That involves both sea and air approaches, they being the only way here.

 

[Gibbo]

To me the problems we have in NZ's defence is simply a lack of focus and and a lack of will by successive governments. The first priority , I believe is that you have to protect our own freedom and sovereignty firstly and then deal with regional issues and support next, followed by all the other government requirements and this is the way that it is usually written by successive governments. The problem is that those same governments don't provide the tools to do this and tend to focus on the lesser tasks.
They will commission various studies or white papers/ capability studies etc. and then ignore the outcome if it does not align with their political thinking. The problem in NZ has been that the defence of NZ has become a political football non event from which various finance ministers have deducted from to level their budgets. Before we need the political will and focus to ensure that we can defend NZ, before we start looking at any other of the multitude of things that the government requires. Often by getting the basics in place first to defend yourself, you will find that you have also covered most of the other requirements. However the reverse does not apply in that setting up for the " tasks " does not give you a satisfactory defence ability.
It is my belief that with our current setup our defence forces ability to defend us is very low and we need to firstly focus on improving this and to do this you firstly need to ask military experts on how best to achieve this. this should also include personal from overseas as even the most committed people will still have background agenda's.
As I have often said I believe that the problem is quite simple, know what is happening in your area and have the ability to counter it before it reaches here. That involves both sea and air approaches, they being the only way here.

Agreed, and we also need to start realising defence is more than just preventing physical 'invasion'. NZ can be physically and/or economically bought to our knees without anyone setting foot on our soil, or even potentially entering our EEZ, let alone firing a shot. Cyber-attack could, and maritime blockade would, fark us completely without a shot being fired or us being 'invaded'. Hence the need to employ deep, critical analysis of the risks...way beyond what the average kiwi politician could, or is likely to want to do. It also brings regional capability way up the list to sit on par with sovereign territory defence... you'd rather forward defence than wait till they knock at the door! This is why the EMAC project, that I often harp on about, may be unarmed but a hugely significant boost to our defence capability, because these days domain awareness is a (if not 'the') critical enabler.

 

[Alberto32]

I don't know if it's been talked about, but would joining Australia on a sovereign milsat comm network, without relying on approval from the USA on their WGS network especially on humanitarian relief missions, such as natural disasters, be a consideration for NZ in the near future? Especially after the Kaikoura and Christchurch earthquakes, we might want to have instant access to Comms, without having to go through channels with another nation to get resources aligned ASAP.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't know if it's been talked about, but would joining Australia on a sovereign milsat comm network, without relying on approval from the USA on their WGS network especially on humanitarian relief missions, such as natural disasters, be a consideration for NZ in the near future? Especially after the Kaikoura and Christchurch earthquakes, we might want to have instant access to Comms, without having to go through channels with another nation to get resources aligned ASAP.

Please, please, please do some research before asking borderline ridiculous questions. For instance, the WGS system is a multi-nation venture which has both Oz and Kiwi participation, with IIRC Oz funding the WGS-6 satellite to the tune of USD$300 mil.

Much like the question of whether yet another GNSS could be developed, the answer once again is technically, yes. However, developing, manufacturing, launching and then maintaining a MilSATCOMM constellation is a resource intensive activity and the NZDF is and has been under-resourced for decades as it is. Taking a significant amount of funding away from what is available in Vote Defence, to develop a sovereign satellite constellation would once again seem more like a prestige project than anything else. If Vote Defence was overflowing with funding resources and the NZDF was already meeting all of Defence's needed capabilities (current and future) then, and only then, there might be value in some of these ideas.

To provide a bit of context, the RFI for the now-cancelled or postponed Kiwi SOPV had a projected ship budget of NZD$300 - 600 mil. or ~USD$215 - 430 mil. last year. The approximate cost of a single WGS satellite is ~USD$300 mil. Which would provide a better overall capability for the NZDF, a SOPV, or a single MilSATCOMM satellite?

 

[Rob c]

double

 

[Rob c]

Agreed, and we also need to start realising defence is more than just preventing physical 'invasion'. NZ can be physically and/or economically bought to our knees without anyone setting foot on our soil, or even potentially entering our EEZ, let alone firing a shot. Cyber-attack could, and maritime blockade would, fark us completely without a shot being fired or us being 'invaded'. Hence the need to employ deep, critical analysis of the risks...way beyond what the average kiwi politician could, or is likely to want to do. It also brings regional capability way up the list to sit on par with sovereign territory defence... you'd rather forward defence than wait till they knock at the door! This is why the EMAC project, that I often harp on about, may be unarmed but a hugely significant boost to our defence capability, because these days domain awareness is a (if not 'the') critical enabler.

While you have made some good points I would not place regional capability quite as high as sovereign defence for the following reasons.
1. The internal economy would still function, ok there would be significant hard ship.
2. Cutting off physical communication to NZ from all directions would be extremely difficult and would require vast resources and the likely hood of us being the sole target are extremely remote. I would think that in the event of conflict in our region that an aggressor would need those resources elsewhere.
3. Cutting off communication across the Tasman sea would be very difficult and next to impossible for air travel for any significant period of time.
4. To maintain a regional capability you need a secure rear.
The above would only apply if we had reasonable defensive capability. Under our current capability an aggressor could simply fly into a suitable airfield or sail into a suitable port and take them over then continue to build and there is very little we could do about it.
Your reference to domain awareness is correct and is one thing I have stressed in saying we must know what is going on in our area, both on the sea and in the air and to achieve this we need good intelligence and surveillance.

 

[Todjaeger]

While you have made some good points I would not place regional capability quite as high as sovereign defence for the following reasons.
1. The internal economy would still function, ok there would be significant hard ship.
2. Cutting off physical communication to NZ from all directions would be extremely difficult and would require vast resources and the likely hood of us being the sole target are extremely remote. I would think that in the event of conflict in our region that an aggressor would need those resources elsewhere.
3. Cutting off communication across the Tasman sea would be very difficult and next to impossible for air travel for any significant period of time.
4. To maintain a regional capability you need a secure rear.
The above would only apply if we had reasonable defensive capability. Under our current capability an aggressor could simply fly into a suitable airfield or sail into a suitable port and take them over then continue to build and there is very little we could do about it.
Your reference to domain awareness is correct and is one thing I have stressed in saying we must know what is going on in our area, both on the sea and in the air and to achieve this we need good intelligence and surveillance.

Regional capability (depending on how one defines it) is inseparably intertwined with sovereign defence capability IMO. As part of the continuing 'sea blindness' many still seem to forget just how vulnerable NZ's SLOC are, as well as the potentially catastrophic results should they become cut.

It is also worth mentioning and for people to really understand and consider, that NZ's SLOC could end up being cut as a by-product of conflict between other powers and without any Kiwi involvement. NZ's areas of interest and SLOC extend well beyond the realm's 200 n mile EEZ.

Also, if the SLOC to NZ are significantly disrupted, this can have a significant negative impact on even the internal economy of NZ and potentially to such a degree as to be well beyond causing hardship. It is my understanding that at present NZ is largely dependent on importing petroleum products vs. engaging in domestic production/exploitation, and also that NZ's domestic refining capability has declined and there has been movement to have it halted entirely (closing Marsden Point IIRC). Should the supply line bringing petroleum and refined product to NZ get diverted or cut, how long before NZ runs out of fuel?

That is just a single and rather dramatic example but the chance of something happening is quite real.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't know if it's been talked about, but would joining Australia on a sovereign milsat comm network, without relying on approval from the USA on their WGS network especially on humanitarian relief missions, such as natural disasters, be a consideration for NZ in the near future? Especially after the Kaikoura and Christchurch earthquakes, we might want to have instant access to Comms, without having to go through channels with another nation to get resources aligned ASAP.

So where do we get the money from to resource such a capability? What capabilities do you suggest that NZDF give up to fund such a capability? We already have a 1/6th ownership of a WGS-6 satellite and that cost us $1 billion, so how do you expect us to fund a constellation?

I strongly suggest that you start doing some research before posting "suggestions" like these on the Forum. Take the opportunity to learn by looking back through the various NZ threads. Mr Google is forever you friend when it comes to looking for things.

 

[Gibbo]

So who knows if China's made some backroom deals to instigate this but seems awfully soon after China's recent 'diplomatic offensive' in the region. Feels like the Pacific Islands nations have suddenly started feeling rather un-united! Certainly a fertile ground for China to slide on in & exploit to widen the divides between states... maybe some questions to be asked of the NZ, Oz Govts... More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out

 

[ngatimozart]

So who knows if China's made some backroom deals to instigate this but seems awfully soon after China's recent 'diplomatic offensive' in the region. Feels like the Pacific Islands nations have suddenly started feeling rather un-united! Certainly a fertile ground for China to slide on in & exploit to widen the divides between states... maybe some questions to be asked of the NZ, Oz Govts... More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. The PRC FM was spitting the dummy over the PIF closing this year's Summit to members only so I believe that behind the scenes money has changed hands to split the PIF.

 

[recce.k1]

So who knows if China's made some backroom deals to instigate this but seems awfully soon after China's recent 'diplomatic offensive' in the region. Feels like the Pacific Islands nations have suddenly started feeling rather un-united! Certainly a fertile ground for China to slide on in & exploit to widen the divides between states... maybe some questions to be asked of the NZ, Oz Govts... More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out

Apart from Kiribati (from Micronesia) at this stage it looks like other reasons have caused some other PI nations to pull out (eg according to that Stuff/RNZ article, Nauru due to covid issues and the Cook Islands due to electioneering).

Micronesia's Marshall Islands is not attending due to an "internal legal process" issue not being resolved (to do with earlier discontent with the PI Forum leadership rotation). Apparently President David Kabua wanted to attend, supported by Speaker Kenneth Kedi (seems to be some issues with a resolution the Speaker wrote that was "entirely rewritten by committee and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to delete all references to rescinding the earlier resolution and instead stated the parliament's endorsement only of "pause" in the decision to leave. Kedi, so angered by the rewrite, pulled the resolution off the table, leaving the earlier legislation in place". Seems odd that their absence is due to taking so long to resolve things between the bureaucrats?

Marshall Islands prevents itself from participating in Forum

Marshall Islands president David Kabua has been prevented from attending this week's first in-person meeting of Pacific Islands Forum leaders because his own government derailed an effort earlier in 2022 to undo legislatively-binding action to terminat...

www.rnz.co.nz

Anyway the Marshall Islands actually maintains diplomatic ties with Taiwan and has a Compact of Free Association with the US (which amongst a number of things prevents the Marshall Islands from allowing "foreign bases" on their territories without agreement with the US etc), so doubt there are any CCP interference's going on.

US-RMI aim for Compact wrap-up by year-end

US and Marshall Islands leaders hope to complete negotiations to renew provisions of an economic and security treaty by the end of this year.

www.rnz.co.nz

The remaining Micronesian island nations (Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau) appear to be taken by surprise by Kiribati's decision and don't appear to support their withdraw and apparently they will issue a joint-statement about Kiribati in due course. "The four MPS leaders as well as Fijian prime minister and forum chair Frank Bainimarama had been trying to reach out to the Kiribati government, but had not had any success". Looks like Kiribati's leadership are not acting in the "Pacific way" but the others will continue to reach out to try and bring them back into the fold.

Micronesia bloc responds to Kiribati's departure from Pacific Forum

The Micronesian bloc of nations are "saddened" by Kiribati's shock decision to leave the Pacific Islands Forum regional body, one leader says.

www.rnz.co.nz

All the Melanesian island nations are attending (including Solomon Islands and their President Sogavare) and all the Polynesian island nations (apart from the Cook Islands due to their elections ... so the PIF Forum is largely united despite the MSM's sloppy headlines (typical)!

 

[recce.k1]

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. The PRC FM was spitting the dummy over the PIF closing this year's Summit to members only so I believe that behind the scenes money has changed hands to split the PIF.

Anything is possible, but not sure if the CCP will succeed in the long run (because of the US). But checking out the comments of the experts they are raising that possibility.

Dr Anna Powles, a senior lecturer in security studies at Massey University in New Zealand, said the decision was likely to have stemmed from a combination of domestic politics in Kiribati and frustrations with the diplomatic processes.

“It’s unclear yet what China’s role is in this decision, but China would certainly benefit from an isolated Kiribati,” said Powles. “There has been concern about the nature of Chinese interest in Kiribati and concern about exploitation of fisheries, as well as potential strategic interest.”

Powles said Kiribati’s decision was a “devastating blow” to the Pacific Islands Forum, which served a crucial purpose in providing collective oversight of Pacific countries on issues such as fisheries and security.

Kiribati withdraws from Pacific Islands Forum in blow to regional body

President says it will not be attending forum because of failure to address concerns of Micronesian countries

www.theguardian.com

Ultimately, the knee-jerk withdrawal led to growing speculation about what truly motivated Maamau, beyond the official reasons given in the letter. After all, the nation’s pullback comes just weeks after China’s top diplomat, Wang Yi, toured the Pacific and signed a flurry of agreements with the Kiribati government, among others. Back then, Wang’s visit to Kiribati’s capital, South Tarawa, raised eyebrows among the local population as the island nation seemingly bent over backward to accommodate the Chinese delegation despite an ongoing COVID-19 lockdown and inbound travel restrictions. Similarly, local journalists bemoaned the fact that the 4-hour visit was shrouded in secrecy.

Since coming to power, Maamau has become a divisive figure and a strong proponent of Beijing’s growing involvement in the country, infamously severing ties with Taiwan in favor of diplomatic relations with mainland China in 2019. In late 2021, Maamau proposed lifting a 2015 fishing ban in the Phoenix Islands (Rawaki), which he defended by saying that it was scientifically-backed and necessary to increase the nation’s domestic revenue. Yet, simultaneously, opposition voices grew louder, arguing that opening fishing grounds has always been one of China’s priorities, and that the Phoenix Islands would prove an ideal spot for Chinese trawlers. Further compounding the matter was news that Kiribati’s environment minister, Ruateki Tekaiara, had been allegedly left in the dark over the proposed changes due to his strong opposition to the plan.

Additional media reports noted that the Maamau government was also drawing up joint plans with Beijing to renovate a World War II-era runway on Kanton Island. Apart from mounting speculations about just how close the two countries are, some observers suggested that an upgraded runway in this location could have military applications for the entire region. Nevertheless, the Maamau government has perpetually denied that Chinese interests, or even pressure, were driving its political decisions.

It would be overly simplistic to attribute Kiribati’s withdrawal just days ahead of the PIF summit to China’s growing influence. Certainly, Beijing has been making inroads and has left the status quo powers of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States scrambling to jumpstart their respective Pacific policies again. In addition, Maamau’s insistence on keeping China engaged, despite domestic opposition, suggests that Wang’s latest visit to the island has had a largely positive effect on bilateral relations.

Exit Kiribati? The Pacific Islands Forum Faces Further Strife

Despite a deal between the PIF and other Micronesian states, Kiribati declared it still intends to withdraw from the premier regional forum.

thediplomat.com

In the meantime the US has stepped up and tonight announced a number of initiatives (including re-establishing diplomatic embassies in the region eg Kiribati, Tonga as well as the Solomon Islands (announced previously) and apart from funding various projects (including a USAID Regional Mission for the Pacific in Suva, Fiji, and are looking to "bring the Peace Corps back to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu and work with the region to expand to other nations".

This CNN article tonight quotes Professor Anne Marie Brady talking about CCP interference, but as the article states the "US signed the Treaty of Tarawa, giving it the power to veto the use of former US facilities by third parties on Kanton and other islands.

"The treaty says that facilities on the 14 islands where the US formerly claimed sovereignty could not be used for military purposes without the agreement of the US," Brady said. But she added there are ways around that. "A dual use facility, where the military functions are not immediately activated, could get around that provision.".

"China is looking for a location for military facilities in the Pacific," she said. "As elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific, the way they have been going about this is via dual use port and air facilities."

Analysis: The US steps up its game as China circles the Pacific

On a small group of atolls in the central Pacific Ocean, Kiribati islanders celebrated their Independence Day Tuesday with a President who had skipped the region's first face-to-face meeting in three years.

edition.cnn.com

So if there is anything underhand going on with the CCP and Kiribati (or some of its leadership), I suspect they won't get too far without the US becoming directly involved (and suspect the US will now step up diplomatic responses).

But the lesson is, Kiribati apparently reached out to the US originally to support them "rehabilitating the port and runway" on Kanton Island but the US turned them down at the time (which seems unusual because historically the US oversees Micronesia's needs)?

Kiribati has a long-standing defence treaty with the United States, the 1979 Treaty of Tarawa. “There has been a lot of talk about strengthening and renewing the treaty, but none about abrogating it,” Tito said. The treaty gives the US veto power over military installations in Kiribati built by third nations.

So it seems as this article discusses that Kiribati then reached out to the CCP for development aid (and not neccessarily wanting military use), but like the recent Solomon Islands security arrangement the CCP perhaps had other "hidden" agendas? Well if so - gotcha!

China’s foreign minister to visit Solomon Islands amid push for more deals with Pacific countries

Tour, which includes Fiji and Papua New Guinea, comes amidst ‘uptick of tempo’ in China’s engagement in the Pacific

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gooey]

Can I ask if any of our Aussie loiterers have access to The Australian? This article could be of interest:

If Ardern’s speech on China was genuine, we’re in trouble

Jacinda Ardern was eight years old when the Peoples Liberation Army rolled its tanks into Tiananmen Square, but this doesnt excuse her speech to the Lowy Institute last week.

amp.theaustralian.com.au

Apologies for my tight-fisted Jockistan ancestry presenting its ugly head.

 

[Rob c]

Regional capability (depending on how one defines it) is inseparably intertwined with sovereign defence capability IMO. As part of the continuing 'sea blindness' many still seem to forget just how vulnerable NZ's SLOC are, as well as the potentially catastrophic results should they become cut.

It is also worth mentioning and for people to really understand and consider, that NZ's SLOC could end up being cut as a by-product of conflict between other powers and without any Kiwi involvement. NZ's areas of interest and SLOC extend well beyond the realm's 200 n mile EEZ.

Also, if the SLOC to NZ are significantly disrupted, this can have a significant negative impact on even the internal economy of NZ and potentially to such a degree as to be well beyond causing hardship. It is my understanding that at present NZ is largely dependent on importing petroleum products vs. engaging in domestic production/exploitation, and also that NZ's domestic refining capability has declined and there has been movement to have it halted entirely (closing Marsden Point IIRC). Should the supply line bringing petroleum and refined product to NZ get diverted or cut, how long before NZ runs out of fuel?

That is just a single and rather dramatic example but the chance of something happening is quite real.

Yep, but we would survive. I grew up in the late 1940's and 50's, we had no power until I was 11years old, just think no tv, radio, washing machines, electric heaters or electric hot water, or any modern appliances, ice on the inside of the bedroom window in winter, no refrigerator or freezer and to visit my best play mate I either rode my bike the 8k on a gravel ( often with my sister) or saddled my horse. Molly my mates mother would give us lunch and we would go home in time for tea cooked on a coal range. I am not suggesting we return to these bygone and very happy days but you would be surprised at the human beings adaptability.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep, but we would survive. I grew up in the late 1940's and 50's, we had no power until I was 11years old, just think no tv, radio, washing machines, electric heaters or electric hot water, or any modern appliances, ice on the inside of the bedroom window in winter, no refrigerator or freezer and to visit my best play mate I either rode my bike the 8k on a gravel ( often with my sister) or saddled my horse. Molly my mates mother would give us lunch and we would go home in time for tea cooked on a coal range. I am not suggesting we return to these bygone and very happy days but you would be surprised at the human beings adaptability.

Some would survive, but TBH there would a very distinct possibility that a significant percentage of the population would end up dying should fuel supplies to NZ be cut for months or longer. It is not about what are modern conveniences (that people often have grown so used to that they consider them necessities) but much more about being able to sustain domestic production as well as internal distribution.

Consider the following; there are 1.7 mil. people living in the Auckland metro area, how much food do these people consume, where does their food come from, and how does it get to them.

I have no idea what the numbers are for NZ, but in the US, foods that most people consume travel on average ~1,600 km to get from the point of origin to the dinner table. If NZ's supplies of petrol and/or diesel are exhausted without replenishment then the transportation aspect of the food supply chain would be forced to switch to alternate methods of transport. NZ might be able to revert back to burning coal for heating, electrical generation, and possibly even some transportation via ship and/or train. Otherwise one is looking at some battery-powered transportation (which does not do well with moving significant weight as I understand it), wind/sail power, draft animals, or on foot.

Going back to the numbers for the Auckland metro area, the average person eats ~1.5 kg/day of food. Given the population of the metro area, roughly 2,550 tonnes of food area consumed per day by the people living there. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to sustain that large a population in such a small, compact area if modern logistics and distribution systems become unavailable. Rural areas in NZ which are able to largely grow foods for their own local consumption could hang on, but urban and suburban life is a different matter.

 

[Rob c]

Some would survive, but TBH there would a very distinct possibility that a significant percentage of the population would end up dying should fuel supplies to NZ be cut for months or longer. It is not about what are modern conveniences (that people often have grown so used to that they consider them necessities) but much more about being able to sustain domestic production as well as internal distribution.

Consider the following; there are 1.7 mil. people living in the Auckland metro area, how much food do these people consume, where does their food come from, and how does it get to them.

I have no idea what the numbers are for NZ, but in the US foods that most people consume travel on average ~1,600 km to get from the point of origin to the dinner table. If NZ's supplies of petrol and/or diesel are exhausted without replenishment then the transportation aspect of the food supply chain would be forced to switch to alternate methods of transport. NZ might be able to revert back to burning coal for heating, electrical generation, and possibly even some transportation via ship and/or train. Otherwise one is looking at some battery-powered transportation (which does not do well with moving significant weight as I understand it), wind/sail power, draft animals, or on foot.

Going back to the number for the Auckland metro area, the average person eats ~1.5 kg/day of food. Given the population of the metro area, roughly 2,550 tonnes of food area consumed per day by the people living there. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to sustain that large a population in such a small, compact area if modern logistics and distribution systems become unavailable. Rural areas in NZ which are able to largely grown foods for their own local consumption could hang on, but urban and suburban life is a different matter.

Yes Good point, but would fuel supplies be cut completely, While traditional suppliers may not be available, are there other alternatives . Possibly essential supplies from Australia, restart Marsden point, We do export about $230m of high grade crude to Australia a year. The reason for this was that Marsden point could process cheaper low grade crude and as time passes electric or hydrogen powered vehicles will supplement and reduce the reliance on traditional fuels Given that the transport system moves a lot of what is not totally essential, reducing to what is strictly essential and adapting our systems I think that we could adapt. As I said before I think any threat to NZ would not be in isolation and any threat would be unlikely to be able to spare the resources to totally isolate us, as these would be needed in more important area's

Crude Petroleum in New Zealand | The Observatory of Economic Complexity

Find the latest exports, imports and tariffs for Crude Petroleum trade in New Zealand.

oec.world

 

[spoz]

It’s not just fuel; lubricants are arguably even more important, and getting away from fossil fuels makes no difference to that requirement. The world would stop without OM 100……and they come from specialist refineries.

 

[Gibbo]

Yes Good point, but would fuel supplies be cut completely, While traditional suppliers may not be available, are there other alternatives . Possibly essential supplies from Australia, restart Marsden point, We do export about $230m of high grade crude to Australia a year. The reason for this was that Marsden point could process cheaper low grade crude and as time passes electric or hydrogen powered vehicles will supplement and reduce the reliance on traditional fuels Given that the transport system moves a lot of what is not totally essential, reducing to what is strictly essential and adapting our systems I think that we could adapt. As I said before I think any threat to NZ would not be in isolation and any threat would be unlikely to be able to spare the resources to totally isolate us, as these would be needed in more important area's

Crude Petroleum in New Zealand | The Observatory of Economic Complexity

Find the latest exports, imports and tariffs for Crude Petroleum trade in New Zealand.

oec.world

Unfortunately AIUI the refinery will very shortly be in a state that it cannot be restarted due to non-use / non-replacement of life-expired componentry and fairly soon actual deconstruction (if not already started). The other half used to work in logistics planning of fuel for one of those big oil companies & she confirms the refinery is not able to refine the local oil as it is very waxy in content and the refinery never did gear up for doing so. At the end of the day we are reliant on imported petrol / diesel and effectively always have been.

The key is to have alternatives / options available now, not suddenly needed & then requiring urgent retooling etc. What we actually need most immediately is the internationally accepted practice of 90 days supply onshore... the last I heard what NZ did was to have an agreement with Japan that our 90 stocks would be held there... an absolute crock of political shite that one... especially in an emergency. Maritime blockade would stop fuel imports overnight... operators will not proceed if even a risk of blockade is expected... insurance companies would withdraw cover of shipments & the shipping lines would quickly refuse to proceed, even under military escort.

The modern NZ & it's populace are no doubt adaptable, but the bulk aren't of the age, like ourselves, where we created most of what we consumed & were happy to make longer term sacrifices for the 'greater good'. We can see from the COVID lockdowns how quickly tolerance wears thin and if we were suddenly facing maritime blockade we'd soon start turning on ourselves... exactly the response the party blockading us would be both expecting & waiting to exploit...divide & conquer!

 

[Todjaeger]

Unfortunately AIUI the refinery will very shortly be in a state that it cannot be restarted due to non-use / non-replacement of life-expired componentry and fairly soon actual deconstruction (if not already started). The other half used to work in logistics planning of fuel for one of those big oil companies & she confirms the refinery is not able to refine the local oil as it is very waxy in content and the refinery never did gear up for doing so. At the end of the day we are reliant on imported petrol / diesel and effectively always have been.

The key is to have alternatives / options available now, not suddenly needed & then requiring urgent retooling etc. What we actually need most immediately is the internationally accepted practice of 90 days supply onshore... the last I heard what NZ did was to have an agreement with Japan that our 90 stocks would be held there... an absolute crock of political shite that one... especially in an emergency. Maritime blockade would stop fuel imports overnight... operators will not proceed if even a risk of blockade is expected... insurance companies would withdraw cover of shipments & the shipping lines would quickly refuse to proceed, even under military escort.

The modern NZ & it's populace are no doubt adaptable, but the bulk aren't of the age, like ourselves, where we created most of what we consumed & were happy to make longer term sacrifices for the 'greater good'. We can see from the COVID lockdowns how quickly tolerance wears thin and if we were suddenly facing maritime blockade we'd soon start turning on ourselves... exactly the response the party blockading us would be both expecting & waiting to exploit...divide & conquer!

IMO NZ would most likely not be subjected to, or the target of a blockade, OTOH I do not believe that a situation like a blockade would be required before NZ's fuel supply lines would be essentially cut.

China, Japan and S. Korea import significant portions of their petroleum, with much of it having to pass through the Malacca Strait and then transiting the SCS and possibly ECS as well. AFAIK NZ's imported fuel also has to pass through that strait in order to get to NZ. If a conflict were to break out between two or more of those nations, one of the priorities would likely be to try and cut off the fuel supplies to their adversaries. This in turn could lead to tankers transiting the region to end up getting targeted generally. Similarly, if a more direct conflict were to break out between India and the PRC, one thing which could happen would be for pressure to be applied by the Indian Navy against tankers bound for the PRC. This threat to their energy supply lines could easily force the PRC to take action to seize any/all fuel supplies they can.

From my POV, NZ paying for a 90 day supply of fuel stored in Japan, is little more than whistling in the dark in the event of a crisis where NZ needs that fuel.