NZDF General discussion thread

[KiwiRob]

New Zealand is happy to have a defence relationship with the US, but we will not be party to those things that we find to be morally reprehensible.

Who exactly do you mean by we, I hope you aren't including me, I personally don't have a problem with nuclear powered or armed warships visiting our ports, I also know a great number of people who couldn't care less, had we not had a Labour govt in power I don't think The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act would have passed.

I think before such an act was passed (which has had consequences for NZ in our relationship with the US) we should have had a referendum.

 

[Sea Toby]

Is New Zealand going to replace the Endeavour with a larger vessel? As it is the Endeavour can barely fit your Calliope drydock. Is New Zealand going to build a larger drydock? Do you really need a larger drydock, as I don't see the need unless you have a larger ship? With only two frigates in its navy does the navy need a larger oiler?

I can see a need for a larger commercial tug boat, but does your navy need one? I'm sure the Australians have one across the Tasman Sea, and I know the US Navy have several salvage ships, oh, I forgot, they're not welcomed in New Zealand.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Is New Zealand going to replace the Endeavour with a larger vessel? As it is the Endeavour can barely fit your Calliope drydock. Is New Zealand going to build a larger drydock? Do you really need a larger drydock, as I don't see the need unless you have a larger ship? With only two frigates in its navy does the navy need a larger oiler?

Given the proposed cost, and some of the things that Major General Rys-Jones has said recently about NZDF needing to be better at quickly deploying troops, I suspect that navy is after a more generalised logistics ship that is better equipped to support troops ashore..but thats just my opinion

I can see a need for a larger commercial tug boat, but does your navy need one?

Good point, such a vessel would seldom, if ever, be used by Navy I would think but there are plenty of other agencies that might need the capacity, such as dept of conservation if there is ever an oil spill due to a grounding or shipwreck. I would imagine that the project would be run by the navy and administratively 'owned' by navy, but its ultimate end users might be a number of departments.

I'm sure the Australians have one across the Tasman Sea, and I know the US Navy have several salvage ships, oh, I forgot, they're not welcomed in New Zealand.

Don't lie, Toby. A bit of google-fu shows that US warship's are more than welcome in NZ ports, if they are not nuclear armed or propelled and this has been stated by more than one NZ government. Other navies, who do have such weapons and propulsion, visit NZ without issue, its only the US that has problems with NZ law and ship visits.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Who exactly do you mean by we, I hope you aren't including me, I personally don't have a problem with nuclear powered or armed warships visiting our ports, I also know a great number of people who couldn't care less,

I shouldn't generalize, but most of the population is in favour of the existing legislation. For myself, I am against nuclear weapons, but am quite happy with nuclear propulsion and nuclear power in general and I think there may be more acceptance of nuclear power in the future.

had we not had a Labour govt in power I don't think The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act would have passed.

*blink* *looks at Labour and National policies in 1984*
Ya think?

I think before such an act was passed (which has had consequences for NZ in our relationship with the US) we should have had a referendum.

We did, it's called a general election.

 

[Sea Toby]

Funny, I do not recall any other nation that has problems with nuclear propelled or armed vessels? Why should the US reveal secret information to New Zealand it don't to anyone else?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

As it is the Endeavour can barely fit your Calliope drydock. Is New Zealand going to build a larger drydock? Do you really need a larger drydock, as I don't see the need unless you have a larger ship?

Canterbury doesn't fit, so I'm not sure that's a problem.

With only two frigates in its navy does the navy need a larger oiler?

That's the real question. Maybe not for fuel, but food, spare parts, bulk cargo...perhaps. On the other hand, a spare tanker capacity is a useful and rare commodity. I'm sure it would always be used if we had it. Underway repleneshment is also an essential skill for any deploying ship.

I can see a need for a larger commercial tug boat, but does your navy need one? I'm sure the Australians have one across the Tasman Sea

It's nearly 5 days sailing to the nearest salvage tug in Australia. Not much good if you've got something you're struggling to hold off a beach. Emergency tug capability and diving support often go hand-in-hand. If you were replacing a diving support vessel it's a capability that's easy to obtain at minimum marginal cost.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Funny, I do not recall any other nation that has problems with nuclear propelled or armed vessels? Why should the US reveal secret information to New Zealand it don't to anyone else?

Dont change the subject, Toby, you said that US warships are not welcome in NZ ports, which is untrue. That US warships do not go to NZ ports is the choice of the US government, not that of the NZ government and a choice that other governments with nuclear weapons and propelled ships have not made.
But where are my manners, I should extend to you the chance to prove you case; please provide evidence where US warships are banned from NZ waters and ports, after all such a thing would require legislation or stated government policy.

 

[Sea Toby]

From the US State Dept. website:

Growing concern about nuclear testing in the South Pacific and arms control issues contributed to the 1984 election of a Labour government committed to barring nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships from New Zealand ports. The government's anti-nuclear policy proved incompatible with long-standing, worldwide U.S. policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence or absence of nuclear weapons onboard U.S. vessels.

Implementation of New Zealand's policy effectively prevented practical alliance cooperation under ANZUS, and after extensive efforts to resolve the issue proved unsuccessful, in August 1986 the United States suspended its ANZUS security obligations to New Zealand. Even after President George H.W. Bush's 1991 announcement that U.S. surface ships do not normally carry nuclear weapons, New Zealand's legislation prohibiting visits of nuclear-powered ships continues to preclude a bilateral security alliance with the U.S. The legislation enjoys broad public and political support in New Zealand. The United States would welcome New Zealand's reassessment of its legislation to permit that country's return to full ANZUS cooperation.

 

[KiwiRob]

Where in what you just wrote does it state that non nuclear powered or armed US warships are banned from entering NZ ports, I must be blind or just plain stupid because I didn't notice it. If a non nuclear powered and armed vessel wanted to visit it would be allowed in, it's that simple.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

From the US State Dept. website:

Growing concern about nuclear testing in the South Pacific and arms control issues contributed to the 1984 election of a Labour government committed to barring nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships from New Zealand ports. The government's anti-nuclear policy proved incompatible with long-standing, worldwide U.S. policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence or absence of nuclear weapons onboard U.S. vessels.

Implementation of New Zealand's policy effectively prevented practical alliance cooperation under ANZUS, and after extensive efforts to resolve the issue proved unsuccessful, in August 1986 the United States suspended its ANZUS security obligations to New Zealand. Even after President George H.W. Bush's 1991 announcement that U.S. surface ships do not normally carry nuclear weapons, New Zealand's legislation prohibiting visits of nuclear-powered ships continues to preclude a bilateral security alliance with the U.S. The legislation enjoys broad public and political support in New Zealand. The United States would welcome New Zealand's reassessment of its legislation to permit that country's return to full ANZUS cooperation.

Bolded the relevant parts for you. As you can see, the US made the choices, not NZ.
Always nice when someone helpfully points out their own errors.

 

[t68]

We did, it's called a general election.

Hi guys

I think it is along the lines here in AUS when PM Howard said he would bring in the GST most people here did not want it ,but they won the election and said that’ is what the people gave them a mandate to do ,But unfortunately the dems sold us out.

But if you want a true referendum you can tie it in with a general election like we did for the monarchy or republic referendum, At the end of the day it was just anther piece of paper people had to have their say on things, it should happen more often on important issues where a general election has lot more variables in it on how people vote.


Regards,
Tom

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Hi guys

I think it is along the lines here in AUS when PM Howard said he would bring in the GST most people here did not want it ,but they won the election and said that’ is what the people gave them a mandate to do ,But unfortunately the dems sold us out.

But if you want a true referendum you can tie it in with a general election like we did for the monarchy or republic referendum, At the end of the day it was just anther piece of paper people had to have their say on things, it should happen more often on important issues where a general election has lot more variables in it on how people vote.


Regards,
Tom

The trouble with public referendums on policy is that the public, as a general rule, don't have enough knowledge or education to make an informed choice, or the time to make a judgment of the medium to long term impact of their choice. Even when they do have access to the valid information and time to draw in informed conclusion, they will vote a certain way on principle, or for other less tangible reasons, despite the information.
This is why we have representative democracy.

 

[Sea Toby]

All I know when I read the history books is that New Zealand signed a defense treaty with a nuclear power when it did sign the treaty. When it passed anti-nuclear legislation, US warships were not welcomed there.

Pin the finer details on America if it makes you feel better, but the facts says differently. Do you not admit your country signed a defense treaty with a nuclear power? Did the United States twist the arms of New Zealand to get your representatives to sign? Obviously, New Zealand doesn't comply with its written signature.

I didn't think so........ I have also noticed without fanfare that your government's attitude against whaling hasn't stopped the Japanese from whaling in the South Pacific. Good luck!

 

[Stuart Mackey]

All I know when I read the history books is that New Zealand signed a defense treaty with a nuclear power when it did sign the treaty.

Yeah? and?

When it passed anti-nuclear legislation, US warships were not welcomed there.

False, only nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships.

Pin the finer details on America if it makes you feel better, but the facts says differently.

Then I point you to the text of that treaty and ask you to point out these facts.

Do you not admit your country signed a defense treaty with a nuclear power?

Sure

Did the United States twist the arms of New Zealand to get your representatives to sign?

If memory served it was NZ that did the arm twisting!

Obviously, New Zealand doesn't comply with its written signature.

That would be a factual statement, were not for the lack of facts. What you fail to comprehend is that that treaty does not say that NZ shall agree to have within its territory weapons it finds to be morally objectionable, weapons that we have no control over, in fact it mentions no weapons at all!

And on that note, and with reference to arm twisting, one can but look the US reaction to this policy and legislation concerning matters mentioned not once in the ANZUS treaty.
To quote David Lange:
"But the result has been that we have been told by some officials in the United States administration that our decision is not, as they put it, to be cost-free; that we are in fact to be made to pay for our action. Not by our enemies, but by our friends. We are in fact to be made an example of; we are to be ostracised, we are to be convicted of some form of heresy and put on probation. We are going to be kept there until we are compelled to resume our seat in the dress circle of the nuclear theatre."

"to compel an ally to accept nuclear weapons against the wishes of that ally is to take the moral position of totalitarianism, which allows for no self-determination, and which is exactly the evil that we are supposed to be fighting against."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I didn't think so........ I have also noticed without fanfare that your government's attitude against whaling hasn't stopped the Japanese from whaling in the South Pacific. Good luck!

Yeah? And?

 

[battlensign]

The decision to ban Nuclear armed ships by the NZ government was pure populist politics. Simple. The consequences on the other hand......

If there were a legitimate feeling of concern in relation to such powered/armed warships, diplomatic overtures would have seen to it that such ships were not the ones allocated for port calls. By passing the law, the presence of a US warship is tantamount to a declaration of its nuclear status which contravines the US disclosure policy.

Is there something about this which is difficult to undertand?

Brett.

P.S Have a nice day.... :nutkick

 

[FlashG]

It is worth remembering that after the 1984 Election an air force exercise was held in NZ with no problems. However, a ship visit was suggested and the USS Buchanan was tagged - a conventionally powered ship of the Charles F Adams class; 3 of which were in the RAN. Rumour has it that Lange quietly agreed to this ship - it was a good compromise by the 2 countries, even if the "neither confirm nor deny" policy wasnt varied by the US, it was clearly not nuclear powered. However, even this ship was suddenly rejected; suggestions were that while Lange agreed others in Labour didnt. And that the US irritation with Lange was his agreement becoming a rejection. It should also be recalled that at the Labour Party conference of 1983 Lange strongly argued for a distinction between "armed" and "powered" but lost, and subsequently accepted the "neither" view. If memory serves, public opinion surveys in 1983 and 1984 strongly supported ANZUS, were "okay" about "powered" but heavily opposed to "armed". This is of course well off "under a change of govt" and political, so apologies. But the reality now is that no govt will change the legislation, even if only 30% of the public strongly support it (and I dont know what the % might be) they will make such a stink it couldnt be changed (electoral suicide).

So any new govt will have to come up with ways around it. Part of the F16 deal appeal was ingratiating ourselves with the US. There were stories that US Coast Guard ships might be the "icebreaker" (excuse the wordplay) of the no ship visits in 1998 and 1999. All of these have gone.

It may be that greater purchases of US equipment in future may be the way to reopening access, training etc. However, I cant see many "combat" equipment purchases on the LTDP. Anzac ship upgrade perhaps?

One does wonder however whether Special Forces training was affected, and clearly signals intelligence under UKUSA wasnt. So the "rift" was clearly selective in some areas!

 

[Sea Toby]

Fast forward twenty years. While there are old salts still around in the U.S. Navy who remember an allied New Zealand, and gave a hoot about the treaty commitments to New Zealand, today's U.S. sailors and admirals don't.

Friendly maybe. Allies not. Basically the New Zealand government and people decided not to have a defense relationship with the United States, a nuclear power. The U.S. responded in kind. Anyway, that is how Americans read and learn about the affair in their history books.

The fleet's aircraft carriers are now all nuclear propelled, as our the submarines, whether attack or boomers. We build ships to meet our operational requirements, not New Zealand's requirements.

 

[KiwiRob]

Question for you Toby when was the last time an american aircraft carrier came anywhere near NZ, I would guess never, I don't believe one even came here during WW2. The US stopped it's military relationship with NZ not the other way around, get over it and find another soapbox to climb on because this one isn't getting you anywhere.

Next thing is if we aren't allies then what the were those NZ special forces guys doing in Afghanistan earning Presidential citations, we sure as hell wouldn't be invading afghanistan because we wanted to, we helped out because we are allies of the US.

 

[Sea Toby]

Oh, New Zealanders getting a bit sensitive. I guess you would have better relations with the U.S. if you didn't throw raspberries our way. Who is the Dutch uncle in this relationship and who is the Dutch nephew?

Do you remember the Coral Sea naval battle. How about Savo Island? There were several others.

Recently, not much US Navy activity in New Zealand ports. But the Australians get to see us in their ports, aircraft carriers sailors providing quite a bit of tourist dollars. Too bad New Zealand gets zero.