New Zealand invasion

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I like the distance you take with this question. You are the only one here who thinks that there is a hint of a risk for New Zealand, though.

I notice that all the others consider both that

1) the risk of an invasion of New Zealand is almost nil

2) scraping the combat airforce in New Zealand was a mistake

... and I just wonder how compatible these 2 statements are?
It's not possible to defend yourself without an airforce?

Unless a carrier battlegroup sails off the coast of NZ, where is the air power threat coming from?

Long ranged bombers? Only China, Russia and the USA have long ranged bombers capable enough to strike NZ. Any Country attempting to deploy intercontinental ranged bombers against NZ is not going to be doing it for "land grab" reasons.

Such an action would DEFINITELY bring a US response

I guess I am partly relieved that you and others think that my fear of a guerilla-type invasion of New Zealand is ridiculous.
You should feel relieved if you were actually worried about such a possibility... Defence and NZ Intelligence and Border Protection agencies DO keep a watch on NZ's borders...

An invasion is going to be seen a LONG way off and NZ won't be required to defend against such on her own...

My intention is not to be over-anxious about a possible New Zealand invasion, but to assess its probability. Similarly, when purchasing a new property recently, I took into account the risks of tsunami and earthquake - risks that 99.99% of New Zealanders disregard totally when buying a house. These risks are small, but they do exist, and the odds of them occurring in the next 50 years are real. I guess the odds of an invasion of New Zealand are much smaller, from what I read here.
NZ is not helpless. It DOES have a military force available and one well able to deal with an armed insurgency within NZ's borders at that...

Very relevant, especially remembering WWI and WWII. New Zealand was involved in both these wars and is the country on earth that lost the most soldiers as compared to its population. So, probably because of our generally peaceful disposition, our army isn't that efficient to start with... and it looks it's getting worse and worse as more and more savings are being made over the decades.

A concern for many nations, NZ is not alone with such issues...
 

bruceedwards

New Member
I like the distance you take with this question. You are the only one here who thinks that there is a hint of a risk for New Zealand, though.

I notice that all the others consider both that

1) the risk of an invasion of New Zealand is almost nil

2) scraping the combat airforce in New Zealand was a mistake

... and I just wonder how compatible these 2 statements are?
As I remember it, many of our Skyhawks were based in Australia - for the purpose of protecting our shipping lanes. This illustrates New Zealands problem - it is not terribly likely we will be invaded in the standard sense, but much more likely that either:

a) Pressure would be put on our trade lanes, and/or:
b) Resources in our EEZ will come under threat.

The protection of our shipping lanes and EEZ is, IMHO, much easier and safer with a dedicated combat air-wing.

As far as a land invasion goes, our Army has historically been geared towards counter-insurgency and guerilla warfare. Stalking and tracking are still, to my knowledge, components of the AARC all recruits must go through. Historically we have suffered the most in large scale warfare where equipment and logistics are far more important.
 

ThePuss

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Here is another invade Nuw Zuland add:D

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Q36-9UUQE"]YouTube - The Gruen Transfer - Invade New Zealand #1[/ame]

I would put my saturday in to help out
 

Gracie

New Member
Hi all, this is my first message on here. I have been reading for ahile now. I understand that people are against spending money on defense and argue about what we should do. I have one question. Can we afford not to have some capability to defend our own country? I think we do need a air combat wing. Just one squadron would be enough to deter nearly everyone who would want to colonise us. After all they would need to come by boat and they are big target to be sunk. We can not afford to reply on Aus and the USA to defend us. They find the money and are under financial pressure as well. We need to do our share. We should have forces which can provide help in stabilising the world. Most of it is not very stable or pleasant...aka Afganistan and Africa come to mind. We are a rich country and i feel we should be doing more.
 

dragonfire

New Member
I would say the possibility of an invasion of NZ is increasing everyday... http://www.invadenewzealand.com/
Now back to serious discussions... :)
You'd never win you know - the sheep would get you:eek:nfloorl:
Saw all the videos Hillarious stuff :eek:nfloorl::eek:nfloorl:

It's not possible to defend yourself without an airforce?
Hi all, this is my first message on here. I have been reading for ahile now. I understand that people are against spending money on defense and argue about what we should do. I have one question. Can we afford not to have some capability to defend our own country? I think we do need a air combat wing. Just one squadron would be enough to deter nearly everyone who would want to colonise us. After all they would need to come by boat and they are big target to be sunk. We can not afford to reply on Aus and the USA to defend us. They find the money and are under financial pressure as well. We need to do our share. We should have forces which can provide help in stabilising the world. Most of it is not very stable or pleasant...aka Afganistan and Africa come to mind. We are a rich country and i feel we should be doing more.
As i understand the threat being discussed here is an invasion and if tht involves Naval surface elements (which it has to) then an air force can be a good retaliation / deterrent

AFIAC New Zealand can and should build a cerdible defense platform for its needs which should include air force and naval elements, my suggestions would be tht a sub-surface element may not be required and perhaps it can have 2 small sqdns of fighters (12-14 nos)

If a defense force is prevalent then it deters misadventures

On a second thought

I think any body who plans for the NZ occupation would do it through support of asymmetric warfare, like usage of civilian aircraft of guerrila forces or sabouteurs who come in the guise of tourists and dismantale some assets or sabotage them (which is why a couple of sqdns based in diff places would make more sense thn a single sqdn) this force will not have big weapons mostly assault rifles, pistols for urban pacification and grenades and explosives. So a land equipped force is also imp, which it has, but wht could really add a lot of teeth would be attack helicopters
- my 2 rupees worth

Welcome to the forum Gracie
 
Last edited:

proletarian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #26
Gracie et al. It seems that everyone thinks that New Zealand should have a proper air force.

I think the only problem that is in the way of it is: democracy. New Zealanders are not going to vote for a government that asks them to pay more taxes to buy fighter jets. Such a vote would only pass if the country was under attack... but, obviously, it would be too late at that stage.

And I am still thinking about what Bozoo wrote:
history is quite clear, any civilisation that does not defend it self, succumbs over time.
and I think this is true. When assessing the risks of a New Zealand invasion, the question is not "if?" - it is "when?".

It may be in 10 years (very unlikely), or in 500 years (more likely), but it will happen, no doubt.
 

jaffo4011

New Member
it should be remembered that the head of state of nz is still the queen and i have no doulbt that the substantial links between the uk and the former colony would lead to robust measures being taken by the uk in the event of foreign invasion,whether independently or in conjunction with other countries......we will have the 2 new carriers in service by then,which would be handy...

we have not forgotten that during the falklands war only nz offered any useful commonwealth assistance by offering to take over the patrol duties in the gulf thereby releasing a rn frigate for other duties......
 

Sea Toby

New Member
So many want to reconstitute the air combat force at a time when New Zealand is short on a sustainable deployed navy and army. I think it would be better if New Zealand spent the funds to deploy a sustainable navy and army first, before reconstituting the air combat force. Within the next ten years, New Zealand should be expecting to acquire new Orion and Hercules replacements, after spending a half billion extending the useful lives of the current too few aircraft. This is likely to cost another two billion on top of the one billion spent on too few new helicopters during the past ten years. The Aussies spent as much for four C-17s.

Where is the money going to come from? At the moment our naval torpedo capability is approaching its end, shelf life. Where in the LTDP is the purchase of new torpedoes? If New Zealand cannot afford torpedoes, how are they going to afford a new combat force?
 

bruceedwards

New Member
So many want to reconstitute the air combat force at a time when New Zealand is short on a sustainable deployed navy and army. I think it would be better if New Zealand spent the funds to deploy a sustainable navy and army first, before reconstituting the air combat force. Within the next ten years, New Zealand should be expecting to acquire new Orion and Hercules replacements, after spending a half billion extending the useful lives of the current too few aircraft. This is likely to cost another two billion on top of the one billion spent on too few new helicopters during the past ten years. The Aussies spent as much for four C-17s.

Where is the money going to come from? At the moment our naval torpedo capability is approaching its end, shelf life. Where in the LTDP is the purchase of new torpedoes? If New Zealand cannot afford torpedoes, how are they going to afford a new combat force?
Money has always been a contentious issue with the NZDF (at least in the last 25 years).

However, in the context on preventing an invasion or the pillaging of our EEZ, an air combat wing provides capability well beyond it's cost for a number of reasons.

1. The ability to station a small fighter wing in Australia deters any invasion by ship or attacks on our shipping lanes.
2. Potential attacks on resources in our EEZ can be very quickly and effectively responded to.
3. Ground support by combat aircraft massively improves the standoff firepower of our Army.

As I remember it, maintaining our combat air wing cost around NZ$75 million a year - out of a defence budget of around NZ$2.1 billion, it seems a rather reasonable expense.

Of course the horse has bolted now, and our chances of getting an Air Combat Wing re-established in the near future is nil-to-none. Additionally, your assessment that the money needs to be spent on other things first is hard to argue with given that our Army, Air Force and Navy are genuinely struggling to meet their current deployment requirements.

We have painted ourselves into a corner with the NZDF, where we seem to be always forced to choose to ignore significant capability gaps simply because there are other gaps we need to plug first.
 

dave_kiwi

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
As I remember it, many of our Skyhawks were based in Australia - for the purpose of protecting our shipping lanes...
Off topic - but actually no, 2 Sqn was based at Nowara primely to the provide the RAN with air attack training (actually being paid by the RAN / Aussie Government).

It's secondary role was to provide conversion training for 75 Sqn.

Of course the irony is / was that some of the A4s were ex RAN in the first place
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Money has always been a contentious issue with the NZDF (at least in the last 25 years).

However, in the context on preventing an invasion or the pillaging of our EEZ, an air combat wing provides capability well beyond it's cost for a number of reasons.

1. The ability to station a small fighter wing in Australia deters any invasion by ship or attacks on our shipping lanes.
2. Potential attacks on resources in our EEZ can be very quickly and effectively responded to.
3. Ground support by combat aircraft massively improves the standoff firepower of our Army.

As I remember it, maintaining our combat air wing cost around NZ$75 million a year - out of a defence budget of around NZ$2.1 billion, it seems a rather reasonable expense.

Of course the horse has bolted now, and our chances of getting an Air Combat Wing re-established in the near future is nil-to-none. Additionally, your assessment that the money needs to be spent on other things first is hard to argue with given that our Army, Air Force and Navy are genuinely struggling to meet their current deployment requirements.

We have painted ourselves into a corner with the NZDF, where we seem to be always forced to choose to ignore significant capability gaps simply because there are other gaps we need to plug first.
As I recall the Labour government quickly decided to spend the $75 million it took to operate the air combat force to fund the arts budget. Its not a problem of funding, considering the several years of budget surpluses, the money was always present. Its a matter of choosing to spend the funds for defence instead of somewhere else.
 

Gracie

New Member
I agree that the chances of an invasion in the near future are slim, but defense should be funded with a long term view. In the not too distance future it is easy to see the pressure that will be put on resources. NZ has a lot of resouces, most are under the sea. The previous govt made a conscience choice to reduce our capability and only considered a very short term view. In my opinion this is what i think is affordable and would provided for our own defense and foreign commitments:
-1 sq ACF
-Replacement of the Hercs...most likely AS400
-6 multirole aircraft to provide tactical transport and near shore maritime surviellence
-Long range martime surviellence. Replacement if the P3 fleet with a combination of manned and unmanned air vehicles.
-3 frigates
-1 multirole tanker transport to replace our current tanker
-1 MCM ship with unmanned underwater vechicles
-I am happy with the canterbury and it's role
-OPV should be fine once they are certified sea worthy. If they can not operate in the southern ocean then a fix or replacement is required
-Long term deployment of approx 500 army personal able to deal operate independantly in a moderate threat environment. An ability to send a company to deal with emergencies.
-The development of the army seems fine to me, jsut need to focus on increasing the personel numbers to enable the above mentioned deployment numbers.
-I think the area as a country we are most vulnerable at the moment is cyber warefare. It is cheap and safe for an aggressor to conduct. China already is testing their ability. We need to ensure we are able to operate in this sphere. I imagine that most of this can be done with civillians that are contracted to the NZDF.

Overall the risk is that our resources(fisheries and underwater mining) will be pressured and our links to the outside world will be threatened (international trade), both physically(resouces) and in cyberspace(hack into our systems and shut down our banks and electricity grides etc).
We have the money as a country it is just a matter of changing prorities. After all our defense budget is only 10% of our health budget.
The risk is too high and consequences are too great not to act.
Noone is going to nuke us so no need to worry about that.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Something to replace the hercs, the P3 and ensuring the next generation frigate is aquired in 3 would be I think very important moves.

I would also encourage NZ to work more closely with Australia in its aquisitions, if you can going to rely on a 3rd party (essentially Australia and in a broader context US) then you have to ensure the equipment you have is suitable. This is where NZ could become undone. There was a lot of pressure not to participate in the ANZAC frigate program and other simular projects (the pacific patrol boat program etc).

If NZ wants to participate in international efforts (outside of its region), then she has to spend a lot more money or intergrate more tightly with Australia.
 

Lostfleet

New Member
These invasion scenario post are increasing, Singapore, Ukraine and now New Zealand.

For some reason who ever I speak these days dismiss the idea of invasion as a possible military action anywhere but I guess it will be still possible to see invasion of a country in our life time, but I don't think it will be New Zealand.

As the other members indicated it would be a logistical nightmare to support that operation. Even if the state of the NZ Armed Forces are not at its best, you still need to bring a sizeable force and keep the reinforcement lines open for this operation. The only possible way to invade New Zealand is to get Australia as a partner of the invasion team because it is essential for the operation to have a close base which can be used as a gathering point of forces close enough to NZ so it can be used as a jump point. ( 2000 kms is still a long leg)

I have never been to NZ but how would people react to invasion news? Since it is a group of big island, the invasion will not happen in a day and people will have time to react. Do you think there will be a good local resistance co-operating with the remainder of NZ Army to defend the islands?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I have been observing this thread, but as yet had not felt the urge to comment, however I do now feel obliged to point out a few things.

The first is more in the nature of a question, as the outcome is dependent on the answer. With regards to an "invasion' of New Zealand, what is the concern? Is it a loss of sovereignty? Or is it a concern about the direct effects an invasion would have upon New Zealand (i.e. military/civilian Kiwi casualties, destruction of infrastructure...)?

I bring this up because if the primary concern is NZ losing sovereignty to some outside nation/group, then that could be accomplished without an invasion. Or at least, without an invasion as defined below:

1. an entering or being entered by an attacking military force

No, I will not elaborate on what or how this could be accomplished, no need to give people ideas.

OTOH, if the concern is really about the effect upon NZ an outside attacking force that seeks to gain control of NZ, the conversation becomes a bit different.

For starters, I agree with most military/defence analysts who feel that the event is remote enough to not be a significant planning factor. As mentioned before, there are only a small handful of countries which have the necessary equipment and/or facilities in order to do so. These (IMO) are the US, UK, Australia, and France. Other countries are building (or re-building in the case of Russia) the capability to do so, but do not have it at present, and likely will not have the minimum needed capability for a decade or more. This is assuming that no governments allied with or friendly to NZ become involved.

For those who wish to suggest an 'asymmetric' invasion, IMO there is no such thing... The point behind an invasion is to take, seize or ultimately gain control of a space or area. Thus, by its very nature it is conventional, because the aggressor nation needs to be able to establish control of an area. There may well be times and phases where 'asymmetric' or unconventional tactics are used, but the operation as a whole will be conventional. This then reinforces the point I (and others) were making, in that there is a limited number of candidates who could possibly carry out an even partially successful invasion of NZ.

What I and others also wish to point out to those who take comfort in how little NZ is threatened by invasion, this is NOT the same as NZ and NZ interests being safe from harm. And it is this fallacy, that because no one is threatening NZ proper, there is no threat to NZ, that has caused defence matters and defence budgeting to be such a low priority in NZ.

Threats that NZ might, and/or has had to contend with, is violations of NZ EEZ, threats to NZ citizens abroad, threats to NZ-owned assets and resources outside of NZ, and negative impacts on the flow of goods to and from NZ due to events elsewhere in the world. NZ, being a part of the global community and involved in international trade is effected by what goes on elsewhere in the world. As a result, NZ needs to have the resources available to become involved in what is going on elsewhere. This can either be direct participation as part of a task force, etc or via indirect participation by being able to augment other nations' forces, to all other nations to participate in an event more fully. NZ should also develop capabilities to allow sustained participation in an event, up to and possibly including being the principal actor in an event. My reasoning behind this, is that there could come a time when some outside circumstance or event is of special interest to NZ and that other nations are not interested or interested enough and therefore for any NZ concerns to be met, it would largely fall upon NZ to take action.

IMO what needs to occur, is for the average Kiwi to ask (or be asked) what they think the NZDF is for, and what is should be able to do. With that done, then a debate could be started as to what the NZDF can actually do reasonably, as well as starting to educate the average Kiwi on what the potential threats vs. the perceived threats to NZ are.

-Cheers
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
These invasion scenario post are increasing, Singapore, Ukraine and now New Zealand.
You forgot Falkland Islands, which also generated a passionate discussion.:kar

Todjaeger said:
What I and others also wish to point out to those who take comfort in how little NZ is threatened by invasion, this is NOT the same as NZ and NZ interests being safe from harm. And it is this fallacy, that because no one is threatening NZ proper, there is no threat to NZ, that has caused defence matters and defence budgeting to be such a low priority in NZ.

Threats that NZ might, and/or has had to contend with, is violations of NZ EEZ, threats to NZ citizens abroad, threats to NZ-owned assets and resources outside of NZ, and negative impacts on the flow of goods to and from NZ due to events elsewhere in the world. NZ, being a part of the global community and involved in international trade is effected by what goes on elsewhere in the world. As a result, NZ needs to have the resources available to become involved in what is going on elsewhere. This can either be direct participation as part of a task force, etc or via indirect participation by being able to augment other nations' forces, to all other nations to participate in an event more fully. NZ should also develop capabilities to allow sustained participation in an event, up to and possibly including being the principal actor in an event. My reasoning behind this, is that there could come a time when some outside circumstance or event is of special interest to NZ and that other nations are not interested or interested enough and therefore for any NZ concerns to be met, it would largely fall upon NZ to take action.
I would like to start off by saying that I always enjoy reading Todjaeger's posts. ;)

At this juncture, I would like to bring up one recent real example, in relation to threats to Singapore-owned assets, a citizen and it's negative impact on the flow of a specific good to Singapore, to illustrate his point (in the context of Indonesia-Singapore relations).

In this example, Singapore eventually chose to go down the diplomatic route via diplomatic concessions not directly related to the issue on hand. This example illustrates the limits of military power and also highlights the risk of not having military power.

Prior to February 2007, Singapore's usual supplier of sand was Indonesia. One day, without prior notice, the Indonesian navy intercepted 7 sand shipments to Singapore (and subsequently barred all barges/ships from carrying sand to Singapore). Further, Indonesian navy and diplomatic officials made unfounded allegations of illegality (which resulted in the arrest of a Singapore citizen, who was an employee of a Singapore listed company, which was adversely affected by Indonesian allegations). If you are interested, there is an account of this incident in the NY Times on 16 March 2007. The net effect of Indonesia's actions was that the cost of making concrete (of which sand is an important ingredient) in Singapore skyrocketed over night. The Singapore government had to release sand from our stock pile after Indonesia abruptly banned exports (which the NY Times reporters found amusing).

This is an example of the ability of another nation being able to manufacture an crisis to which they have the power to solve. No threat of invasion was made because militarily, Indonesia is not able to do so. It would be silly to go to war over sand supplies, so Singapore sought to look further a field and provided naval escorts for the new sand shipments. We also decided to restructure our building industry standards in anticipation of a long term rise in sand costs.

This story will not be complete without looking at Indonesia's motivations to stop sand exports via their navy's illegal actions. Following the sand ban, some Indonesian officials made known publicly there were other reasons for the move, which were:

(i) to pressure Singapore on border issues; and

(ii) to expedite the conclusion of an extradition treaty.

Finally, on 2 February 2009 Channelnewsasia reported that Indonesia managed to agree upon a maritime boundary with Singapore, on the Straits of Singapore after 3 years of negotiations. These negotiations resulted in "one participant [ie. Indonesia] gaining everything and the other nothing."
Now, just think about my example for a moment. Can another nation hurt NZ's interests without a threat of invasion? The answer should be obvious. I hope you have been entertained by my story, which should serve as a cautionary tale for NZ.

I would like to end with a thought:
Chinese proverb :
(i) yang bing qian ri,
(ii) yong bing yi shi

Translation:
(i) Feed an army for a 1,000 days (i.e. train and prepare),
(ii) to use the army for a single moment
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Gracie et al. It seems that everyone thinks that New Zealand should have a proper air force.

I think the only problem that is in the way of it is: democracy. New Zealanders are not going to vote for a government that asks them to pay more taxes to buy fighter jets. Such a vote would only pass if the country was under attack... but, obviously, it would be too late at that stage.

And I am still thinking about what Bozoo wrote:and I think this is true. When assessing the risks of a New Zealand invasion, the question is not "if?" - it is "when?".

It may be in 10 years (very unlikely), or in 500 years (more likely), but it will happen, no doubt.
A force that can project power over a distance of more than 10,000 kilometres and conduct an amphibious invasion of NZ is not going to be deterred by a handful of low capability fighter jets. (NZ had "Block 15" F-16's on order. Hardly "absolute cutting edge").

I think NZ requires an air combat capability, but not necessarily based around a squadron and a half of second hand fighter jets, of relatively limited capability...

There are other cheaper and more practical ways of gaining a combat capability that are going to significantly "value add" to NZ's defence capability, without breaking the bank. Some of these ideas already form parts of the LTDP.
 

Bozoo

New Member
The trouble with relying on US, UK or Aussies to fight any enemy the NZ might encounter when discussing what you need is that these scenarios envisage an isolated incident where NZ by herself is the victim of an invasion, a very unlightly scenario indeed.

As far as I can see, the most likely risk of an invasion of NZ is as a secondary development following a major realignement of the world as we know it, something that is not as unlikely as one may think.

Imagine a situation where the Iranians finally manage to put together a viable nuke and a long range delivery system and, in accordance with the present leaderships declared goal actually launch against Israel.

Even if only one or two nukes hit Israel, the resulting carnage would swamp Israely disaster releif capabilities and significally reduce defence forces military ability as parts of the military and political command structure would be taken out while large parts of the military rescources would be busy handling the many effects of the nukes.

Imagine then that the Palestinians and Syrians see fit to take advantage of this unprecedented low in Israely defence capability and decide to liberate the occupied areas, igniting a widespread rekindlement of muslem holy war
fanatics throughout the muslem world, parried with some sekular, arab countries grabbing the possibility of vindicating their previous military losses against Israel and at the same time gaining popularity with the often fairly large zealous religious elements of their population, plunging the entire middel east region into turmoil.

After a very short time the Suez would be closed and oil output from the middle east be seriuosly curtailed.

The US would be fased with the quanondrom of necessary nuclear response to Irans attack, the overriding need to immidiately come to Israels aid as well as the nearly impossible task of shoring up threatened and faltering middle east governments, all at once and all within the time span of merely days.

With the US thus preoccupied the Ukraine and Russia crash in a renewed conflict about gas, which, although not erupting into war, disrupts the gas deliveries to Europe. Togehter with the reduced oil output, this threatens the world with immidiate oil shortages of unprecedented proportions, sparking civil unrest in many third tier nations as rich european countries buy up all availiable oil on the market.

EU's leadership react strongly to what they perceive as a poorly veiled blackmail to make the EU pay for the gas delivieries that the Ukraine cannot pay. Russia on her side, react with alacricity to what they on their side see as unfair accusations from the EU and tensions rise. Russia deploys some military forces to preassure Ukraine, a move that sets off visceral reactions in Polands population and government, resulting in a full scale mobalisation in a country already experiencing major gas and oil shortages due to its low strategic oil reserves at the outbreak of the crisis.

In this volatile situation the Russians, through a fluke of fate resume Bear Delta flights all along the Norwegian coast for the first time since the cold war. Although this was planned a long time ago the Norwegians and Brits are not convinced that this move, overflying the oil installations of the North Sea, rescources that are just barely feeding Europe with the bare necessaties of oil, has nothing to do with the present tension. The fact that the Bear D recon planes are more or less indestinguisable from the similar long range bombers does not exactly alleviate European worries.

Following intense requests from the European governements the US redirect one of the three carrier battle groups on route to the Mediteranian to rptoect the installations in the north sea, a move perceived as profoundly threatening by the russians.

The escalating tensions in Europe, the nuclear disaster and ongoing war in Israel, threatening Israels very existence, Irans unprovoked nuclear attack, the continuing free for all in the middle east as well as the impending world wide all threaten to undermine US influence world wide.

A resurgence in world wide terrorism by relegious zealots is inspired by the muslem incursions in the middle east, resulting in, amongst other things, a chemical attack on Disney world, killing nearly 1000 children, a new, allegedly Iranian inspired terrorist organisation, tips the scales in the White House situation room and the US succumbs to popular preassure, launching a major nuclear attack on Iran.

This attack is met by outrage over most of the world, sparking further civil unrest, and international relations deteriorate significantly.

Russia percieves the US nuke attack on Iran as proof that the US is out of control and mobilizes. A totally unnecassary incident on the russian- polish border results in fighting, that is only contained by a diligent negotiation campaign by the Finnish president.

Feeling that the US by its attack on Iran has lost its moral superiority, China decides to finally unify with Taiwan, a move Taiwanese authorities and people strongly oppose, resulting in all out war between the parties, a war that is not won as easily as the Chinese Peoples army thought, thus the brutal fighting contiunuing and the US honoring their previous guaranties for Taiwans safety.

By this time the US military is overwhelmed by the multi tiered crisis with battle groups engaged or on their way to the Med, the North Sea and Taiwan. The EU are more than busy bolstering their borders to the east as well as protecting their last remaining oil reserves and the Australians already deploying forces in aid of the US.

In this situation an unholy alliance of Somalian rebel forces, Golden Triangle drug lords and surreptious involvement by the Burmese military decide they would like to relocate to New Zealand.

Equipped with two large container ships, remodelled to accomodate Frogfoot VSTOL fighters hidden under tarpulines as well as a RoRo ship with vehicles and on board fast patrol boats their 3000 strong rebel outfit head out towards New Zealand.

Would you like something to shoot with?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It doesn't even have to be that convoluted, look at the illegal drilling thats occurring around the subcontinent area. Look at the disputed EEC zones around the world, the cod wars etc.

If NZ wants to have poachers, illegal drillers, smugglers, and national pirate consortums supported by nations and large criminal organisations operating in their waters then that is a risk they are going to have to run. No doubt with that sort of problems there would be political and social turmoil within NZ.

Look at somalia, look at the naval presence that is there (destroyers etc) look at what they have to face (a large well armed pirate syndicate).

Any major incident world wide will encourage the pirates to explore possibilities. With Antartic poaching a highly profitable business, and illegal drilling supported by foreign powers its a real threat, even to New Zealand. Combined with turmoil in the pacific nations (criminal organisations and foreign powers) creates a real problem for NZ's interests.
 

proletarian

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #40
Equipped with two large container ships, remodelled to accomodate Frogfoot VSTOL fighters hidden under tarpulines as well as a RoRo ship with vehicles and on board fast patrol boats their 3000 strong rebel outfit head out towards New Zealand.
This is exactly the scenario I had in mind, but everyone in this forum (except Bozoo?) thinks that NZ Defence is strong enough to stop such an invasion, and that NZ Intelligence would prevent it from occurring in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top