New Zealand invasion

[shag]

how likely is the possiblity of Austrailia or US actively intervening on New Zealands behalf against a powerful enemy as good as US or Austrailia itself? Hypothetically speaking of course.

Just want to get a indication of the extent of ties and commitment from New Zealand's allies.

btw I noticed a lot of Saab hardware in the previous post. Why not get a Sentry for AWACS and a P-8 instead of the P-3. Why the 20 heavy transportation aircraft? u r being invaded. would that many transport aircraft be necessary unless you are like evacuating the country? How bout heavy lift choppers instead for quick and effective deployment and mobility.

btw I think better than coastal artillery. NZ should go in for a good fighter bomber force with a good maritime patrol coverage. This is very critical in my opinion. ohh and get some of the air launched anti radiation missiles to take care of the warship. maybe some good anti-ship cruise missiles

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

how likely is the possiblity of Austrailia or US actively intervening on New Zealands behalf against a powerful enemy as good as US or Austrailia itself? Hypothetically speaking of course.

Just want to get a indication of the extent of ties and commitment from New Zealand's allies.

Extremely likely. Any attack on NZ on that sort of a scale would have more effect on Australia/US than the alliance. It would directly challenge the established security order, and thus Australia's regional standing and the US's global position. That strikes at teh fundamental security of both nations (Australian regional dominance, US global dominance). Anyway there will never be someone as "good" as the USN, not in the foreseeable future anyway.

NZ is protected by geography. The only way someone could possibly invade NZ is if they had already conquered/defeated Australia or gained possession of the best part of Oceania and had defeated the USN. A tall order indeed. Considering that context I'm surprised this thread is still going strong.

 

[shag]

This is highly speculative thread. It states so in the beginning. So I guess its ok to take it forward. You can pitch your own wild theories if you want of course. you must factor in the unlikely parts of your own proposed scenarios.
regards,
-Shag

 

[Sea Toby]

Without an official defense relationship with the US, I doubt whether the US would ever undertake any action to defend New Zealand. While the US will fight to keep the sea lanes open to Australia, which may be a blessing to New Zealand, New Zealand is now on the back burner....

New Zealand may even find itself on the wrong side with the US dealing with its southern and central Pacific neighbors as well. Without an official defense treaty, the US has more defense links and obligations with many of the Pacific islanders than with New Zealand. New Zealand could find itself bypassed in keeping those sea lanes open, similar to Formosa during WWII....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Without an official defense relationship with the US, I doubt whether the US would ever undertake any action to defend New Zealand. While the US will fight to keep the sea lanes open to Australia, which may be a blessing to New Zealand, New Zealand is now on the back burner....

New Zealand may even find itself on the wrong side with the US dealing with its southern and central Pacific neighbors as well. Without an official defense treaty, the US has more defense links and obligations with many of the Pacific islanders than with New Zealand. New Zealand could find itself bypassed in keeping those sea lanes open, similar to Formosa during WWII....

Really? You think the US would stand by while someone challenges its global naval dominance? A power capable enough to invade NZ would absolutely challenge the US's position in the pacific and globally. Its not about Wellington, its about US global dominance. You think those pacific islands will be looking to the US as security guarantor if they stood buy and let NZ fall to a rival power? No one would trust Washington as a stabilizing force any more. All negat9ve outcomes for the US.

 

[MrConservative]

Without an official defense relationship with the US, I doubt whether the US would ever undertake any action to defend New Zealand. While the US will fight to keep the sea lanes open to Australia, which may be a blessing to New Zealand, New Zealand is now on the back burner....

New Zealand may even find itself on the wrong side with the US dealing with its southern and central Pacific neighbors as well. Without an official defense treaty, the US has more defense links and obligations with many of the Pacific islanders than with New Zealand. New Zealand could find itself bypassed in keeping those sea lanes open, similar to Formosa during WWII....

Firstly there are significant Billions of direct US, Japanese, British and Australian investment in NZ that would not be walked away from. Secondly ANZUS in the US-NZ context has only been suspended not fully expunged. Thirdly, the relationship is now the closest it has been for 25 years. As Condie Rice said 18 months ago the nuclear issue is only just a bump in the road and not a barrier. In the last 3 years USPACOM has an annual visit and sitdown with DefMin/CDF. NZ is now got the green light to again train with US Forces. Fourthly, Intell links were only ever curtailed but never cut-off and for reasons that we cannot elaborate on are now moving back to normalcy.

Finally, as for Sth Pac countries it is pretty much covered by the Biketawa Declaration signed in 2000 between South Forum countries and is UNSC ratified as a collective defence treaty. It is the regions supreme document in terms of International Armed Conflict Law. The Cooks, Nuie, Tokelau's are "Realm of New Zealand" and since 1962 NZ has taken formal defence responsibility for Western Samoa and has a long standing defence relationship with Tonga since 1941.

 

[swerve]

Without an official defense relationship with the US, I doubt whether the US would ever undertake any action to defend New Zealand. While the US will fight to keep the sea lanes open to Australia, which may be a blessing to New Zealand, New Zealand is now on the back burner....

Fighting to keep open the sea lanes to Australia requires defending New Zealand from invasion. Anyone seizing NZ & its dependencies (don't forget them!) is, necessarily, a major naval power, & the conquest would place it astride those sea lanes.

IMO, Australia not fighting to defend NZ is unimaginable. What does the USA do when the major power invading NZ takes on Oz? Stand back, saying "this is about NZ, not our pidgin".

 

[Todjaeger]

Fighting to keep open the sea lanes to Australia requires defending New Zealand from invasion. Anyone seizing NZ & its dependencies (don't forget them!) is, necessarily, a major naval power, & the conquest would place it astride those sea lanes.

IMO, Australia not fighting to defend NZ is unimaginable. What does the USA do when the major power invading NZ takes on Oz? Stand back, saying "this is about NZ, not our pidgin".

I have a slight disagreement here. There is a possible (albeit unlikely) scenario where Australia does not fight to defend NZ. That scenario is based upon Australia already being fully engaged with a major power. IMO such a situation is actually more likely than 'just' an invasion of NZ. My reasoning behind this is that NZ currently does not have anything to take that would justify the difficulties and risks a major power would be exposed to in order to carry out such an invasion. Now, if the target was Australia, then neutralizing and/or partially occupying NZ so that the SLOC between Australia and the US is cut would be a sensible move.

In many ways, it makes sense to re-examine the course of WWII in the Pacific theatre until ~1943. However, as mentioned this would require significant commitments by a world power, sufficient to threaten Australia's regional dominance AND global US dominance. The only country which comes to mind as a possible candidate is China (PRC) which might be able to do so in 2-3 decades or so.

-Cheers

 

[Twickiwi]

In many ways, it makes sense to re-examine the course of WWII in the Pacific theatre until ~1943. However, as mentioned this would require significant commitments by a world power, sufficient to threaten Australia's regional dominance AND global US dominance. The only country which comes to mind as a possible candidate is China (PRC) which might be able to do so in 2-3 decades or so.

-Cheers

I think that Pacific theatre WWII is a very good paradigm for examining NZ defence. If you look at what NZ public opinion was truly fearful of it was raiding parties, bombing raids, submarines, and of course Australia being over-run. The top of the list wasn't invasion so much as being cut off and molested, which even with hindsight seems reasonable.

NZ's defence posture should probably follow those fears, in other words contributing to Australia's defence resources and defending against raiding and blockading.

 

[Sea Toby]

While this thread deals with possible external invasions, we tend to disregard possible internal military coups. I have seen several military coups during my lifetime as a Coastie, some even in the Caribbean. The smaller the nation, the more likely. New Zealand isn't that large....

New Zealand's Beehive, their capitol, isn't but a few blocks from Wellington's port. I haven't a clue about the Beehive's security, but if its similar to the rest of their defence forces, small, I would not be surprised if the Beehive fell....

From the film the Thirteen Days of May, one cannot discount any internal threat even in the USA.... Especially in this day of terrorism. I have personally been involved with Somali personnel before their anarchy. No one ever thought their government would fall either. Never say never....

A nation with as large a population as Brazil and Pakistan have seen military coups during my lifetime. Pakistan twice....

 

[AnthonyB]

Once Australia has the Canberra LHD's and with the distance between Kingston and Auckland within combat range of our unopposed air force, Australia if requested will have the grunt to overturn any coup.

 

[MrConservative]

Once Australia has the Canberra LHD's and with the distance between Kingston and Auckland within combat range of our unopposed air force, Australia if requested will have the grunt to overturn any coup.

New Zealand is not going to have a coup or an invasion anytime soon or for the foreseeable future. The proposition is simply unsubstantiated nonsense. A wild assumption made by people who have never actually been to NZ and/or would not know the first thing about the place. I would not lose any sleep over it AnthonyB. Frankly the whole thread on this topic is silly and it would be a very good idea if the moderators just simply closed it.

 

[swerve]

While this thread deals with possible external invasions, we tend to disregard possible internal military coups. I have seen several military coups during my lifetime as a Coastie, some even in the Caribbean. The smaller the nation, the more likely. New Zealand isn't that large.....

False correlation. How many military coups have there been in Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Iceland, Norway . . . ?

History & quality of institutions count far more than size. NZ is not a country where a military coup is possible.

 

[Lucasnz]

New Zealand is not going to have a coup or an invasion anytime soon or for the foreseeable future. The proposition is simply unsubstantiated nonsense. A wild assumption made by people who have never actually been to NZ and/or would not know the first thing about the place. I would not lose any sleep over it AnthonyB. Frankly the whole thread on this topic is silly and it would be a very good idea if the moderators just simply closed it.

Totally agree on the threat and closure of this thread. A lot of this has already been discussed in the NZDF Disscusion.

Only the US has the ability to mount a short or even medium term (3-10 years) invasion and only then if it uses every amphib, sealift ship it has.

If were going to focus on "Traditional Military Threats" that NZ might face, then looking at the actions of the Germans and Japanese off the NZ Coast is a good starting point, but update it for standoff land attack weapons. At most we might have to deal with something like a USMC Marine Expedtionary Unit at short notice. The implications are wide in terms of the equipment the NZDF needs it thats the standard threat environment. As an example of that we don't need 28 F-16 and 17 MB339 we just need 14-18 aircraft at most,

 

[elmuzzerino]

New Zealand Invasion and Defence

There are many hypothetical situations where a better NZDF would be required. What would we do if a foreign power DID want to take on New Zealand >> How would we respond?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think a bigger problem is a power annexing part of the NZ relm or territories or infringing on them or the EEZ.

Particularly if Australia and the UK/US were involved somewhere more important. Stablising PNG or Indonesia or facing off in asia etc.

NZ would really struggle to look after what its got. Even handling the refugee problem from a regional incident NZ would struggle. You don't have to go into far off fantasy land stuff to stress the NZDF. Meeting peace keeping commitments and securing its interests in a lightly turmoilled region would be plenty. Or mopping up after a large regional natural disaster, which could cause political instability in smaller pacific nations or islands under its sphere.

 

[riksavage]

There are many hypothetical situations where a better NZDF would be required. What would we do if a foreign power DID want to take on New Zealand >> How would we respond?

Or!!!!!!!!!!!

Invade New Zealand

 

[yogi4ACF]

*phew* wow I only got to page 6 or so before my eyes started to get sore.
Great thread with some very pertinent ideas being shared.

The only real thing I could add (or add onto as no doubt somone has posted something similar and I have missed it) is that the re-employment of a capable jet by the NZDF such as the f-16 (or my personal favourite the Gripen) would be a very serious deterrent to ANY potential invader be him a somali pirate or well supplied, organised and coherent military force. Hell. Even the Skyhawk was still an extremely capable platform with a very formidable CAS reputation. It could deliver Mavericks and sidewinders after kahu. not to be scoffed at. The mere possibility of a dozen a4k's attacking your invasion fleet and sinking even one heavily laden troop ship would HAVE to make you think twice about the risk of invading.

Another comment I might add, bozoo's scenario was just that, a scenario. He was simply trying to explain a mere possibility, not every intricate detail. Give the guy a break!!

 

[jchan77]

Investment on the Navy

How about having 14 Hawk 127 with infrared sensors? Would that be enough?

Well the Navy could buy two more second hand ANZAC frigates from Australia along with some second hand RAN seahawks.
With four ANZAC frigates, the navy could also have improved SAMs, harpoons and tomahawks.

The Air Force can have 4 P-8s and some UAV Reapers equiped with bombs and missiles for both land and maritime strike.

Maybe the RNZAF could buy the whole fleet of 24 Super Hornets from the RAAF when they are done with them.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't even think New Zealand could afford South Korean T-50 Golden Eagle light fighter/trainers, the aircraft I prefer for New Zealand. At least they are supersonic, much better than any Hawk aircraft. Twelve to eighteen of them should be all their air force needs or requires. That is if they want some sort of air combat force, which by the way is not affordable with current defence spending policy.