I would think that China would try and avoid conflict that would involve the USA, if it wants to progress their claims further it may start with the weakest and if they make good progress is use this progress as a legitimisation of their claims. As to ANZUS which I admit to some ignorance in, I understood that it required the parties to consult on action, not immediately be involve in action, I however will stand corrected if this is wrong.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect any events of incidents which occur within either the ECS or SCS would be considered to have taken place 'within the Pacific'. The Falklands Islands situation for the UK was quite different with respect to NATO, since there is a very clear declination of what is within areas of NATO concern, and what is not. The line is set at the Tropic of Cancer, which is 23 degrees 26'N of the equator. Side note, if the island of Puerto Rico were to become a US state, that is south of the Tropic of Cancer, so an incident there would not trigger a NATO response. Presumably the same would apply if an incident were to occur in Hawai'i. No clue what the situation would be if something were to occur on the US or Canadian west coasts.
ANZUS is still active. AFAIK though the US has suspended its obligations to NZ under the treaty in 1986 following the incident with the USS Buchanan being denied entry in 1985, and then the passage of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987. The thawing of naval/military relations of late means that RNZN vessels can make port calls to US ports, but has not led to a resumption of obligations between the two nations. The USN still maintains a policy of neither confirming or denying whether a particular warship is carrying nuclear warheads. As a practical reality, the number and variety of US nuclear weapons has declined since the heights of the Cold War, with nuclear-tipped LWT's and depth bombs having been retired from service IIRC. The US still has obligations to Australia, and the Australian obligations still exist with both the US and NZ, and NZ still has obligations to Australia.
Three sides notes about the above.
When I made the comment about NZ making defence policy decisions at the expense of allies, one of the items I was referring to was the Lange Gov't decision to deny entry to the USS Buchanan, because she had the ability to carry nuclear weapons and the US would not declare that none were aboard. Thirty years after the fact, I cannot help but wonder whether there were subtle links between assets controlled by the Kremlin and elements of the anti-nuclear movement active in NZ in the 70's and 80's. Such a policy (two years before it became law...) would have only impacted three nations, France, the US and and perhaps the UK. Had the gov't of the day had a policy advising/requesting French, USN and RN warships kitted with nuclear weapons not make port calls in NZ, I believe the request would have been honoured (by the USN and RN at least...) and would not have driven a wedge, or potentially driven wedges, between NZ and major allies.
Related to the above and the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987, I have the sense that the (Lange) gov't of the day wished to restrict the policy options available to future gov'ts with the passage of the Act. That notion, and the fact that it was successful, is worrisome.
The third item relates to the NZ Green Party, which has attempted to expand the Nuclear Free Zone out to cover all of NZ's EEZ. That was defeated by a Labour gov't, with the reasoning being that NZ cannot restrict the free passage of vessels outside of NZ's 12 n mile limit/home waters. Such efforts, plus a past Green defence policy advocating for the adoption of a 'passive non-compliance' doctrine, suggests to me that many of those most heard discussing defence in NZ lack an understanding of realpolitik. The USN could easily have started declaring their warships making NZ port calls did not have nuclear weapons aboard, with no regard to whether they truthfully did or not.
I do not question or dispute the right of NZ to set it's own policy, but the way it went about it, and then the resulting aftermath, has always seemed a bit dodgy to me.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
What 'resumption of obligations' between USA/NZ are you refering to Tod? i thought with all the recent defence exersizes we have had with USA over the last five years or so, much has changed? RIMPAC, Southern Katipo, Talisman Sabre to name a few.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would need to re-read the text of the ANZUS treaty to be sure. My understanding though is that the treaty covers mutual defence, as well as military cooperation.
For example, the US would/is obligated to aid Australia, if Australia were to come under attack. Or in the case of 9/11, Howard activated the ANZUS treaty to enable to aid for the US. To my knowledge though, the only military aid the US received or really wanted/needed immediately following the attacks was from NATO allies (Germany IIRC) in the form of E-3 Sentry AEW aircraft to monitor US airspace.
From the Australian perspective, they wanted SOCOMD support - and my sense of it was that this was within hours. Kiwi support was also around provision of "specials"
supplementary suport was around provision of anti-piracy support so as to release 5th Fleet assets for other more pressing duties
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
We will remember them.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
We will remember them.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
We certainly will ngati. If only those politicians did more than lip service at this time of year, regards to supporting our NZDF better all year round.
Thanks. I agree.
I have a great uncle in an unknown grave on Chunuk Bair. KIA 8/8/1915. He was a warrior from a long line of warriors. Another great uncle is in a Commonwealth War Grave in Athens, KIA 1941. I am lucky because my dad and five uncles went away, all to return safely. One uncle went to Korea as well after seeing WW2 service. The GG was right in his address today, we should learn the history of our family forbears who went to war.
Addition. Stole this from a navy mate. It's my feelings as well.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Ng, mate, agree 100%.
To all my Kiwi cousins, from an Aussie who is the Grandson of an Anzac, Private Arthur Douglas McDonald, Private, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Reinforcements, wounded and survived Gallipoli (or I wouldn't be here to tell the tale).
https://www.aif.adfa.edu.au/showPerson?pid=195688
My Grandfather passed away in late 1967 (his wounds finally caught up with him, when I was eight going on nine), didn't know him as well as I wished I did, but he was the most patient and gentle soul I have ever met (despite what he obviously went through too).
Aussies and Kiwi's, Anzacs..
Lest We Forget
Dear News Media Scribes and Commentators,
Just some things I'd like to point out prior to Anzac Day on Monday 25th April:
1. We commemorate Anzac Day, not celebrate it.
2. It's a bugle, not a trumpet
3. Not every serviceman/woman was a "soldier" please take the time to ascertain what service we served in and use the correct terminology, it would mean a lot to show you have cared enough to research the subject.
4. No I am not wearing my fathers medals, they are mine.
5. They are medals, not badges
6. Please don't even try to draw parallels between an Armed Forces Defence member past or present and a football player with a big pay cheque and rockstar status, regardless of what day they are playing footy.
To all of my service mates whether still serving or not, stay safe, enjoy your day and don't let anyone rain on your parade.
Lest We Forget.
This is important, and to this I would add that we remember the dead of all services. One fact most that most people would not be aware of is that the RNZAF had a sgnificantly higher loss ratio than the Army in WW2
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Rob, could you provide links to back up that claim? In any case, we commemorate our forces contribution as a whole on Anzac day, to say one Service holds more importance because casualty rates were higher there seems an attempt to devalue the other services role. Besides, under NZDF we have a joint forces structure now, inter service rivalry should be a thing of the past.
I did'nt read it as having more importance over another service, unsure how it would even equate to that really? Would just be purely a ratio vs size of each service at the time. I too would not have thought that (higher casualty rate) for that very reason ie army larger than air force.
Can you provide some evidence for this please. I think the RNZAF losses were high because of the Bomber Command losses, but I would prefer sources thank you.
service ratio losses are ultimately irrelevant - they all served their country.
Dead correct regarding bomber command losses being the major contributor. The source was a 1947 book put out by the NZ Government which is currently buried some were in my back shed so I am sorry to say that what I said was from memory. However the basic facts as far as my memory are
Army 140-150000 personnel approx 70000 served overseas just under 7000 dead.
Air force 45000 personnel approx 20000 served overseas just under 3500 dead.
Navy 10600 personnel I cannot remember there casualties.
Total dead around 11000. As to priority, my own opinion is that every life is precious and each and every one is is equal. They all had mothers and fathers who would have grieved for the rest of their lives. As a father who lost a young adult son some years ago I understand the pain this causes better than most, It never goes away you simply learn how to live with it. Sorry for the emotion, but we remember the dead and honour them as we should, but seldom acknowledge the pain suffering of the moms and dads left behind.
OK. We leave it at that.
Somewhat on this same tack my great uncle was was RNZAF and later RAF after WW2, returned to NZ in the 60's upon retirement and took up with Air New Zealand, he always felt that in New Zealand ANZAC day was largely seen as an Army commeration, the other branches not really in the frame, I can understand this, the original ANZAC's were Army, if you ask young people about it they will inevitably think Army before mentioning the other services.
Last edited:
Zero Alpha
New Member
That's a fair call. My Army relatives all survived in one shape or another. The one in Bomber Command didn't even get a UK-funded memorial, and still hasn't.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I had a quick look at casualty rates for Canada and RCAF rates were also higher. By percentage, the rates were 8% for the RCAF, 4.2% for the RCN, and 3.2% for the army. Countries with significant involvement in the European air theatre all would likely have higher casualty rates for airmen. The loss rate for Canadian merchant seaman was 1 in 8.
WWII: Facts & Information - Canada at War
Sorry John not aiming this at you:
I couldn't give a fat rat arse about who percentage casualty rate was higher in the last 15 years I have buried more friends & subordinates killed on Operational service in Timor to Afghanistan and say with 100% that it has been born solely by the Army.
This isn't a d1ck measuring contest of who service has payed the highest price we the country lost a whole generation of young men & women who's potential was cut short commemorate ANZAC day for what it is.
Rant over
Lest we forget