Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


New Zealand invasion

This is a discussion on New Zealand invasion within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I have been living in beautiful New Zealand for over 15 years, and I am now a New Zealander. I ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old February 5th, 2009   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11
Threads:
New Zealand invasion

I have been living in beautiful New Zealand for over 15 years, and I am now a New Zealander. I must say I am not connected with any defence staff or matters. Defence is even not a hobby of mine; I am just an everyday proletarian here . As you all probably know, New Zealand has hardly any credible defence force: half a dozen transport planes, a few decommissioned fighter-jets rusting away, and some vintage helicopters.

I don't want to sound paranoid, but could the specialists here let me know what is your technical opinion on the following:

1. What is the risk that a large foreign nation will be interested in invading New Zealand within the next 50 years? After all, overpopulation and economic decline may well push some country to that temptation.

2. If such an invasion was indeed planned, can you imagine the invading force coming to New Zealand (by sea or air) unimpeded?

3. Since New Zealand defence would be unable to stop the invaders, can you imagine that other friendly nations would be able to stop them before they reach New Zealand?

4. Assuming the invading force does reach New Zealand, our country would be defeated in a matter of hours. Is it truly believable that our "friends" would come to our rescue at that stage? After all, what would be their motivation? Are we not just a little insignificant nation, not worth fighting for? Would we not be lost like other little nations / regions have been in the 20th century? Sure, the invading country would get trade penalties and embargoes as "punishment"; but would the matter not be forgotten within a few decades?

5. As far as you know, does Australia seem to be better prepared to repel an invader?

6. If you had to choose between living in New Zealand and Australia, and your choice was guided by defence concerns, which country would you pick as the safest to live in?
proletarian is offline  
Old February 5th, 2009   #2
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
I am not a specialist nor do I know as much on this issue as most of the Australians in this forum. I just think it may be useful to have a non-Australian opinion on NZ's defence policy.

So here's my 2 cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
I have been living in beautiful New Zealand for over 15 years, and I am now a New Zealander. I must say I am not connected with any defence staff or matters. Defence is even not a hobby of mine; I am just an everyday proletarian here . As you all probably know, New Zealand has hardly any credible defence force: half a dozen transport planes, a few decommissioned fighter-jets rusting away, and some vintage helicopters.
You say "New Zealand has hardly any credible defence force". I would ask: Compared to which other country (in a similar situation)?

What strategies can small states like NZ, employ to deal with external threats?

I would like to name 2 main strategies applicable to NZ:
(i) balancing (eg. Singapore and it is part of our strategy); and/or

(ii) bandwagoning* (eg. Serbia had bandwagoned with Russia, before WWI. Russia came to Serbia's aid when Serbia was threatened by another major power. That triggered WWI, but in the end Serbia survived as Yugoslavia, gaining more territory to prevent another major power from invading it.).
The formation of alliances both formal and informal by small states with larger powers is one example of small states, like NZ, employing some strategies to ensure protection of their national interests.

[*Note: I copied this example from another person posting in another forum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
1. What is the risk that a large foreign nation will be interested in invading New Zealand within the next 50 years? After all, overpopulation and economic decline may well push some country to that temptation.
IMHO, any foreign invasion of NZ can only succeed if:
(i) Australia decides to do nothing; and

(ii) the foreign invasion force can get to NZ unmolested (because the invasion force must have some means to project their power).
You must also ask: What is the strategic/military value of invading NZ for the foreign invasion force?

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
2. If such an invasion was indeed planned, can you imagine the invading force coming to New Zealand (by sea or air) unimpeded?
Are you asking if NZ should be preparing for a potential invasion from a southern approach? IMHO, not likely right? Further, Australia can also project it's forces to the south.

Or

Are you asking if NZ should be preparing for a potential invasion from the northern approach? Note that any northern approach will have to deal with the presence of Australian forces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
3. Since New Zealand defence would be unable to stop the invaders, can you imagine that other friendly nations would be able to stop them before they reach New Zealand?
Yes, Australia and the USN's 7th Fleet should be seen as NZ's best friends in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
4. Assuming the invading force does reach New Zealand, our country would be defeated in a matter of hours. Is it truly believable that our "friends" would come to our rescue at that stage? After all, what would be their motivation? Are we not just a little insignificant nation, not worth fighting for? Would we not be lost like other little nations / regions have been in the 20th century? Sure, the invading country would get trade penalties and embargoes as "punishment"; but would the matter not be forgotten within a few decades?
Only if the invading force can go through the Australian forces or the USN undetected and unmolested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
5. As far as you know, does Australia seem to be better prepared to repel an invader?
Yes of course. The total defence budgets of all ASEAN countries combined is smaller than Australia's defence budget. So Australia is a regional power.

Further, IMHO, some ASEAN countries (who will remain unnamed for courtesy reasons) are unable to conduct an effective defence of their own territories. So there is some reliance on external support. Thankfully, Australia and the US are benign external powers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
6. If you had to choose between living in New Zealand and Australia, and your choice was guided by defence concerns, which country would you pick as the safest to live in?
The answer for me: neither (as both face the same risk). The risk is less of a foreign invasion. Rather both countries are vulnerable to having your SLOCs cut. And the presence of the USN is critical in that regard.

If you cannot trade, your national interests will still be hurt. No invasion is necessary to hurt both Australia and NZ's national interests.

Last edited by OPSSG; February 6th, 2009 at 08:42 PM.
OPSSG is offline  
Old February 6th, 2009   #3
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11
Threads:
Many thanks for the thoughts. Keep them coming, please!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
What is the strategic/military value of invading NZ for the foreign invasion force?
None; just a good place to live, whereas the rest of the world is becoming overcrowded. I can see many countries with a population over 200 million who may want to have New Zealand as another province, whether coming from the south or the north.
proletarian is offline  
Old February 6th, 2009   #4
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Threads:
This is a self generated analysis (which isn't perfect) that outlines some of the maritime threats NZ may face - Invasion doesn't even rate when you you consider whats required.


Quote:
So what kind of conflicts can New Zealand expect to face. The high intensity conflicts that are associated with major wars are beyond the means of all except the major powers . Consequently it is extremely unlikely that New Zealand will ever face an invasion. Even during World War II there was some debate as to whether any Japanese assault would be at Brigade level or divisional level.

MEDIUM LEVEL THREATS

A medium level threat is defined as the concentration of resources, for operations over a limited period of time . Given New Zealandís distance for other nationís two key items affect the ability to mount medium level operations against New Zealand. These two factors areÖ.
  1. Logistical Capability Ė The opposing force must have, with the exceptions of Australia and France, sufficient logistical ships such as tankers, supply and other appropriate vessels to mount such an operation.
  2. Force Size - It must be capable of concentrating a significant sized force for operations that allows for steaming time from there own country and return. Very approx estimate of travel times, dependent of weather, speed of slowest ship and threat environment, areÖ

Europe 4-6 Weeks each way
America 2-3 Weeks each way
Asia 2-3 Weeks each way
Middle East 3-5 Weeks each way
Africa 4-6 Weeks each way


What constitutes a medium level threat?

The Falklands war is classified as a medium level maritime operation. Consisting of 2 Aircraft carriers, 25 Surface warships, submarines and some 100 RFA ships and ships taken up from trade to support the fleet and transport around 10,000 troops. Currently no country but the United States could currently carry out a similar sort of operation. While China could conduct a Falklands operation, it lacks carriers and would have to take ships up from trade in order to obtain the logistics support.

Consequently medium level threats to New Zealand given the inability of foreign powers to mount a Falklands type operation are more likely to be of a smaller scale.

Combined Air Craft Carrier & Amphibious Raid

Limited to those few countries with a carrier capability. Of these countries only the US, UK, France and Russia can mount an amphibious raid of greater than 1500 personnel.

In addition many of the carrier countries lack to logistical capability to mount such an assault, without the use of requisitioned ships. While the number of countries capable of such an operation has increased when compared to a Falklands war type operation, the threat is still minor.

Aircraft Carrier Assault:

With the exception of the United States the use of a carrier strike force against NZ (for whatever mad reason), would impact on operations in other parts of the world. The US, UK, France and a number of other countries have a range of alternative options that would be less costly, and would minimise the impact of other operations.

While other nations like Spain, Brazil, Italy process a carrier capability they lack the logistical vessels to sustain a carrier raiding force (carrier, 4 escorts over the distance), without seriously impeding other current operations. The outward leg would allow for port based refuelling the return leg may not as a result of political pressure. None have a normal aircraft capability of greater than 20 combat aircraft. This would result in fewer aircraft been operational as air stores are consumed and time at sea increases. As a result any such threat would be limited in aircraft numbers and time able to be spent on station.

Most carrier navyís have no in flight refuelling capability except for buddy packs, which reduces the ability to deploy combat aircraft. For a non US carrier force to conduct operations against NZ it would have to close within strike range of its aircraft.

Given the limited number of air craft carried by a carrier an air combat force of 20-24 aircraft could equal most carrier threats? The risk from this sort of force is so low that I donít see the need to acquire any more air craft than this.

Amphibious Assault (>Brigade Strength):

Limited to UK (Total Troop Lift capability 3887), Fr (2660), China (9050), US (42,483), Russia (5252) . An amphibious assault at this level would most likely be accompanied by supporting aircraft carrier cover, given its significance size


Why use a medium level operation against New Zealand
Realistically I consider a medium level threat would only be used as a diversion in relation to other actions taking place elsewhere (say an invasion by a major power of Australia or the Pacific Islands), in order to delay deployment by NZ of its forces. Use of a brigade level attack against NZ independent of overseas military operations could only been seen as an attempt to establish a bridgehead for the expansion of operations against NZ.


LOW LEVEL THREATS

Amphibious Assault (Below Brigade Strength):

The least likely of the low level options options, as most countries only have an amphibious capability of less than 2000 troops. These countries often lack the escorts and in many caseís the replenishment capability. For example the Netherlands has built up an extremely capable Amphib capability but at the expense of its combat force. Likewise the Singapore Navy has 3 capable amphibious ships but only 6 escorts and no refuelling at sea capability. At most I think assault force of battalion to battalion group is the most likely option.

The key to countering the above non carrier options is adequate Long Range Maritime Surveillance that is capable of launching sustained stand off attacks. If a force is detected early enough it gives NZ the ability to mobilise its military while pursing a political resolution (if possible). I think here the UAVís could play a key role in the surveillance role, but given there current lack of stand off capability Iíd limit numbers.

Raiding Force:

A seaborne raiding force could range from a Rainbow Warrior type situation to a surface / sub surface launched team. Purpose of such an operation would vary depending on the organisation carrying it out. A terrorist situation may involve conducting an attack against a key target / event to cause maximise fear in the public. A Special Forces attack is more likely to focus on infrastructure in order to achieve some limited military or political purpose.

In a terrorist situation the use of a yacht or merchant ship can be countered by the use of either an OPV or IPV, subject to that vessel be equipped correctly. For this to occur the navy must be able to engage from outside the range of equipment such as RPGís or MANPAD systems using a surface weapon. If there is a need to board then the ships must be able to close and sustain damage, in order to cover their boarding party all the way.

If a foreign country was to conduct the operation a vessel with more combat capability than an OPV or IPV is required. Given that the presence of a surface vessel is likely to be a giveaway, subject to adequate surveillance, or at least rise serious questions, then other than by performing another Rainbow Warrior type operation submarine entry is the only option for a foreign power.

It should be added here that both types of forces maybe seeking to support, train or equip subversive elements in New Zealand in order to destabilise the region. Given the nature and limited number of international airports in NZ and increased surveillance, the importation and landing of weapons and specialists trained in their operation is best achieved from the sea.


Mining of Ports:

A very real threat. A single mine if it successfully sinks a vessel, would not only close New Zealandís all of New Zealandís ports but could also result in an ecological or human disaster (especially if the LPG tanker was taken out). There would be economic consequences, if overseas shipping companies, which carry most of New Zealandís exports were to withdraw from the market.

Modern Mines have the ability to set them selves of when a specific ship goes over them. So for example the entire US Navy might travel through Cook Strait and not set a mine off, an inter Island Ferry might then go over the same spot and boom! Other mines are torpedoes that sit on the sea bed and more recent mines bury themselves under the sea bed. All these mines tend to be restricted to Nation states and can be expensive to deal with (Just look at how much the Huon Class cost).

Most navies focus there mine laying capability around submarines, aircraft or a few specialist vessels. With the addition of flight decks and enclosed quarter decks there is little room to carry a significant number of mines on modern warships. Likewise submarines are naturally limited by their size in the number of mines they may carry. Only large specialist mine laying vessels, of the type used by Sweden can carry a significant number of mines. Given these nations are more likely to use advanced mine warfare capabilities, the impact could be greater than a traditional mine.

At the other end of the scale are the good old magnetic and WWII type acoustic mines that are more likely to be the domain of terrorist groups. Mines can be laid by any type of vessel. The Iranians used small merchant vessels in the Gulf War and Merchant ships of New Zealand in WWII were used to lay mines at the entrances to ports like Wellington. Merchant ships will be the primary choice for terrorist groups.


WWII Type Raider & Hindrance of Sea Lanes

If I remember my law of armed conflict training correctly attacks against merchant ships sailing independently are forbidden. Such ships may be stopped and inspected and if need taken to port for further inspection. Only ships sailing in convoy can be attacked without notice or warning. Having noted that my memory maybe slipping here I continue.

The threat of force against shipping maybe sufficient to cause shipping in New Zealand to halt . New Zealand has a vulnerability, in that with the exception of Westport (which is limited) and New Plymouth, all its shipping transport exits via the East coast. In addition there are, what I see as, choke points in NZ shipping (Bay of Islands-Auckland, Taraunga and Cook Strait), not to mention the predominantly West bound nature of trade. Confusing this issue is the fact that the majority of New Zealandís trade is no longer carried by New Zealand Flagged vessels, which are now focused on the Cook Strait, limited coastal shipping and the carriage of LPG and Fuel from Marsden Point.

If my Law of Armed conflict training is correct, New Zealand is more likely to be threatened with rather than actually have shipping attacked. That may change were New Zealand to face a blockade or embargo of some type. A terrorist situation in this scenario would ignore the Law of Armed Conflict, but I consider that to be highly unlikely, but as 9/11 showed, nothing is impossible.


Stand Off Missile Attack

This I believe would be the preferred option, for countries with the capability, in mounting a low level attack against New Zealand. This option provides the opposing force with a low risk (to assets and personnel), in relation to other options such as laying mines or attacking shipping or raiding strategic targets. Countering this sort of threat would be extremely difficult if not impossible, given the ability for such missiles to alter headings onto target.
Lucasnz is offline  
Old February 6th, 2009   #5
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
I would say the possibility of an invasion of NZ is increasing everyday...

http://www.invadenewzealand.com/

Now back to serious discussions...
 
Old February 7th, 2009   #6
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
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
Lucasnz is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #7
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11
Threads:
Lucasnz, your analysis is interesting because written by someone who obviously knows a lot about New Zealand and defence in general.

As I said in my introduction, I am no defence specialist (even not remotely), so my thinking may be outside of the square. But so is the thinking of great strategists, who may out-think your analysis.

If I was the leader of an overpopulated country that wants to invade New Zealand to expand its territory, I would run an operation that is not in your list of possibilities. I would first position a few thousand agents that merge with the civil population, little by little over a year or two. Very easy to blend in, since New Zealand's population has a very high percentage of immigrants of all sorts anyway. Then, I would send a light but numerous invading ground force hidden in merchant ships (one or two ships per major harbour landing at the same time) and send two or three missiles or bombers that destroy some strategic assets. The ground invaders would face no opposition since New Zealand army has no fighter jets and only very little ground power, and New Zealand police is unarmed too. It would take no time to oust the legitimate government and be in control. Only a few thousand guerilla-type agents can do it, as it seems to me as a New Zealand citizen.

Is that too simple? - With human population having increased by 4.4 billion in the 20th century (1900: 1.6 billion; 2000: 6 billion), desperate attempts like that seem more than likely sooner or later.

Why a country like Switzerland (no wars since 1291), which has a population only twice that of New Zealand, has 87 fighter jets and 2000 armoured vehicles... and New Zealand has no fighter jets, and only 100 armoured vehicles (according to Wikipedia)?

When I think of that type of comparison, I wonder if it is safe to remain in New Zealand.

P.S. The invasion I fear is not that of Australians hahaha!

Last edited by proletarian; February 7th, 2009 at 01:59 AM.
proletarian is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #8
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
IMHO, you have been avoiding the direct mention of Indonesia as a source of your concern. And I honestly don't think that Indonesian territorial expansionism all the way to New Zealand is likely or possible.

If Indonesia ever goes to war (in the next decade), she can only do so with her immediate neighbours because of the lack of means to project her forces. Her armed forces may be large, but they are designed to maintain internal security. Viewed through the eyes of her fellow ASEAN member countries, Indonesia's behaviour has been restrained since the Konfrontasi ended.

The significant military concept here is the ability to project her forces (be it conventional forces or unconventional forces). Hence the need for military intelligence agencies. In Singapore's case, it is headed by a one-star general.

Because of the Konfrontasi, the 1971 Five-Powers Defence Agreement (FPDA), which remains in force (it is a consultative forum, not a formal alliance) was entered by Australia, Britain, and New Zealand which promised military support for Malaysia and Singapore if they were attacked by a foreign power. The FPDA was designed to counter Indonesia, if she went rogue again.

If you are talking about a worse case scenario, Indonesia's ASEAN neighbours or Australia will be drawn into any conflict first. In recent years the FPDA has addressed asymmetric threats, maritime security issues and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. In sum, the FPDA has become ‘the quiet achiever’ in contributing to regional security.

Last edited by OPSSG; February 7th, 2009 at 05:03 AM.
OPSSG is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #9
Super Moderator
General
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
Why a country like Switzerland (no wars since 1291), which has a population only twice that of New Zealand, has 87 fighter jets and 2000 armoured vehicles... and New Zealand has no fighter jets, and only 100 armoured vehicles (according to Wikipedia)?

When I think of that type of comparison, I wonder if it is safe to remain in New Zealand.
For that matter, Singapore has at least 167 fighter/ground attack jets (excluding the 24x F-15SGs on order). Further, my Indonesian friend in this forum informs me that Singapore is within artillery range of Batam.

BTW, I like Lucasnz's analysis too. I think it is a pity that the NZ government had made a decision to cripple your air force by deciding not to fund at least a modern fighter squadron. Destroying an existing military capability is always much cheaper than funding the building of a military capability (until you find that you need it).

Last edited by OPSSG; February 7th, 2009 at 05:52 AM.
OPSSG is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #10
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
Lucasnz, your analysis is interesting because written by someone who obviously knows a lot about New Zealand and defence in general.

As I said in my introduction, I am no defence specialist (even not remotely), so my thinking may be outside of the square. But so is the thinking of great strategists, who may out-think your analysis.

If I was the leader of an overpopulated country that wants to invade New Zealand to expand its territory, I would run an operation that is not in your list of possibilities. I would first position a few thousand agents that merge with the civil population, little by little over a year or two. Very easy to blend in, since New Zealand's population has a very high percentage of immigrants of all sorts anyway. Then, I would send a light but numerous invading ground force hidden in merchant ships (one or two ships per major harbour landing at the same time) and send two or three missiles or bombers that destroy some strategic assets. The ground invaders would face no opposition since New Zealand army has no fighter jets and only very little ground power, and New Zealand police is unarmed too. It would take no time to oust the legitimate government and be in control. Only a few thousand guerilla-type agents can do it, as it seems to me as a New Zealand citizen.
1. Who has the capability? That is the first question when you are worried about an invasion. Capability includes long ranged amphibious forces. Long range strike capability, logistical capability sufficient to project power as far as NZ and capability to resist the efforts of those who are going to object to an invasion of NZ aka: USA and Australia as a minimum.

2. Who has the intent?

3. Look at NZ's geography. It is even further away from any Country with even a limited amphibious capability, than Australia is. Any force has to be able to project power over thousands of kilometres, with hostile forces between this hypothetical enemies homeland and the area subject of any invasion.

Quote:
Is that too simple? - With human population having increased by 4.4 billion in the 20th century (1900: 1.6 billion; 2000: 6 billion), desperate attempts like that seem more than likely sooner or later.
A little bit.

1. The movement of thousands of person of obvious military bearing through a civilian airport (NZ has HOW many International airports?) is going to attract significant attention from Intelligence agencies.

2. What is the Visa arrangement going to be? Thousands of single male persons from one particular Country, completely out of the blue, isn't going to attract attention?

Where are they going to stay? How are they going to train? What are they going to be equipped with?

How are they going to be supported with funds, how is the capability to co-ordinate operations of thousands of troops, going to be managed covertly within a civilian population and without attracting ANY attention?

There are any number of issues, with this scenario.

Merchant ships. How are they going to house, feed and generally support the thousands of troops coming as the "second wave"?

How are they going to offload these troops? Does NZ simply allow any ship to pull into it's harbours, without pilots? Are foreign ships allowed to sail into NZ waters without notifying the relevant authorities?

How are these soldiers going to manoeuvre? Are they going to take over NZ by foot? How are support capabilities like engineers, medical and combat support units, going to manoeuvre or even off-load their equipment?

2-3 bombers or missiles? Do you mean Inter-Continental ballistic missiles? Do you honestly think the USA will allow a Country to fire ICBM's at NZ without response? Bombers? What sort of bombers could fly around Australia and conduct strikes on NZ without attracting a response?

Quote:
Why a country like Switzerland (no wars since 1291), which has a population only twice that of New Zealand, has 87 fighter jets and 2000 armoured vehicles... and New Zealand has no fighter jets, and only 100 armoured vehicles (according to Wikipedia)?
How big is Switzerland's navy? How big is it's air transport force? How big is Switzerland's maritime patrol force?

Switzerland is about 1500k's from Russia.

New Zealand is about 15000k's from Russia.

Don't you think that might make a slight difference in necessary defence capabilities?

Quote:
When I think of that type of comparison, I wonder if it is safe to remain in New Zealand.

P.S. The invasion I fear is not that of Australians hahaha!
When I think of how many times NZ has been invaded in recent years, I think you'll find it pretty safe to stay...

Cheers.
 
Old February 7th, 2009   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 308
Threads:
Quote:
The FPDA was designed to counter Indonesia, if she went rogue again.
A pre-emptive(oh forget about pre-emptive)strike by both the RAAF and RSAF would be the end of Indonesian aspirations at a land grab of any thing. I pity the Indonesian politician who blows his trumpet and unwittingly causes a conflict. People forget how jointed these forces are.
Red is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 446
Threads:
It's hard to see what the worldwide political environment would be like in 50 years time. But the precedent that an invasion of NZ would set if it were to be allowed, just by other western nations alone, is unthinkable.
The septics may not be happy with NZ's nuclear policy, but in such a situation the ANZUS treaty for whatever it is worth now, would most certainly see not just Oz, but the good old US of A having a say in the matter.

Paul Hogan performed a skit many years ago when he was 'running for PM'
The gist of which is as follows.

'I intend to get the people of Australia behind me (so that I get elected).
To do this we need to unite behind a conflict such as an invasion (ala Falklands).
We don't know who we are going to invade just yet, but don't go planning a holiday in NZ.'
He also said he would remove all taxes on beer and cigarettes.

Plus as lucasnz pointed out, that NZ sheep might prove an obstacle
http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/

Plus I wouldn't take this too seriously
http://catandv.vox.com/library/video...f272e0003.html

cheers
rb
rossfrb_1 is offline  
Old February 7th, 2009   #13
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 11
Threads:
Thanks for your patience with my naive questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
IMHO, you have been avoiding the direct mention of Indonesia as a source of your concern.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of Indonesia in particular. China, Russia, Bangladesh, Korea and in fact any country with a sizeable population can be tempted to run a small guerilla-type operation to conquer a valuable piece of land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OPSSG View Post
it is a pity that the NZ government had made a decision to cripple your air force
I find that very concerning too. It may be the main reason of my concern, in fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
Are foreign ships allowed to sail into NZ waters without notifying the relevant authorities?
The ships will be regular cargo ships, normally registered and scheduled. I can't see what power (the harbour pilot's army knife?) can stop them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
How are these soldiers going to manoeuvre? Are they going to take over NZ by foot?
I have in mind a guerilla-type operation. Soldiers would steal civilian 4WD and (within hours) NZ army vehicles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
How big is Switzerland's navy?
Hahaha Switzerland is landlocked... BUT does have 10 military patrol boats, armed with two 12.7mm machine guns patrolling its lakes. New Zealand has 17,000km of coastline, and 13 sea-going vessels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
1. Who has the capability? (...)

2. Who has the intent?

3. Look at NZ's geography. (...)
1. Capability: almost any nation with a sizeable commercial fleet.

2. Intent: That's what the NZ politicians say, something along the lines: "We have asked, and no one told us they want to invade us; so there is no need for a strong defence force." Hmmmmmmmm.

3. Geography: Unlike Australia, NZ has no snakes, no dangerous animals, large snowy plains or dry deserts. If troops do reach New Zealand, their progress will be easy.

Anyway, thanks again for your replies; it has been most interesting!
proletarian is offline  
Old February 8th, 2009   #14
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
Thanks for your patience with my naive questions.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of Indonesia in particular. China, Russia, Bangladesh, Korea and in fact any country with a sizeable population can be tempted to run a small guerilla-type operation to conquer a valuable piece of land.
I think you'll find China, Russia, Korea (which one?) and Indonesia have quite a bit of more spare land then New Zealand does...

Bangladesh has precisely one registered cargo ship. It cannot take "thousands" of personnel.

Quote:
I find that very concerning too. It may be the main reason of my concern, in fact.

The ships will be regular cargo ships, normally registered and scheduled. I can't see what power (the harbour pilot's army knife?) can stop them.
Does NZ not control her own borders? Do thousands of people arrive and they are not handled by NZ immigration and Customs services? Do they merely pass through NZ's borders without presenting passports and visas?

What are the visa requirements for Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Indonesian or Bangladeshian nationals?

Several thousands appearing within a short period of time, wouldn't ring alarm bells?

This scenario is ridiculous.

Quote:
I have in mind a guerilla-type operation. Soldiers would steal civilian 4WD and (within hours) NZ army vehicles.
And NZ wouldn't activate it's Army, which consists of 2x regular infantry battalions, 4x territorial battalions, special forces and support units?

ALL of whom would have weapons?

Quote:
Hahaha Switzerland is landlocked... BUT does have 10 military patrol boats, armed with two 12.7mm machine guns patrolling its lakes. New Zealand has 17,000km of coastline, and 13 sea-going vessels.
I'm aware of that. My point was in relation to the budget they and NZ have to spend.

Switzerland is NOT required to maintain a military and civilian maritime patrol force (air and sea) it does not maintain an air and sea based transport force.

NZ isn't willing to spend anymore. I wish it were otherwise and NZ could maintain a reasonable air combat capability, but that is not the case. Drawing parallels between the two is a waste of time given the geographical and threat differences between the two.

Quote:
1. Capability: almost any nation with a sizeable commercial fleet.
Once again, you seem to think that such a nation is somehow capable of sneaking in thousands of military troops through NZ's borders, without detection or alerting anyone that a situation is or might be occurring.

You focus on an alleged lack of response capability, ignorning that NZ possesses a reasonably capable, if small light infantry based army, with armoured and airborne assets with significant direct and indirect fire support capabilities.

Your enemy is going to be locked into a Country with no logistical support assets, no mobility other than whatever civilian based motor vehicles they can steal.

No weapons, other than what the force can steal itself. No communications capability. Do you think man-packed and trunk based radios won't be detected by Xray, perhaps?

Your second wave force is relying on the fact that it is allowed to enter NZ waters without interception by NZ maritime authorities and declaration of cargo.

Sorry, but I find this scenario ridiculous. Any such assault will be a suicide mission.

1. The NZ Army with it's full range of capabilities will be brought to bear. NZ's allies, Australia and the USA will cut off any attempts to reinforce or resupply this invasion force and will deploy forces to assist NZ Army in mopping up this "guerilla force".

Don't take it personally, but any such idea needs to be thought through a bit better...

Intelligence agencies keep an eye on persons entering Countries, moreso since 9/11. Thousands of male persons suddenly entering NZ on "tourist visas" etc, from Indonesia, Bangladesh, North Korea, China or Russia will set off enormous warning bells...
 
Old February 8th, 2009   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
dave_kiwi's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 149
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by proletarian View Post
Thanks for your patience with my naive questions.

......

3. Geography: Unlike Australia, NZ has no snakes, no dangerous animals, large snowy plains or dry deserts. If troops do reach New Zealand, their progress will be easy.

Anyway, thanks again for your replies; it has been most interesting!
Actually I think you under sell the geography & weather of New Zealand. It's not quite the benign place you think it is. :-). Quite a few people serious under estimate both the land & the weather.

Way back in 1983 / 1984 was dong my initial training at RNZAF Woodbourne (Blenheim, top of the South Island), some Australian troops came across for an exercise, ( talking mid feb to mid march from memory - you know, summer :-) and ended up with some serious cases of hypothermia - as they have brought "summer" uniforms. Conversely, the NZ Army troops, that were taking part, were all "snug as bugs in da rugs". (Believe they were exercising up in and around Dip Flat / Nelson-Lakes area).

Believe the Indonesians, Singaporeans have also been through this -- mid summer can still bloody cold when ya up in da hills (Even Waiouru is something like 2600 feet above sea level - cold enough even in mid summer when ya riding ya motorbike), all you need is a good southerly and :-). Sort of mistake ya make once -- but I think once would be enough.

Look at the NZ Herald -- how many stories do you see where some over seas tourist serious under estimated our "benign" conditions and get into trouble. Even the NZ Army learnt the hard way -- remember the fiasco on Rupheau / Tongariro.

I for one wouldn't want to be slogging around the Central North Island on foot .
dave_kiwi is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.