Note that I cited auckland airport as the target, which can be reached from chinese coast using a very tiny diversion to avoid over flying Australia.
New Zealand invasion
- Thread starter proletarian
- Start date
- Status
Two points:
I can't imagine an airborne assault being maintained logistically for more than 3 days without a staging post within 4 hours flight time of New Zealand. The only possible would be Fiji. Secure that and maybe.
Second while NZ's armed forces are unlikely to be much match for an brigade sized airborne assault maintaining peaceful occupation is another matter. NZ has a rifle ownership per head matching some southern states of the US and culture of resisting authority. The violent civil disorder would be hellish to quell- think Iraq but with better scenery. I imagine it would require at least 2-3 divisions, a serious helocopter pool and a large logistics train through the middle of the western Pacific. Helluva commitment to go whale-watching.
I agree with all your points. Note that throughout this excercise I have strained to emphasize how it would be unsustainable after initial success, and hence impractical.
once the initial surprise is achieved the invasion might be a success, but after that initial success once Australians or US navy in the neighborhood realize what happened, the invaders would be in for a big dose of hell.
The distance from Agra to the Maldives is still far less than the distance from any part of India to Auckland. From India to the Maldives, no overflight of any other country is necessary. From either India or China to New Zealand requires overflights of more than one country, & extended overflight of at least one. Civil ATC radars would pick up the aircraft unless they flew a deliberately evasive route (adding distance).
You are also ignoring the numbers of both transport aircraft and tankers. You simply give the maximum range of the transports (how many, what capacity do they have?) & state that there are tankers. How many tankers? By how much can they extend the range of the transports? Where would they refuel? What route would they use to return? What are the chances of this being observed, & by who? All this is significant.
BTW, it's over 9000km from the nearest point of China to Auckland.
The Maldives & NZ are not comparable in their ability to defend themselves. NZ has ten times the population, & a great deal more than ten times the wealth, land area, technology & weaponry. Its armed forces are small, but far larger & better armed than those of the Maldives, & extremely efficient.
Operation Cactus consisted of an initial landing by a rather small force, later reinforced to a battalion group. Such a landing at Auckland would be disruptive, but I think it would result in the attackers eventually surrendering.
Last edited:
Are you sure about this number?? I had been told something around 5500km. Route I suggested was from Chinese eastern seaboard skirting along east coast of austrailia to reach Auckland airport. Looking at the map you can see how that route avoids overflying over any ATC with very little deviation. II will see if I can put a map here. Not sure how to use image upload here yet. However if you are positive about your number then I might be mistaken since I don't have reliable source for that distance and my calculation was based on the maximum range of assets used in cactus. I am not sure about the extended range with refuller though, I guess some one with knowledge in that area can comment.
btw 5800Km is the maximum un-refuelled range at full load for the latest IL-76s in service.
edit
I apologize for not answering your question about numbers. From my knowledge here are the numbers :
India : 32 IL-76MD, 6 IL-78MKI (tankers)
China : atleast 17 IL-76 aircraft, atleast 4 IL-78s (minimum confirmed numbers
IL-78s carry 138 tonnes of fuel out of which 105.7 tonnes would be transferred.
Obtained from an online distance calculator. It's consistent with other distances, & the line on the map looks the right length.
New Zealand really is a very long way from anywhere except Australia & some S. Pacific islands, & it isn't close even to them. I can't see Il-76s making it except lightly loaded, or with auxiliary tanks, even with AAR, unless more tankers than the actual numbers could be found. That would severely limit the initial assault force, & render reinforcement & resupply dependent on capturing the runways intact, & being able to fly in commercial airliners. Very difficult to guarantee.
An air assault which requires the assault forces aircraft to make a one-way trip does not strike me as practical.
Airborne assault of NZ, from mainland china?
China would struggle to send out one or two planes anywhere near that distance, if flying the shortest route (over Australia) in peace time. Has it ever patrolled at that distance? For an airborne assault you would need 100's of flights of all different type of aircraft. You would need Berlin airlift type of operations. So your talking about dropping equipment and troops and then returning aircraft another 5000-10,000 km. Slow aircraft flying nearly 20,000 km over contested first world airspace! Mechanical failure alone would end that mission like the long flights Britian attempted in the Faulklands. And they were over friendly airspace.
The only way the would have a shot at it, is they were operating a carrier and amphibious group out peacefully in the pacific and then attacked.
The inital assault could secure a major airport, additional supplies could be flown in, perhaps. But China can't operate at that level yet anyway.
Australia will shortly have 5 kc-30b. Its current operational status is murky but most likely atleast 2 are operational in a war time enviroment. However, additional AR could be leased or operated from UK/US. SH themselves can perform AR if required.
However, Australia certainly has reach 500nm+ from its shores as is, so any chinese flights are going to stay atleast 500nm from Australian territory.
Australia is purchasing a great deal of equipment, so the window for China to do this is pretty small. However NZ could close this window completely if they had picked up some of the slack and invested in the potentially very capable NZDF. In 5 years Australia will have a very capable force with 2-3 LHD's operational, first batch of F-35's, AWD's, refuelers, Wedgetail, bushmasters, various upgrades.
They should consider getting:
3 x ANZAC II ~7,000 frigates with Australian fitout or better. 3 Allows 1 to be deployed at all times and 2 to be surged.
4 x OCV ~2,500t multirole vessels (2 at nearly all times 3 during surge)
12 x Bae Hawk trainers to allow AU and NZ pilots to train in unique NZ enviroments which Australian/NZ pilots do not currently train in. In war time these could be armed to perform patrol/shipping missions within NZ waters atleast as a deterant.
I think NZ could achieve much more if it realised that it needs to intergrate operationally with Australia in high threat enviroments. It should also understand that to pull its weight it should be aquiring (as a rule of thumb) 1/4-1/6th of any major equipment Australia purchases.
China would struggle to send out one or two planes anywhere near that distance, if flying the shortest route (over Australia) in peace time. Has it ever patrolled at that distance? For an airborne assault you would need 100's of flights of all different type of aircraft. You would need Berlin airlift type of operations. So your talking about dropping equipment and troops and then returning aircraft another 5000-10,000 km. Slow aircraft flying nearly 20,000 km over contested first world airspace! Mechanical failure alone would end that mission like the long flights Britian attempted in the Faulklands. And they were over friendly airspace.
The only way the would have a shot at it, is they were operating a carrier and amphibious group out peacefully in the pacific and then attacked.
The inital assault could secure a major airport, additional supplies could be flown in, perhaps. But China can't operate at that level yet anyway.
Australia does have the capability. East Timor/Interfet Australia pulled it "out of its arse" and leased a high speed cat (HMAS Jervis Bay) in addition to HMAS Kanimbla,HMAS Manoora and smaller amphibious ships like HMAS Tobruk. These high speed cats operate between Australia and Tasmania and are made in Tasmania. Additional ones could be obtained/made in time of war. There is also another producer in Perth. We have two 30,000t LHD's on order, 1 already undergoing construction. In a war time situation, Australia would aquire as many vessels as needed and could aquire ships like Spirt of tasmania (200m Ropax) that owned and operated by Australian governments (tasmania) and companies. Each ship could land 1500 personel and 1000 vechicals with a max speed of 30 kt.hoffy said:
Australia will shortly have 5 kc-30b. Its current operational status is murky but most likely atleast 2 are operational in a war time enviroment. However, additional AR could be leased or operated from UK/US. SH themselves can perform AR if required.
However, Australia certainly has reach 500nm+ from its shores as is, so any chinese flights are going to stay atleast 500nm from Australian territory.
Australia is purchasing a great deal of equipment, so the window for China to do this is pretty small. However NZ could close this window completely if they had picked up some of the slack and invested in the potentially very capable NZDF. In 5 years Australia will have a very capable force with 2-3 LHD's operational, first batch of F-35's, AWD's, refuelers, Wedgetail, bushmasters, various upgrades.
They should consider getting:
3 x ANZAC II ~7,000 frigates with Australian fitout or better. 3 Allows 1 to be deployed at all times and 2 to be surged.
4 x OCV ~2,500t multirole vessels (2 at nearly all times 3 during surge)
12 x Bae Hawk trainers to allow AU and NZ pilots to train in unique NZ enviroments which Australian/NZ pilots do not currently train in. In war time these could be armed to perform patrol/shipping missions within NZ waters atleast as a deterant.
I think NZ could achieve much more if it realised that it needs to intergrate operationally with Australia in high threat enviroments. It should also understand that to pull its weight it should be aquiring (as a rule of thumb) 1/4-1/6th of any major equipment Australia purchases.
Sorry , but I screwed up there. I was actually posting a link for Storywolf to view;
Defence Materiel Organisation
This actually shows some info. in relation to Australia's air re-fuelling capability.
Again , this would come in very handy in the highly unlikely defense of New Zealand in an invasion scenario and demonstrates that we have a serious commitment to building up our nations defence capabilities. We are keen to see NZ do the same.
Defence Materiel Organisation
This actually shows some info. in relation to Australia's air re-fuelling capability.
Again , this would come in very handy in the highly unlikely defense of New Zealand in an invasion scenario and demonstrates that we have a serious commitment to building up our nations defence capabilities. We are keen to see NZ do the same.
An actual invasion of NZ main islands is very unlikely, but there are other threats.
NZ has a vast EEZ. As resources, minerals and fishing stocks dwindle over the next 50 years the EEZ will become more valuable and therefore desireable to an agressor.
Invasion of your EEZ is far more likely. What does NZ have to really protect remote EEZ areas.
Can't help but think that a small sub force (minimum of 4-6) is a must have for a country wishing to defend such a vast area of sea.
NZ has a vast EEZ. As resources, minerals and fishing stocks dwindle over the next 50 years the EEZ will become more valuable and therefore desireable to an agressor.
Invasion of your EEZ is far more likely. What does NZ have to really protect remote EEZ areas.
Can't help but think that a small sub force (minimum of 4-6) is a must have for a country wishing to defend such a vast area of sea.
That problem you think too much in military sense and logic. That sadly make you close to door to another other people view and just because you cannot think outside the box or understand it - you call them "childish".Your earlier post is counter intuitive and somewhat lacking in an understanding of NZ's context.
Please consider reading the thread, in particular, AD's and Todjaeger's posts - as they pertain to the points you raise.
Edit: The issue is not on any particular claim of expertise or racism - it's your inability to read and understand prior posts. And I was not even attacking your post - just pointing out that you have not read posts by others that contradict your position - before anyone else jumps on your post.
Please provide details of your service history, such as country of service and vocation. Like me, you can start your process of getting a blue handle by contacting the mods with the necessary supporting documentation of your service record - like your certificate of service.
Edit: If you indeed had relevant experience and want to talk about military tactics - you should have attended an orders group before and should not react in such a childish manner. Start with your concept of ops (at start state) and the logistics necessary. Thereafter, show me how you would generate:
(i) the collection plan,for your NZ invasion scenario. Imagine you are preparing an AOP for an invasion of the scale you suggest (please also state your desired end state).
(ii) the ECAs (the NZ troops will react),
(iii) the OPS Plan (to deploy your 12,000 troops),
(iv) the fire support plan, and
(v) the CSS plan,
Or were you in a service vocation during your active days? And don't know what is an AOP.
And how is that relevant to NZ's defence from invasion? Don't try to change the topic to cover your inability to express your point of view persuasively, logically or coherently - somewhat like the standard of Lionoisy's posts in another forum. Rant all you want - but you'll get the respect that you deserve.
I'll let the others respond to you - I don't intend to engage in a totally counter productive exercise. I also see you are trying to fit into the definition of a category (2) poster.
What Ops plans did the Somalia side give in Battle of Mogadishu on which Black Hawk Down is based. I would like to find out did it have ](i) the collection plan,
(ii) the ECAs (the US troops will react),
(iii) the OPS Plan (to deploy your 30,000 mobs),
(iv) the fire support plan, and
(v) the CSS plan
I doubt there was much of plans - it work didn't it !
All it take is 1 crazy cleric that have enough followers and resources and nut enough to do it. Think about it, if that mad person have so much followers, he would have a dozen or hundreds of better military people advicing him. Maybe you just cannot swallow that fact that there are better military experience people outside of this forum
and just think that the expert is all here !!! If a church in singapore can raise 19million within 24 hours. A religious cleric should have no problem to have all the help, manpower and resources to execute his plans. Renting a few huge ships is not an issue. If 9-11 - the planes did not get intercepted - you think the chance of the ships get intercepted ? To take over army bases is not so difficult especially with officers that think like you - NZ is too impossbile and far away ....and the navy would spot them !!! A lot of folks here - say impossible the logisitic cannot sustain - what logistic !!!! This is not a convention army, they do not need to wear uniform, they just have to bring ammo and rifle. They can resupply from capture army camps. Food and other - the cities are full of it, they most they eat sheep everyday.
What about support and response ? Yes the whole world armies and airforce and navy is coming after them !!! - these are religion fantics. You think they care if there is no fire support, or ops plans. To them the only ops plans is simple
1) get on ship to go party
2) takeover some army camp that may stop the party
3) Party in the city
4) wait for international army - the party will end with the greatest bang
5) go to heaven and 72 virgin to party forever !!!
You think they will ask if got ops order, fire support, supply !!!! These are the best soldiers !!! You shout charge they blind charge !!! Not like thinking modern soldier - why charge ? ops order never say got charge !!!
I think you need a cool flannel for your forehead and a nice lie down.That problem you think too much in military sense and logic. That sadly make you close to door to another other people view and just because you cannot think outside the box or understand it - you call them "childish".
What Ops plans did the Somalia side give in Battle of Mogadishu on which Black Hawk Down is based. I would like to find out did it have ](i) the collection plan,
(ii) the ECAs (the US troops will react),
(iii) the OPS Plan (to deploy your 30,000 mobs),
(iv) the fire support plan, and
(v) the CSS plan
I doubt there was much of plans - it work didn't it !
All it take is 1 crazy cleric that have enough followers and resources and nut enough to do it. Think about it, if that mad person have so much followers, he would have a dozen or hundreds of better military people advicing him. Maybe you just cannot swallow that fact that there are better military experience people outside of this forum
A lot of folks here - say impossible the logisitic cannot sustain - what logistic !!!! This is not a convention army, they do not need to wear uniform, they just have to bring ammo and rifle. They can resupply from capture army camps. Food and other - the cities are full of it, they most they eat sheep everyday.
What about support and response ? Yes the whole world armies and airforce and navy is coming after them !!! - these are religion fantics. You think they care if there is no fire support, or ops plans. To them the only ops plans is simple
1) get on ship to go party
2) takeover some army camp that may stop the party
3) Party in the city
4) wait for international army - the party will end with the greatest bang
5) go to heaven and 72 virgin to party forever !!!
You think they will ask if got ops order, fire support, supply !!!! These are the best soldiers !!! You shout charge they blind charge !!! Not like thinking modern soldier - why charge ? ops order never say got charge !!!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
These sort of responses are considered childish, because they are poorly thought out, with real world difficulties to overcome that are conveniently ignored because even the "creators" realise that attempting to seriously address the real world issues an invasion force needs to, compromises the validity of the idea in the first place, in this context particularly.
1. Local intelligence agencies in places where you can "rent big ships" keep an eye on that sort of thing.All it take is 1 crazy cleric that have enough followers and resources and nut enough to do it. Think about it, if that mad person have so much followers, he would have a dozen or hundreds of better military people advicing him. Maybe you just cannot swallow that fact that there are better military experience people outside of this forum
2. Attempting to embark 12,000 armed jihadists on multiple transport ship WILL be noticed. That ship will NOT be allowed to enter a friendly port and would most likely be sunk by US PacRim Naval/Air assets.
How about before they even get there?
12,000 people equals a minimum of about 36,000 litres of CLEAN drinking water required per day or 252,000 litres of clean drinking water per week. Where is this going to come from on a cargo ship?
Any Country that has 12,000 armed jihadists ready to embark on a suicide mission is going to be at least 3-4 weeks sailing time from NZ and I would suggest a WHOLE lot more.
Assuming it is only 3 weeks, you force now requires the ability to supply itself with 756,000 litres of clean drinking water during it's transit.
Let us assume that your "Mad Mullah" and his 12,000 insane followers actually intend to eat food during this 3 week minimum transit period. Even assuming your jihadists only consume 500 grams of food per person, per day (a VERY small quantity for someone expecting to wage Holy war on infidels) that requires you to provide 6 tons (6000 kilos) of food per day, 42 tons of food (42,000 kilos) per week and 126 tons (126,000 kilos) of food for the 3 week transit period.
How are a few rented cargo ships meant to provide sanitary facilities for 12,000 people? No matter how devout and willing to die for their faith. They are still human beings.
Your cargo ships will have to deal with thousands of kilos of excrement per day, in a sanitary manner or all 12,000 jihadists will be suffering from a variety of diseases, including Hepatitis A, Dysentry, Salmonella infections and a variety of other nasty diseases, that will leave one unable to fight, no matter how devout, before they reach their destination.
No logistics? You haven't the FAINTEST idea of what you are talking about, trying to move large numbers of people, I'm afraid, let alone fighting a war.
That's one issue dealt with.
Another one is disembarkation. Assuming that they get there fit to fight, how does he propose to get 12000 jihadists off his ship? He seems to believe that big ships can simply sail into a port & tie up, which is, of course, wrong. The port authorities will want to know who they are & what their business is. Without the co-operation of the port, which I doubt will be forthcoming, you're unlikely to be able to get a "huge" ship into a port, leaving it anchored offshore & trying to ferry jihadists ashore by boat, loading over the side. That'll take long enough that most would still be aboard when the first RAAF Hornet strike (or do the RNZAF P-3s have anti-ship missiles?) hits the ship.
Any that did get ashore would be in a completely different situation from locals in Iraq, Afghanistan, or whatever. They'd be strangers in a strange land, among a hostile population, hunted not only by soldiers but also police & armed citizens. They wouldn't last long.
Another one is disembarkation. Assuming that they get there fit to fight, how does he propose to get 12000 jihadists off his ship? He seems to believe that big ships can simply sail into a port & tie up, which is, of course, wrong. The port authorities will want to know who they are & what their business is. Without the co-operation of the port, which I doubt will be forthcoming, you're unlikely to be able to get a "huge" ship into a port, leaving it anchored offshore & trying to ferry jihadists ashore by boat, loading over the side. That'll take long enough that most would still be aboard when the first RAAF Hornet strike (or do the RNZAF P-3s have anti-ship missiles?) hits the ship.
Any that did get ashore would be in a completely different situation from locals in Iraq, Afghanistan, or whatever. They'd be strangers in a strange land, among a hostile population, hunted not only by soldiers but also police & armed citizens. They wouldn't last long.
I suggest you read up on how those PLOTE rebels invaded maldives. The strategy is not impossible and it has been shown. Besides sanitation is not a issue for these guys. they could as well bend over on the side of the ship and do it. Trust me I am not kidding with that!!
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
JORN would be tracking them for most of their trip, Australia can intercept them either by ferrying aircraft to new zealand for refueling or using the KC-30's to extend the range of the F/A-18's flying our of Williamstown or another base.
Of course even without Australian intervention beyond alerting New Zealand, the whole plan would literally be shot out of the sky when the RNZN lit up the radar on one of its ANZAC class frigate docked at Devonport and blew them out of the sky with its Sea Sparrow's.
Also New Zealand isnt a big place by area, there are 11,000+ police officers who could probably be armed in a hurry in addition to the 4,500 regula, 2,500 active reserve and however many inactive reserves that are in the New Zealand Army.
An airborne force dropped or landed onto Auckland airport (if not already blown out of the sky by the RAAF, RNZN or NZA would not be a very mobile force until helicopters are unloaded, in this time you have 20,000-30,000 Armed New Zealand Army and Police organising a defense. You also have 2 Battalions of Australian commando's and a battalion of Paratroopers Inbound from Sydney by Air or Sea, with the remainder of the Australian Army and Army Reserve mobilising.
No one will attack New Zealand without first neutralising "big brother" next door.
The Maldives again. Oh dear. Why can you not see that that is irrelevant? Scale matters. Distance matters. Time matters. You ignore all of them.
Fitting <100 people into a ship for a journey of hundreds of miles is not comparable with the thousands you speak of, for a journey ten times as long. Crapping over the side of a ship is physically possible, but difficult & dangerous in bad weather, & a long voyage almost guarantees some bad weather, unlike a short trip, where you can wait for good weather. It's also difficult to schedule with a large ship crammed with people (logistics again). Simply getting people up on deck on the right side of the ship, & moving them around again, to enable it, requires the sort of organisation you disdain.
The amount of filth which accumulates in a couple of days at sea is not comparable with that which collects over weeks. There's also time for diseases to incubate & spread, unlike in a short trip. You can make do with the water & rations you can carry for a couple of days at sea: for weeks, you need a proper water supply, food stores, refrigeration (or the lack of fresh food is going to start having health effects), etc.
Offloading 82 people into boats over the side of a ship takes minutes. Offloading thousands, from a large ship with no special equipment, takes hours. How many could fit in the boats? If it's a freighter, it's not going to have many. Liferafts are not good for invading, & there would only be enough for a tiny proportion of the jihadis. There wouldn't even be anywhere to fit boats, unless the deck was covered with them (conspicuous, to say the least) or a hold was filled with them, & in either case, you'd need cranes to offload the boats, & it would take hours. Even getting your jihadis up from below decks would take quite a while.
All you are doing is flaunting your ignorance, & inability or refusal to analyse the scenario rationally.
You haven't thought this through.
You've got the wrong idea. Let me explain, the idea behind participating in a forum like this is to provide supporting evidence on why your idea could or would work. Citing irrelevant rubbish does not help your arguments. The amazing thing is that you lack self awareness - that your arguments lack merit.
Edit: Let me repeat my earlier questions:
Q1: Do you know what is an AOP? [NB: Please answer]
Q2: Have you ever attended an orders group? [NB: Please answer]
If you don't know the answers, please admit it (and I'll explain) - rather than try to bluff your way through (which will ONLY make you look more stupid). Assuming that you had prior military training (as you claimed), I gave you a basic planning framework to serve as a thinking-aid and to assist you in framing a reasoned response. However, you demonstrate a total inability to understand or make a coherent argument. This is despite my best attempt NOT to make you look stupid. Why are you trying so hard to provide further prove that you are incapable of learning or applying new information?
I know you are accustomed to posting in agony aunt type of forums - please go back to those forums that you frequent and cry your heart out - I have little or no patience with your ilk - too proud to admit you don't know and too stupid to ask for the necessary guidance.
IMO, AD's reply to your post conclusively demonstrates that you are not merely childish but also incoherent and illogical. You should start by reading the prior post by Todjaeger (#35) part of which I have quoted below.
I've suggested that you read prior posts in this thread and even that you can't do. As I have said before, Todjaeger's and AD's prior posts demonstrate that your ideas lack substance.Todjaeger said:
The Battle of Mogadishu example you cite is not relevant and does not support your invasion of NZ scenario. BTW, your above responses indicate that you not only lack operational unit experience, you also don't know what the hell you are talking about in relation to military strategy or tactics.
Edit: Let me repeat my earlier questions:
Q1: Do you know what is an AOP? [NB: Please answer]
Q2: Have you ever attended an orders group? [NB: Please answer]
If you don't know the answers, please admit it (and I'll explain) - rather than try to bluff your way through (which will ONLY make you look more stupid). Assuming that you had prior military training (as you claimed), I gave you a basic planning framework to serve as a thinking-aid and to assist you in framing a reasoned response. However, you demonstrate a total inability to understand or make a coherent argument. This is despite my best attempt NOT to make you look stupid. Why are you trying so hard to provide further prove that you are incapable of learning or applying new information?
I know that there are people in this forum with good military experience - BUT you just happen NOT to be one of them.All it take is 1 crazy cleric that have enough followers and resources and nut enough to do it. Think about it, if that mad person have so much followers, he would have a dozen or hundreds of better military people advising him. Maybe you just cannot swallow that fact that there are better military experience people outside of this forum
I know you are accustomed to posting in agony aunt type of forums - please go back to those forums that you frequent and cry your heart out - I have little or no patience with your ilk - too proud to admit you don't know and too stupid to ask for the necessary guidance.
Please read AD's latest post - I'm not even trying to make you look incoherent, childish and illogical.
Please keep digging the hole you are in... you can only provide further evidence on the level of your intellect.
Last edited:
Minor correction: you can cope without refrigeration if you prepare well, taking dried, tinned, pickled, etc. food, & vitamin C sources that'll keep.
Aust digger - The reason it can be done in real world is just that every red flag rise would have been ignored !!!
1) Local intelligent agencies - would be staff by people like you - write it of as totally no !!! - thus totally ignore.
2) Embarking ? there is so many places in indonesia or other countries - there is away some disuse port or money which can pay to let others look else where. US PacRim Naval/Air assets ? would not even be looking out for it - because local intelligent aganecies people like you told them - it is impossible .
3) To dismiss my point - you all have unfairly to view that 12,000 idiots on a small cargo ship !!! I say before 2 ship - which i am looking at cruise ships. Yes some old cruise ships that is destinated to be scrapped or false acquired. If you check up each decent size cruise ship, they should able to handle 6000 - 8000 - you see anyone short of water or food or shit over the side ? I am sure 12,000 idiots, would not be dying of lack of water or food.
Several hundred cruise ships ply routes worldwide, especially on a cruise ship serving several thousand meals at each seating. For example, passengers and crew on the Royal Caribbean International ship Mariner of the Seas consume 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of beef, 28,000 eggs, 8,000 gallons (30,000 L) of ice cream, and 18,000 slices of pizza in a week.
You close your mind to imagine a small cargo ship - while mine is of 2 old cruise liners - that is what FAINTEST idea is all about !!!!
- Status