NZDF General discussion thread

Todjaeger · Sep 22, 2012

USAF77 said:
No. They dont. The W-80 warheads are currently stored onshore. Either way it doesnt matter. America would never change its policy concerning making public if ships had nuclear weapons on them.

You managed to miss the gist of my post.

What started the problem between elements of the US and NZ, was when NZ denied the USS Buchanan DDG-14 permission to enter NZ home waters in 1985, on the basis that Charles F. Adams-class DDG's were capable of being armed with nuclear depth bombs/charges, and the US was unwilling to declare that they were not aboard the USS Buchanan, due to US policy of not declaring whether something is or is not armed with nuclear weaponry.

The NZ requirement of a declaration that the USS Buchanan was free of nuclear weapons, was a new NZ Gov't policy as of some time in 1984 IIRC, and it did not become a legal requirement until made into an Act in 1987 (again, IIRC).

There was a significant amount of diplomacy and also political issues going on at the time in the background, and I have my own observations and thoughts about parts of the what and why, which are really not needed here.

What is IMO more significant is that at the height of the Cold War, there were an enormous number of nuclear warheads in the US inventory, and many different types of vessels, vehicles and aircraft could deploy them. As time has progressed, the US has retired a number of the warhead designs, so that less and less USN vessels are able to deploy a nuclear weapon. This was the point I was making.

If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem, because the NZ Gov't does not need to have the US declare the vessel in question is free of nuclear weapons.

-Cheers

RegR · Sep 23, 2012

USAF77 said:
But Ive known some good NZ'ers, indeedly happily hunted Africa with them. So I'll leave off this tripe as just domestic fodder. As far as our defense posture goes NZ closing its ports to the USN meant nothing. It wasnt even a bump in the road.

And there it is again, NZ did not close its ports to the USN, the US govt effectively banned its ships from NZ due to its non-disclosure policy and then decided well we may as well just snub NZ all together. We seem to be able to work fine with other nuclear nations such as Britain, France etc so did'nt quite get what all the beef was about for all these years.

On a brighter note we are now starting to work around the issue slowly so lets look to the future, 20+ years is a long time to stay frosty.

USAF77 · Sep 23, 2012

From a strategic perspective it may not of effected the USN however the act of a Ally refusing co-operation of this kind had much broader political ramifications for the US. Hence there disproportionately strong response.

One question? How? We kept the Reds at bay, and still do, with a huge nuclear Pacific fleet. Let one country, ran by GreenPeace, dictate what ships can stop by and the next thing you know whats left of Democracy on the Pacific rim will all be doing the same. Especially in the Leftist charged atmosphere of Post Vietnam. And by now the entire region would be waving Little Red Books.

Are you kidding ? mate they smacked into the wall at 100kph ! It had huge ramifications for NZ across a whole spectrum of things, there were a lot of pirvillages lost in that decision, although I am not in the game anymore, I would be guessing they still don't see the whole ball game

LOL, I was talking about ramifications for my country. For our defense. Remember? It goes 50/50, an alliance I mean. It has to work for both of us.

Yes it did for NZ. And with a surging China it will have even more in the future.. Tod I remember it all very well. With Vietnam closed down the local leftists needed another cause and "nuclear" fit the bill quite nicely. In their defense I wouldnt want the French touching off atmospheric tests in my neck of the woods either.

But the Leftist NZ Govt. took it further then that now didnt they? Supported by a citizenry brainwashed by the Leftist media collective, or did they simply wanted to make some kind of statement. Any kind of statement. It was reckless! We "Democracies" were facing a very dangerous Bloc of communist Nations and the last thing we needed was another former Ally wanting to turn swords into plowshares against a calculating Politburo.

but I suppose the US does'nt take well to being told what they can and cannot do regardless of where in the world it is and this is exactly why they have the 'reputation' they do across the globe.

That was the point you were making. Both then and now." My" point being we would never allow larger security alliances to fracture due to a self serving domestic agenda of one member. Most of all when that one member is pretty irrelevent in the strategic scheme of things. No disrespect, but Historically NZ contributed very little to ANZUS.

I wont be coming back to this thread due to the road it might travel down, plus I have no axe to grind with NZ.. But now you have a Yank perspective. Im 54yo and remember this all quite well.

Bonza · Sep 23, 2012

Okay, time to simmer down, you especially USAF77. I know you said you're done with the thread but you don't get to just chuck a bomb in here before you leave and expect it to be sll smiles, particularly when you're inferring the entire region (including my own nation, which has stuck by yours for a long time I might remind you) would be turning communist all because the US and New Zealand couldn't agree on something. I don't appreciate the insinuation and I don't appreciate the tone.

If we're going to discuss things in here we can do it like bloody adults, right?

Todjaeger · Sep 23, 2012

RegR said:
And there it is again, NZ did not close its ports to the USN, the US govt effectively banned its ships from NZ due to its non-disclosure policy and then decided well we may as well just snub NZ all together. We seem to be able to work fine with other nuclear nations such as Britain, France etc so did'nt quite get what all the beef was about for all these years.

Like I mentioned previously, I have a suspicion that there was a good (or rather bad...) deal of politics going on behind the scenes, both in terms of the policy which became law, and the US response to the policy and later law. DT is not really the place engage in such discussions, particularly in an open forum.

I will offer these four thoughts though.

Which nation had more vessels able to be armed with nuclear weapons? Out of France, the UK and US, who had naval vessels operating in the S. Pacific the most often?
Why did the policy require a declaration that the vessel is not armed with nuclear weapons, instead of a policy (and later Act) which would have the PM advise the foreign nation to not send a nuclear-armed or powered vessel?
Who is to say that any French or RN vessels which could be armed with nuclear weaponry, did not have such weapons aboard during a visit to NZ and just lie about their presence aboard.
The USN could also easily have opted to ignore NZ policy, by sending a nuclear-armed vessel to NZ, and lying about the presences of such weapons, but the US did not. Why?

As we approach the 30th anniversary, it is good that things are improving. About time, really... In looking back though, one needs to keep things in context, both within NZ and the US, but also with what was occuring elsewhere around the world.

-Cheers

RubiconNZ · Sep 24, 2012

TVNZ News is running a opinion poll on its website in regards to station US Marines in NZ and interestingly enough at the moment it is 52 for 35 against with 12 undecided.

Though not at all scientific, unfortunately they don't give the figure of respondents I am pleasantly surprised with the figures, I was expecting a much closer figure if not a solid majority against.

What do some of the more local Kiwi's make of this?
What was the reaction to Panetta's visit?

Adzze · Sep 25, 2012

robsta83 said:
TVNZ News is running a opinion poll on its website in regards to station US Marines in NZ and interestingly enough at the moment it is 52 for 35 against with 12 undecided.

Though not at all scientific, unfortunately they don't give the figure of respondents I am pleasantly surprised with the figures, I was expecting a much closer figure if not a solid majority against.

What do some of the more local Kiwi's make of this?
What was the reaction to Panetta's visit?

Generally positive, I think many if not most New Zealanders are receptive to closer defense ties with the US now. I suspect there are many different reasons for this, ranging from sentimental to pragmatic. There is still a wariness of becoming a de facto vassal state (as much of the reaction to the Kim DotCom case would indicate), but I think most agree that it's time to put the 1980s behind us.

USAF77 · Sep 25, 2012

I wasnt "insinuating" anything. I spoke very plainly. Let me ask this? Where is this Defense forum based? It seems everyone can speak their minds unless its an American. I'd just like to know before I leave the forum for good.

Bonza said:
Okay, time to simmer down, you especially USAF77. I know you said you're done with the thread but you don't get to just chuck a bomb in here before you leave and expect it to be sll smiles, particularly when you're inferring the entire region (including my own nation, which has stuck by yours for a long time I might remind you) would be turning communist all because the US and New Zealand couldn't agree on something. I don't appreciate the insinuation and I don't appreciate the tone.

If we're going to discuss things in here we can do it like bloody adults, right?

Bonza · Sep 25, 2012

USAF77 said:
I wasnt "insinuating" anything. I spoke very plainly. Let me ask this? Where is this Defense forum based? It seems everyone can speak their minds unless its an American. I'd just like to know before I leave the forum for good.

If you're going to leave the forum for good, what difference does it make? Go or don't go. Please yourself. I'm not going to waste my time convincing you one way or the other.

gf0012-aust · Sep 25, 2012

USAF77 said:
I wasnt "insinuating" anything. I spoke very plainly. Let me ask this? Where is this Defense forum based? It seems everyone can speak their minds unless its an American. I'd just like to know before I leave the forum for good.

I'm not sure all the other american members or our american mods would agree with you.

how about pausing and regrouping before going off half c0cked?

skip the emotion and address the issue first.

USAF77 · Sep 25, 2012

It was a simple question. Im not asking to be "convinced".

There seams to be very few yanks here, rather few posters, even less with anything meaningful to say. Even worse "Super Mods" who like talking down to any American that speaks his opinion. I had enough of that nonsense.

There is that plain enough for you? Or an insinuation?

Motto on our forums is: Freedom of speech with touch of respect.

That came from this web sight. Maybe you should change it to "Freedom of speech, unless you say something we dont like or agree with".

Read more: About us | DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

Bonza said:
If you're going to leave the forum for good, what difference does it make? Go or don't go. Please yourself. I'm not going to waste my time convincing you one way or the other.

Bonza · Sep 25, 2012

If you really believe I'm prejudiced against Yanks, not only are you very much incorrect, but there's no point arguing with you. You will only ascribe anything I do or say to my own "bias".

It's funny though that you accuse me of talking down to Americans while you yourself say "there are very few Yanks here, rather few posters, even less with anything meaningful to say". Who was talking down to who again?

gf0012-aust · Sep 25, 2012

Arguing that the forum is anti-american is abject nonsense, its almost as good as the usual dross that says we're anti-eastern because we're all assumed to be western - which we're not.

What's not on however - is hijacking the thread in an off topic manner.

I object to having to clean up or close threads just because they have been derailed with off topic commentary - as do the other Mods

If you're still inclined then take it into the General area or PM your concerns.

Keeping the current line of chat is unnecessary - esp as it is off topic.

Personally, and I wopuld hazard a guess that I can speak for the other Mods and americans on here I I don't care whether you're american or a bowl of fruit wearing a pink tutu.

We're only interested in the quality and calibre of debate/discussion

Any Mod will exercise judgement - if you want to question it then engage via other means. Don't bugger up this thread because you're wanting to continue to exercise your discontent about a Mods suggestion/direction/guidance.

ngatimozart · Sep 28, 2012

We complain about the lack of resources given to defence, which is true and it is not something new. Somewhere else I lurk had this along with the comment nothing changes. It is Kiplings poem "Tommy".

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

[qote]I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

I'd agree that nothings changed. Morale is low and reflected in the fact that NZDF numbers are lowest for many years. The article says this century. Annual New Zealand Defense Report Boosts Focus on South Pacific | Defense News | defensenews.com Then there is the Dominion article New Zealand Defence Force Morale Near Record Lows | Stuff.co.nz of 28/9/2012 which states that 51% of defence personnel said they didn't have the kit to do the job properly. it also talks about the much lauded first pay rise in four years, which is good in that a pay rise happened, but then it is offset by increased married quarters and living aboard charges, and loss of entitlements. The married quarters charges are being set at market rates, which in Auckland is very expensive. Mind you Waiouru won't be as expensive, but regardless it still is a kick in the guts yet again. In the intervening four years between pay rises inflation was 7.8% using this calculator New Zealand Inflation Graph and the 2012 NZDF pay rise 5.7% gross. It has also been argued that public (civil) service rates and conditions have always been far better than NZDF and I would agree with that. There has always been plenty of money to hire extra public servants and consultants and I know from personal experience that the public service work output is far less than service personnel doing the same or similar job. Yes the current NZG is axing public service jobs but NZDF is under the same axe, in fact a larger and sharper axe. One other very important difference. The public service has a union (PSA) which advocates and fights for them. Serving personnel in NZDF cannot by law have or belong to a union. If they formed one, or joined one, it would be classified as mutiny and there has been the odd mutiny in the past about pay and conditions.

MrConservative · Oct 22, 2012

R.I.P Sir Wilson Whineray - Friend of the NZDF

Sir Wilson Whineray, a former Honorary Colonel Commandant of the NZSAS between 1997-2001, our longest serving All Black captain from the late 50's to mid 60's, and lead author of the October 1998 Whineray Report, which concluded that NZ should maintain an air combat capability, has passed away aged 77.

Sir Wilson was a legend in NZ. Highly respected as a corporate businessman,an All Black rugby great, and an influential and valued friend of the NZDF. So highly respected by the NZSAS that they asked him to take on the role as their regimental father. A very rare honour indeed for a man who chose a civilian life to one of military service.

His report on NZ's future Air Combat Capability for the 21st Century'was given a wide brief and called on the abilities, knowledge and intellectual talents of a large number of people both within NZ and abroad. Sadly an incoming government ignored this comprehensive and far thinking report and NZ and its defence force is all the poorer for it. We are also poorer for the the loss of real leadership that people like Sir Wilson possessed. Ake Ake Kia Kaha Sir Wison. RIP

ngatimozart · Oct 28, 2012

See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities. The comment was "So the SecDef [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] kind of threw 'em a bone recently with respect to maybe some policy changes down the road." Meaning that it now opens the door for other nations to refuse entry to US warships because of their neither confirm and deny policy. The argument runs that this deal now sets a precedent. Nuclear Navy Frets Over Panetta's Concessions To New Zealand I personally think we've heard this argument before back in 1985 - 1987 and it was called the Kiwi disease. Methinks that some admirals have to realise that they are not the ones who set foreign policy.

exported_kiwi · Nov 5, 2012

Todjaeger said:
You managed to miss the gist of my post.

What started the problem between elements of the US and NZ, was when NZ denied the USS Buchanan DDG-14 permission to enter NZ home waters in 1985, on the basis that Charles F. Adams-class DDG's were capable of being armed with nuclear depth bombs/charges, and the US was unwilling to declare that they were not aboard the USS Buchanan, due to US policy of not declaring whether something is or is not armed with nuclear weaponry.

The NZ requirement of a declaration that the USS Buchanan was free of nuclear weapons, was a new NZ Gov't policy as of some time in 1984 IIRC, and it did not become a legal requirement until made into an Act in 1987 (again, IIRC).

There was a significant amount of diplomacy and also political issues going on at the time in the background, and I have my own observations and thoughts about parts of the what and why, which are really not needed here.

What is IMO more significant is that at the height of the Cold War, there were an enormous number of nuclear warheads in the US inventory, and many different types of vessels, vehicles and aircraft could deploy them. As time has progressed, the US has retired a number of the warhead designs, so that less and less USN vessels are able to deploy a nuclear weapon. This was the point I was making.

If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem, because the NZ Gov't does not need to have the US declare the vessel in question is free of nuclear weapons.

-Cheers

Sorry folks, slow net day today so cannot appropriately quote but.....

"
If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem"

As far as I remember, we have no problem with nuclear powered vessels entering our waters. We do, however, require that there is a declaration of compliance ot NZ's "no nuclear weapons onboard" legislation.
We're not stupid! We know that so many USN vessels can field nuclear weapons. We would just like to know that, as respect dictates, we have none in our waters, no matter which class of vessel requests to enter our waters.
I can see nothing wrong with this.

P.S; nope, not a liberal, strongly conservative but those damn things are, no matter what anyone thinks, abhorrent!

exported_kiwi · Nov 5, 2012

Todjaeger said:
You managed to miss the gist of my post.

What started the problem between elements of the US and NZ, was when NZ denied the USS Buchanan DDG-14 permission to enter NZ home waters in 1985, on the basis that Charles F. Adams-class DDG's were capable of being armed with nuclear depth bombs/charges, and the US was unwilling to declare that they were not aboard the USS Buchanan, due to US policy of not declaring whether something is or is not armed with nuclear weaponry.

The NZ requirement of a declaration that the USS Buchanan was free of nuclear weapons, was a new NZ Gov't policy as of some time in 1984 IIRC, and it did not become a legal requirement until made into an Act in 1987 (again, IIRC).

There was a significant amount of diplomacy and also political issues going on at the time in the background, and I have my own observations and thoughts about parts of the what and why, which are really not needed here.

What is IMO more significant is that at the height of the Cold War, there were an enormous number of nuclear warheads in the US inventory, and many different types of vessels, vehicles and aircraft could deploy them. As time has progressed, the US has retired a number of the warhead designs, so that less and less USN vessels are able to deploy a nuclear weapon. This was the point I was making.

If the NZ Gov't knows that a particular USN vessel requesting permission to enter NZ home waters and make a port call cannot field nuclear weapons because of it's class, then the 1987 Act does not cause a problem, because the NZ Gov't does not need to have the US declare the vessel in question is free of nuclear weapons.

-Cheers

ngatimozart said:
See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities. The comment was "So the SecDef [Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta] kind of threw 'em a bone recently with respect to maybe some policy changes down the road." Meaning that it now opens the door for other nations to refuse entry to US warships because of their neither confirm and deny policy. The argument runs that this deal now sets a precedent. Nuclear Navy Frets Over Panetta's Concessions To New Zealand I personally think we've heard this argument before back in 1985 - 1987 and it was called the Kiwi disease. Methinks that some admirals have to realise that they are not the ones who set foreign policy.

Very true my friend. KIA KAHA!

Mods, sorry, how can I make less of our own ways, by trying to make my post a several liner??? Some things can be said in a one liner!

gf0012-aust · Nov 5, 2012

ngatimozart said:
See the odd senior officer in the US Navy is still not happy about the change in the circumstances surrounding ship visits by the RNZN to USN & USCG facilities.

I think any dissenting views within USN are a distraction, (just as there are dissenters within NZDF)

the reality is that the US has been providing access above and beyond the initial "contention" for the last 11 years.

any announcements re change were a formality - the backdoor stuff has been stronger than it ever was.

NZSAS would attest to that

ngatimozart · Nov 15, 2012

Various NZDF units have converged on various Auckland locations recently as part of Exercise Pae Tata. The exercise which aims to develop the Defence Force’s integrated amphibious capability, involves maritime, land, and air assets working together to secure a point of entry, executing a beach landing. Australian and UK trainers are helping with the participation of HMAS Toobroken (oops I mean Tobruk) and the UK trainers providing an amphibious warfare training package.
NZDF - Exercise Pae Tata Tests NZ Defence Force's Developing Amphibious Capability
United Kingdom and Australia help New Zealand army to develop its amphibious forces 0911121 - Army Recognition
This, IMHO, is a stepping stone on a long journey and in my opinion I feel that we also need to work with a lot with, and learn a lot more from the USMC as well as the ADF. We have a history with the USMC in NZ and I for one would like to see that relationship deepened. They have a very profound institutional knowledge of amphibious operations.

NZDF General discussion thread

Potstirrer

Well-Known Member

Banned Member

Super Moderator

Potstirrer

The Wanderer

New Member

Banned Member

Super Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

Banned Member

Super Moderator

Grumpy Old Man

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

New Member

New Member

Grumpy Old Man

Super Moderator