Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 63541	2005-11-13 09:10:00	Opinion on the state of NZ military/disarmed force	JSF_enthusiast (8536)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
404074	2005-11-17 20:55:00	Not pitch forks, a well armed and well trained armed forces, and some back bone in the population. But lets be realistic, we can't compete on the world stage, but we can contribute.	Metla (12)
404075	2005-11-17 21:16:00	Very interesting JSF but I found it difficult to read. May I suggest that you take your time and check spelling and sentence construction. Otherwise your points might be lost. I tend to agree with Metla. We are a tiny country. The problem with military technology is that next year there is an upgrade or a better system. Small outfits like NZ are always behind the game. You are right to point out that soldiers need support and reconnaissance information. Peacekeeping and UN type interventions as in Bosnia are not SAS operations. I imagine choppers and ground-based missile systems combined with unmanned recon planes could work. Possibly we need to recognise that our military forces cannot actually defend NZ, except against fishing boats. But they have an international role which is important. Having the same radio systems and hardware as the other major players is essential.	Winston001 (3612)
404076	2005-11-17 21:47:00	Has everyone forgotten what happened on election night? If a terrorist had been flying that plane and was bent on destroying the sky tower (or any other NZ building for that matter) we were/are completely powerless to stop it. No planes to intercept and shoot down the offender. But our "defence force" can throw rocks and sticks at it. The NZ Government burying its head in the sand will not make terrorism any less of a threat.	Sb0h (3744)
404077	2005-11-17 22:01:00	Pointless arguement. The US with the world's most powerful airforce still couldn't prevent a terrorist attack from the air.	PaulD (232)
404078	2005-11-17 22:30:00	yes and that was due ot it being completely unexpected...New York is in the process of being guarded by SAMs and F-22 raptors, there is no way a terrorist could pull it off again. Sorry about the speeling and grammar in my last post if there is anything yo don't understand just ask. Also people should consider that if every country in the world with less than lets say 10 mil people took up our defence policy how much weaker the western world would be? Some of you need to consider how strong Sweden is for its size.	JSF_enthusiast (8536)
404079	2005-11-17 22:46:00	Sorry, but Sweden is not a good example. It is a highly socialist state with very high tax rates, far higher than us. If 'you' lived next to the Soviet Union during the cold war period, 'you' would have armed yourself to be able to provide a sharp sting too :lol: Having said that, their aircraft industry have produced some very effective planes indeed since the end of the war. Being so-called neutral during the war didn't do them any harm either, they earned a bomb from selling steel and bearings to Nazi Germany.	Terry Porritt (14)
404080	2005-11-18 01:12:00	It is usual to use a % of GDP,no doubt there would be arguments over that.Having dcided what that would be,you would then need someone with half a brain to decide what the best kit etc would be.	Cicero (40)
404081	2005-11-18 01:13:00	. . . New York is in the process of being guarded by SAMs and F-22 raptors, there is no way a terrorist could pull it off again . So they can do another city . :D	Graham L (2)
404082	2006-01-18 05:37:00	New Zealand is a maritime nation, whether they like it or not . Its exports and imports drive its economy, and over 95 percent of its trade is by sea . Having a credible naval force is vital to its economy, protecting its sea lanes of trade . Therefore, the need for frigates . Having two means one can be deployed quickly, having three means they can deploy one forever . Unfortunately the third frigate wasn't purchased . Nevermind the peacenikers who would wave the white flag if threatened, the simple truth is that they would do whatever they can do defend their standard of living . Without trade, New Zealand would be broke, a fourth world nation of poverty . I like some of what New Zealand is doing with defense, but not others . Having a more balanced navy is a good thing, New Zealand needs to do a better job protecting their fisheries and using their two frigates was overkill . The new Project Protector OPVs and IPVs were needed . The new MPV was also needed, to provide their army a means of getting to wherever and for whatever reason including peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts . Having these patrol vessels will free up the frigates for policing their sea lanes further out . Since New Zealand is small, tanks are out of the question . With less than a division worth of troops, the best troops for their size are mobilized infantry . The new LAVIIIs are right up their ally . The other items on the shopping list will eventually modernize their army . Having cashed in the peace dividend after the Berlin Wall fell may have felt good in their pocketbooks, they are paying now to refurbished their antiquated equipment . Refurbishing the Hercules and Orion aircraft is underway, allowing them to continue into service another 15 years . Eliminating the ground support and maritime attack roles of the Skyhawks to save $700 million over ten years was naive . Squandering the training and the skills of the fighter pilots was stupid, it will take a decade and twice as much money to recoup this force . When the previous government bought cream puff F-16s for a dime on a dollar, this government killed the fighter deal of the century . When an Fascist Muslim slams a fully loaded 767 of Kiwis into the Beehive, New Zealand will correct this huge mistake . Attempting to train troops to call for air support without air support is next to impossible . Yes, the Skyhawks were old, but these F-16s were cheaper than purchasing Hawk trainer aircraft, which is probably the first aircraft New Zealand will purchase to rebuild their air combat force . The world has noticed that New Zealand is running huge surpluses the past two years . The fighter deal's ten year price was less than 10 percent of the surplus . Its not a matter of New Zealand not being able to afford, its a matter of New Zealand won't . . . . And if New Zealand continues on the path of we won't, don't expect any help from us when the wolf arrives . . . . Is the world expecting too much for New Zeland to spend enough on defense, say 1 . 5 to 1 . 8 percent of GNP, to have a credible defence force? Your trade means so little to us, but your trade with us means so much to you . . . .	MacToby (9237)
404083	2006-01-18 06:41:00	Running "huge surpluses" on the internal account doesn't mean the country can go out and spend billions in foreign currency. It could be argued that we have 'huge surpluses because we are over taxed, or, conversely, we are underspending internally on health, education etc. In fact our balance of payments deficit is huge	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4 5 6