tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post5133615164085918418..comments2024-03-29T17:12:19.648+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Foreseeing the UnforeseeableChris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-35012267901243718462009-02-16T12:53:00.000+13:002009-02-16T12:53:00.000+13:00Hi,For additional commentary and analysis on this ...Hi,<BR/><BR/>For additional commentary and analysis on this topic:<BR/><BR/>New Zealand Defence is a documentary in 18 parts that aired on the Rialto channel in 2006, and TVONE (at midday on a Sunday) that examines New Zealand’s place within a geopolitical world.<BR/><BR/>17 defence commentators with differing backgrounds, opinions and perspectives form the narrative.<BR/><BR/>It contains the kind of information that you would never see talked about on the news.<BR/><BR/>Alliances, Media, the UN, Imperialism, and New Zealand’s Foreign Policy are discussed.<BR/><BR/>The first part can be found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPboOrR481k&feature=channel_page<BR/><BR/>Please post it if you feel it relevant.<BR/><BR/>Many thanks<BR/><BR/>Scott EwingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-67029606584168040902009-02-12T18:06:00.000+13:002009-02-12T18:06:00.000+13:00Totally agree with the writer,like they say histor...Totally agree with the writer,like they say history has a way of repeating itself.<BR/>The Skyhawk may not have fired a shot strictly untrue, maybe not behind the NZ flag but some of the the fleet has seen action in Vietnam.<BR/>Having been away on excercises supporting the Skyhawks & their pilots they can more than truly hold their own against more advanced aircraft/crews.A lot will depend on the situation.The Skyhawk is not a frontline fighter anymore but have heard it said as a training platform they are more than suited.Sadly now that they have seen fit to scrap the Strike Wing such a big lost, we'd never catch up.Have heard it said that the Kiwi pilots are highly skilled if their field, its no wonder other airforces around the world have snatched them up,as the saying goes -"our lost their gain".<BR/>If anything does happen I wouldn't be surprised our nieghbors will be to busy themselves to do us any favours.<BR/>Its better to have it & not use than not having it at all. If you compare it to a Fire Extinguisher, if you had never used it would you throw it away because it expired?<BR/>Turning our C130 into gunships is good and well but who is going to cover their arse.I think if you tried that our C130 will probably fall apart structurally,even with the new upgrade.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-84650209621743240482009-02-12T15:34:00.000+13:002009-02-12T15:34:00.000+13:00Great article Chris. I was one of those made redun...Great article Chris. I was one of those made redundant in 2001 as part of this stupid decision. As for those who say that the Skyhawks "were never used" (in anger or otherwise) I suggest you go and do some research. When I was on 75 Squadron we spent at least 4 months each year overseas practicing the art of deployed operations in support of our allies and friends, including being on standby for the 1991 Gulf War, 1999 East Timor crisis and post 9/11. And I dissagree that the Skyhawks would have been unsuitable and unable to work alongside our British and US allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. An ex kiwi A-4 pilot who now flies ahrriers in the RAF and has flown several combat tours in both conflicts says NZ's updated Skyhawks are far superior in their Avionics and weapon systems than anything in the RAF inventory in the Close Air Support and maritime strike roles. Unlike Helen Clark he would know!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-34373466561240630472009-01-11T14:16:00.000+13:002009-01-11T14:16:00.000+13:00Very well written. I too generally disagree with y...Very well written. I too generally disagree with you but this is very true. It is great to see someone is thinking clearly enough to say this sort of thing.<BR/><BR/>Will de Cleene, neutrality is only an option if you have a strong enough defense force so no-one will try to attack you. That is how Swiss neutrality has historically worked for example, they have had a massive part-time army. You can't rely on people not attacking you just because you ask nicely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-56838914395072513622009-01-08T14:25:00.000+13:002009-01-08T14:25:00.000+13:00A very good analysis. Congratulations, I missed re...A very good analysis. Congratulations, I missed reading it when first written.Ayrdalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12277759681727009183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-56730843019314950352009-01-06T17:43:00.000+13:002009-01-06T17:43:00.000+13:00Actually, Anonymous two, in my anonymous comment y...Actually, Anonymous two, in my anonymous comment you should carefully note I said "lip service" and "occassionally". Please do not take my comments to mean any support for GWB et al. Take them rather as a look at the lesser of two evils. <BR/><BR/>You obviously have a clear understanding of US actions; living in Taiwan I had a pretty clear view of PRC actions, and from a NZ point of view I know which I'd prefer...<BR/> NZers have relatively freer lives with NZ as a US ally than we would have as a PRC tributary state. <BR/>Note too, I say that NZ independence is already highly compromised...so anonymous 2, which compromise would you rather live with..a PRC or a US one? <BR/>In addition, I don't see Chris referring to a Chinese invasion of NZ anywhere...but it is not necessary to invade NZ for a superpower to get what it wants from us anyway. As for Pearl Harbor... I think you are simply reading the point way too literally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-81190241656676901332009-01-04T20:12:00.000+13:002009-01-04T20:12:00.000+13:00I actually agreed (or more accurately didn't disag...I actually agreed (or more accurately didn't disagree) with Helen Clark's decision to scrap the SkyHawks. They hadn't fired a shot in anger - ever.<BR/><BR/>However this was predicated on the assertion that the RNZAF is still required, at its fundamental core, to deliver 'things' to an intended target.<BR/><BR/>Those 'things' could be any or all of soldiers, supplies, or ordnance.<BR/><BR/>What Helen Clark has left us with is a particular inability to deliver ordnance. And there is no reason for it.<BR/><BR/>You said that the lack of close air suport training is withering the effectiveness of the army. That is correct. However you don't have to be travelling at 500 knots to provide close air support. You have to be able to deliver ordnance.<BR/><BR/>Has anyone else seen what a Hercules fitted out as a gunship can do? My God, the amount of lethal force that can come out of one of those is remarkable. I cannot imagine that there isn't a way to set up our Hercules fleet to be able to fulfil either a cargo role (soldiers and supplies) or a gunship role with little more than a couple of hours conversion. A roll-on, roll-off gunship module perhaps.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the Orions original function was not search and rescue. It was seek and destroy. Neglecting to equip these aricraft with long range air to surface missile capability is just a waste. A few of those down the guts of a few illegal fishing boats would solve a few problems in one go.<BR/><BR/>Had these things happened, then the loss of the SkyHawks would have been irrelevant. However the opportunity was wasted. <BR/>The Navy has built boats that don't work well when they're most required to. <BR/>The Army bought vehicles different from our allies and which can't even all be deployed.<BR/>The Air Force can only deliver soldiers and supplies.rouppehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446734587426078093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-73131209346221780362009-01-04T19:38:00.000+13:002009-01-04T19:38:00.000+13:00Well said Chris. I don't usually agree with many ...Well said Chris. I don't usually agree with many of your commentaries (and how marvelous we can peacefully disagree) but this piece of yours is about as spot on as it can be.<BR/><BR/>Everything looks pretty benign at the moment, with no obvious threats, but you are completely correct in saying this is strikingly similar to the situation just before WWII. <BR/><BR/>The old saying that the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history is very applicable. Sadly, I think it will take some sort of major disturbance (and wars, when they happen, change things very quickly) to make NZ'er realise how utterly naked our defence is currently. "Lest we forget" unfortunately no longer applies to us.Bogusnewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16782667098606630332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-44342793503083693002009-01-03T23:57:00.000+13:002009-01-03T23:57:00.000+13:00Well at the grievous risk of being labelled a "soc...Well at the grievous risk of being labelled a "sock-puppet" (whatever that is), could I just query when we can expect the "looming social crisis" and "social and political disaster" in China that you predicted 7 years ago Chris?<BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to be doing ok by all accounts - certainly compared to that pillar of propriety that you and Mr Anonymous champion - you know the one, the one that invaded Iraq (and more than a few other sovereign states) and that has all its errors "corrected" by its "robust democracy". (And I'm sure the millions of relatives of dead victims of US "global policing" will be oh so reassured by your faith in half US voters' ability to pick one of two millionaires every four years as a "robust correction")<BR/><BR/>And Pearl Harbour as a reason to muscle up in NZ in 2001? Sorry, just speechless.<BR/><BR/>NZ even considering a potential Chinese invasion is as risible as Tonga arming for an NZ invasion: even if imminent, what the heck's the point?<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Chris, usually love your stuff, but this was one to leave on the shelf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-38671603308613022072009-01-03T22:08:00.000+13:002009-01-03T22:08:00.000+13:00"Every political fibre of my being tells me that A..."Every political fibre of my being tells me that Australians and New Zealanders will not tolerate a foreign affairs and defence policy which isolates this nation from its cultural, linguistic, historical and ideological allies. We are heirs of the European Enlightenment and Liberty - not of Confucianism and the one party state."<BR/> Brillant Chris, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head...If the PRC avoids a war (and at the moment it looks like the KMT govt in Taiwan will simply sell Taiwan to the PRC) then we will face ever increasing diplomatic and econmomic pressure from them.<BR/><BR/> Having lived in Taiwan for 9 years,in a state under constant PRC pressure,that is not something I would wish for NZ. I feel that if there has to a "world policeman" I'd rather it was the USA, at the very least the USA pays lip service to freedom and democracy, and can ocassionally be called on it, the gerontocracy running the PRC certainly can't. We only need to read some the press releases coming out of the PRC Embassy in Wellington to see that compromise doesn't appear in the Communist vocabulary.<BR/><BR/> Will de Cleene, I think that NZ independence is quite frankly far too comprised already for "neutrality" to be an option. I'd recommend you find and read a book/report called "NZ after Nuclear War" (research funded by the French after the Raibow Warrior bombing)...you'll see just how dependent NZ was on international trade in the 1980s, even before Rogernomics and Ruthanasia "opened" our economy. If we want to maintain our current standard of living, we may very well have to fight for it. Neither the PRC nor the USA or even the Australians owe us any favours.<BR/><BR/> BTW Chris, look out for PRC sock puppets adding comments here shrilling defending the glorious Chinese people/nation and communist party :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-33470584481936546962009-01-02T23:20:00.000+13:002009-01-02T23:20:00.000+13:00wow. that is what you used to write like. :)Obse...wow. that is what you used to write like. :)<BR/>Observing realpolitik is essential, I would agree. <BR/><BR/>Realistically New Zealand is following the more pacifist European approach. It is no better or worse in US eyes than the Germans, Italians or Spanish.<BR/><BR/>The internet is busy reducing the tyranny of distance and eliminating the ability of autocratic governments to control the flow of information to its citizens. Give it 30 years and even China will have moved closer to Democracy. <BR/><BR/>As a former territorial who trained in the mid eighties on a Bren made in the early 1940s I share your concern about defense spending. Nevertheless the canning of air attack was a sensible decision imho. As with all government spending there are limited resources. Our air attack would never conceivably be allowed to fly with US forces in action given age and capability. The only integrated training we had was a single lowlevel flyover by skyhawks. scary but limited.<BR/><BR/>New Zealand defence spending on air capability should be on decent helicopters to improve force projection and air mobility. Far more bang for our buck. It is easy to imagine NZ choppers being used in Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq for both peaceful and military objectives. It is difficult to realistically envisage the same for a strike force.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78125432227853189422009-01-02T21:23:00.000+13:002009-01-02T21:23:00.000+13:00Neutrality's not an option?Neutrality's not an option?Will de Cleenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03555957698892853110noreply@blogger.com