By Chris Trotter*
A small force, just three ships, but its impact in a week of geopolitical transformation was devastating. Chinese naval vessels had sailed past Sydney at a distance of just 150 nautical miles. A clearer message to Australia and New Zealand could not have been sent by the Chinese Government: The Pacific is no longer an American lake.
The question to be answered, now, is: How should New Zealand respond? It’s armed forces are in a state of deplorable disrepair. Enlisted men and women are poorly paid and their morale is said to be dangerously low. Recruitment to all three services is bad and getting worse. The Royal New Zealand Navy, the service now in the spotlight, would struggle to show the flag in the Tasman Sea. If it tried, the not unreasonable fear would be that the vessel it sent might not come back. After all, the HMNZS Manawanui didn’t.
Defence Minister Judith Collins acknowledges these difficulties and is pledged to address them. New Zealand’s defence spending, expressed as a percentage of its GDP, is set to double over the next five years.
Unfortunately, that’s not saying much. Currently, New Zealand spends less that 1 percent of GDP on its armed forces. So, even a doubling of that figure would still leave us shy of the 2 percent figure now accepted globally as the minimum spend for any nation wishing to be taken seriously – not only by its enemies, but also by its friends.
According to Statistics NZ: “The size of the New Zealand economy was $NZ415 billion for the year ended June 2024.” Working from this figure, if this country’s defence spending was to be brought up to the new minimum of 2 percent, a sum of roughly $8 billion would need to be appropriated by the House of Representatives. That’s an additional $3 billion on top of the 2024-25 appropriation.
That’s a lot of dollars to spend on guns and ships and planes when your country’s public health service is falling to pieces before its citizens’ horrified eyes. To supply the New Zealand Defence Force with an additional $3 billion, Finance Minister Nicola Willis would either have to embark on a blistering austerity programme reminiscent of Ruth Richardson’s 1991 “Mother of All Budgets”; or, the Coalition Government would have to raise taxes steeply. With an election looming in 2026, neither of those options are politically enticing.
Historically, securing general public support for a sharp increase in defence spending is almost impossible in the absence of a palpable – maybe even an existential – threat.
Following the successful conclusion of the Second World War, the administration of US President Harry S. Truman moved swiftly to restore American society to its pre-war settings. When the behaviour of the Soviet Union made it clear that the USA’s general demobilisation had been a tad premature, Truman rapidly concluded that to secure the appropriation of massive sums for the nation’s defence it would be necessary to, in the words of Senator Arthur Vandenberg: “scare the hell out of the American people”.
Fortunately for Truman, that proved to be less of a problem than many anticipated. Then, as now, the Russians made it easy!
Less so the Chinese – especially in New Zealand. The best efforts of Professor Anne-Marie Brady notwithstanding, casting the Peoples Republic in the role of Stalin’s Soviet Union has proved problematic. Most Kiwis are aware of the huge economic value of their country’s agricultural exports to China, and are, accordingly, in general support of the efforts of successive governments to avoid antagonising China to the point where the relationship between the two countries is jeopardised.
That being the case, not even the presence of Chinese warships in the Tasman is guaranteed to generate the sort of diplomatic breach which the anti-China lobby has been working so assiduously for a decade to provoke. Too many New Zealanders recall the occasions when a New Zealand frigate has tagged along behind the Aussies and Americans in their regular voyages across the South China Sea and through the Taiwan Strait. If New Zealanders are entitled to sail where they please in international waters, then so too, presumably, are the Chinese.
What’s more, in light of the events of the past week, the Washington faction of MFAT faces a new and major problem. While the contrast between the United States and China remained stark, drawing attention to the totalitarian inclinations of its Communist Party rulers remained a reliable strategy. But, President Donald Trump’s affection for dictatorial regimes; the brutality of his transactional approach to international affairs; and his apparent repudiation of the “rules-based international order” in favour of cold-eyed realpolitik; makes it difficult for America (and its increasingly apprehensive allies) to retain their footing on the moral high-ground.
It is difficult to criticise the transactional elements of the relationships forged between China and the micro-states of the Pacific – the Cook Islands being only the latest in a succession of Chinese-initiated bilateral agreements negotiated in New Zealand’s “back yard” – when the United States is demanding half of Ukraine’s rare earths in part-payment for the American munitions supplied to counter Russian aggression.
What those three Chinese warships have produced, however, is a much more compelling argument for aligning New Zealand’s defensive posture in general and its military procurement in particular with Australia’s. In the much colder and more brutal world that is fast emerging from the collapse of the 80-year-old Pax Americana, only the Australians can be relied upon to protect us – and only then if they are satisfied that the Kiwis are pulling their weight.
What does that mean? It means finding that additional $3 billion and spending it. It means a much bigger and more effective navy. It means paying our soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel the sort of money that makes it easy for the NZDF to recruit and retain the best and the brightest young New Zealanders. It means a strategic military vision that makes sense to the NZDF, the politicians, and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. And, yes, it probably also means swallowing hard and signing up to AUKUS Pillar 2.
None of this will be of any use, however, in a nation divided against itself. A population composed of mutually antagonistic cultures and identities; a country racked by ideological differences and beset by conflicts made all the more intractable by the demonisation of every side except one’s own, cannot possibly achieve the consensus needed to construct an effective national defence.
If New Zealand is to defend itself, then the very first thing it needs to agree upon is the nature of the state it is defending. Is it a state committed to refashioning its ideas and institutions in conformity with the cultural imperatives of its indigenous people? Is it a state dedicated to maximising the ability of individuals to act effectively in the marketplaces of goods, services, and ideas? Is it a state dedicated to ensuring that every citizen has the support required to realise their full potential? Is it mixture of all three?
Until we can agree upon the shape and purpose of the state for which we are annually appropriating 2 percent (or more) of the nation’s economic output, then the long-overdue refurbishment and rehabilitation of our armed forces is unlikely to, and probably shouldn’t, happen.
Denied the easy option of marching behind British and American drums, and before they simply fall in step with the Australians, New Zealanders should sort-out why, and for what, they are willing to march at all.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
124 Comments
One thing I’m certain of….if NZ is truely under threat, then any internal ructions we have will be forgotten.
It would create a cleanout of all kinds of things. Many of those scrambling and gnashing for power in peace-time would likely fold like a house of cards. A whole stack of regulations would be abolished. And most things that seem big and divide us would vanish.
Why the indignation at Chinese warships in the Tasman Sea. It's richly deserved tit for tat:
https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/taiwan-welcomes-nz-navy-s-first-taiw…
Agree...we spend so much time and effort looking internally, we have forgotten our place in the world, and this show from the Chinese is just a wake up call for little NZ i.e you are not as untouchable as you think you are.
Pre WW1 there was a perceived threat to the South Pacific from Russia. The NZ nation commissioned and paid for HMS New Zealand , a battlecruiser that reportedly fired more ordnance, at the subsequent battle of Jutland, than any other vessel. In today’s term the equivalent of such a vessel is a nuke submarine (not necessarily so armed.) Naval power has changed from surface vessels. One enemy submarine undetected 200km off shore could devastate NZ. The answer to that is deterrence, being able to retaliate in like form. So to put it into the context of today, and that retaliatory deterrent, perhaps NZ should consider a contribution to Australia’s forthcoming nuke submarines. HMAS Anzac in other words.
Some of HMS New Zealand's guns were installed at North Head, Devonport, for the defence of Auckland during WW2 and a couple of the 4-inch guns are now installed outside the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The captain always wore a Maori warrior's skirt during battles for good luck and this seemed to work as the ship was only struck once by an 11-inch shell that only caused minor damage.
I agree, we need to train our people for joint operations (secondments on subs)
While we cannot afford to have our own sub, we will have to contribute via a base in NZ ...
this will mean nuclear ships visiting...
Australia's nuclear subs are the best deterrent for NZ that we never paid for!
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/03/three-tiers-and-more-than…-
more STEM workers required......
Clefton Twain,
There's just one problem with that-Australia doesn't have any nuclear subs.
I'm not so sure of that these days.
The number of cozy arrangements, and the degree of mercenary behaviour shown by some factions now, makes me think that there would be little hesitation in some areas to undermine our polity for personal or in-group advantage, whose members have greater allegiance to those in-groups, rather than the nation.
Chris Trotter is right: we have to figure out what we are as a nation before we can create anything else durable. However, that conversation seems to be impossible.
True, We need to back control of our media, return to fact based reporting not paid for opinions, have honest conversations about what level of nannying is enough from our government. We cannot afford to carry on as we are, that is why the government is printing money we don't have and the pain of monetary devaluation (inflation) is causing us to turn on ourselves. It does seem like a wakeup call, as resources become increasingly scarce, we are going to look like easy pickings, not sure if shouting 'be kind' will help.
Has anyone seen Mike Benz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPPc8OVNngg insane what's been going on.
Chris Trotter is right: we have to figure out what we are as a nation before we can create anything else durable. However, that conversation seems to be impossible.
Agree there, Golem but I'm hoping that conversation keeps going. Most importantly because I think one of NZ's advantages at the moment is that we have no formal military alliances with the US - aside from 5 Eyes - which I think we ought to exit - or the other 4 Eyes should kick the US out.
The US at the moment doesn't want allies - it seems to want to "shake down" it's closest ones.
ANZAC and the Commonwealth are to my mind our best allies, and Australia and China are our best trading partners. We need to keep that up..
What's old line: "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests" (Henry Kissinger). I think that's particularly salient at the moment.
But I think the internal conversation about who we are as a nation is more locally important. That's the conversation we don't seem to be able to manage as the political class' factions grapple for ascendency while being dismissive of democratic process.
One thing I’m certain of….if NZ is truely under threat, then any internal ructions we have will be forgotten.
I thought this about COVID. An external threat giving society a chance to put differences aside and solve a common threat.
I don't think that any longer.
I agree. However, if we think more laterally about how to rebuild our forces we could save a lot by concentrating on home built drones. We have a company that sends rockets into space and aviation companies that could easily be the best in the world at drones with a little help from the government. Buying frigates or jet planes is not the answer (and way to expensive) and drones are much cheaper and can be built here in NZ.
Agree there 2Noodles - especially if the Australians think that is really good spend on our part.
Also, us western humans are not as eager to risk our lives as perhaps we might have in the more expendable days past
Agree. Not only would $3 billion buy a significant number of drones and robotics, it would create many technology spinoff industries. We need to start investing much more in these technologies and less on recording whale songs to play to Kauri trees.
However, NZ main threats are internal with the radicalization of TPM, etc. They are a threat to our democracy and raise the potential for NZ to be taken without a shot being fired.
NZ main threats are internal with the radicalization of TPM, etc. They are a threat to our democracy and raise the potential for NZ to be taken without a shot being fired.
Someone drank the coolaid 🤣🤣🤣
You wouldn't find me picking up a rifle. Probably just go and live by a remote beach somewhere and let it all pass me by.
One thing I can guarantee, day-to-day law and order would improve.
A clearer message to Australia and New Zealand could not have been sent by the Chinese Government: The Pacific is no longer an American lake.
No, it's not about about US, it's about Australia: stop harassing China on seas and air. just last week, there was a near firing 19 miles off Chinese islands to Aussie P8 airplane.
To be fair, it is about the US. The AUS would not harass China if not ordered by the US.
Question: IS NZ's core benefit still aligned with the US'?
hmm, from NZ's point of view, yes. we still need to align with US.
US is daddy, China is mummy. we are a happy family (until they get divorced).
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Daddy becomes a mental now.
Daddy's been drinking too much and started a fire to burn the house down, while Mommy steals baby's intellectual property, and every weekend moves the fence with the neighbours a couple inches out.
I agree, their presence down under relates to sending a signal to AUS. They don't like AUKUS, they don't like Aussie buying a nuclear powered sub. I'm certain Aussie's have the same question as to whether - under a Trump administration - they are best aligned to the US.
Me thinks they ought to cool that one and look to participating in Commonwealth alliances.
Three ships in the international water. What is the big deal?
NZ should relax, give the highest praise that the international law is fully respected, and extend a hand of friendship to ask the three ships to dock in Auckland or Wellington for a visit.
Visionary leaders will need to do such.
I agree. People are just using a perfectly legitimate exercise by the Chinese navy as an excuse to push their agendas.
Sure, they're following international law here (if not etiquette), but we know they cock a snoot at international law in the South China Sea. Consistent application should be praised, not ad hoc application.
A live-fire exercise, under our major air routes, without adequate warning, is hard to read as anything other than wanting to send a message.
Please read the transcript of Luxon's media response on NOT the NEWS from the medias in NZ, which are all controlled by the US.
Luxon's words: the exercise is perfectly within the bound of international laws.
What more should I say then? If you think the international law needs to change to suit NZ's interests, then raise it to the UN.
Link?
And while it may be legal, there's also just being rude and arrogant.
Let's do the same thing over by their turf, see what happens.
Exactly. And that message is, start re-thinking Australia - the US is more a threat to China under Trump now.
The CCP needs to know who its friendlies are and in that regard, NZ is pig-in-the-middle between AUS and the CCP..
Ship visit - how to perfectly troll China, while you're in the neighbourhood perhaps your ships would like to visit Auckland.
An excellent suggestion, it would be a culturally appropriate Pacific welcome & an example to the rest of the world.
Good article.
Surely one question is; what do we need a navy for? If China decided to invade-which seems rather unlikely-there is nothing we or Australia could do to prevent them. We need vessels to patrol our waters and presumably they need to be lightly armed, but frigates and destroyers with up to the minute technology? We can't afford them.
Drone swarms > billion dollar floaty bath toys.
NZ can kit itself out with electronic and drone based countermeasures. We have the talent here to launch satellites to coordinate these over the horizon. Far more bang for buck.
But the biggest question as the article says is, why?
I was waiting for someone to say this, and you’re absolutely right.
In today’s drone based environment, having a $1 billion ship with poor air defence systems is an even worse idea than when we bought them and then trashed the air force.
If we are providing humanitarian aid or boots on the ground then buy a fancy transport ship. If we’re fighting drones and missiles then go all-in. As it is, our ships are just big targets that we will be too afraid to put in harm’s way.
But the biggest question as the article says is, why?
I thought the answer is obvious- to defend out homeland. The homeland of New Zealanders of all races and political views.
Well yes, but we are too small and too long and skinny to defend our homeland.
So we need friends and the question is which ones are the most trustworthy.
We need fast strike to do something about an incursion. Que Muldoon using the Skyhawk's to interdict the rogue Taiwanese squid boat.
Australia cannot protect us.
We rely on the US leadership of 'The West' and the international rule of law. People may criticise the US for all sorts of valid reasons but their commitment to defending the International Rules, both formal and informal (which admittedly heavily benefits them and us) is our only guarantee. If you think China or Russia or India will be interested in ensuring New Zealand continues to governed by and for the interests of New Zealander's you are delusional.
This exercise if directly related to Trump's position on Ukraine, it sends the message that America is not interested in being responsible for managing global order and will only really get involved if it's short-term interests are at stake. We will see much more aggressive and obvious land takes going forward.
New Zealand is a very attractive bolt hole for all sorts of elites from around the world who will be fleeing the climate change induced societal collapse.
their commitment to defending the International Rules
I don't know that the US has ever been all that committed to the international rules. They do not recognise the international court;
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/1093212495/the-u-s-does-not-recognize-th…
You can't judge them by absolute standards only by the alternatives offered, and formal membership of international agencies are less important than informal alignment with international institutions and norms.
I might agree but not sure what is meant by international institutions and norms.
Which ones, for example, do you think the US participates in and/or follows that China does not?
To be clear as a retired serviceman, the military have almost always been deplorably paid.
Perhaps our military and hospitals could be funded through deficit funding, not taxation?
And CT is being somewhat disingenuous when he compares the transit of these ships to the transit of ours through the Taiwan Straight. Our transit was notified and we did nothing to disrupt civilian commercial traffic. The details of exactly what occurred on the HMNZS Manawanui have not come out yet so I would suggest it perhaps does not fit to use it as an example of the state of our navy or other services.
But the message is clear, the ideological neglect of our military needs to be corrected. That will cost much more than it will take to maintain it, but it is necessary.
Yes, for sure - it is necessary and we should improve it for soldiers wellbeing in addition to its defensive weaponry/capability.
We have a $4 billion pa spend on housing assistance - and if we regulated our housing market better, that expenditure would not be necessary.
I hope you're planning on staying around, murray86 as I always enjoy reading your comments!
Thank you Kate. i enjoy yours too. Yes i do intend to continue as much as time pressures allow.
If China would come after anything in this end of the world, it would be resources, not hearts and minds - although those hearts and minds may be part of the path there.
It would be extremely easy to invade and conquer New Zealand. The enemy would have our air bases, naval yards and government buildings in the first few hours. We need to keep our alliances strong and be serious about our security commitments.
The issue is getting here in sufficient numbers without being spotted - that maybe a big ask these days considering NZ has some of the most modern maritime surveillance aircraft in the world (Boeing P-8A Poseidon). Australia has modern AWAC planes in the form of Boeing E-7 Wedgetail
My argument is that "sufficient numbers" would be very small. You wouldn't need much more than a battle group pretending to be on an exercise. A couple of large civilian liners or container ships secretly carrying troops and equipment already close by. Maybe a carrier, but may not be necessary. They would just need to seize the airports and a few key areas. Maybe take the whole government by surprise by seizing the Beehive while it is in session. I'm sure they would have it all planned out well.
Why bother with force. They already had a spy fresh out of spy school in our parliament. You could assume they either got all the info they needed or we simply aren't worth bothering with.
Really just saying, without outside help, the conquest of NZ would be remarkably easy. We rely on our allies and international law.
Nuke subs have outmoded aircraft carriers as they did battleships. A deep water sub is virtually undetectable with sufficient missiles to destroy all strategic targets. For NZ it would just take one strike. Once done probably wouldn’t need to put many boots on the ground. President Eisenhower foresaw this in the 1950s when he transferred the nuclear deterrence from the Strategic Air Command to the submarine force. That is why today the USA has over sixty of these vessels in service and with allies outnumber “the opposition” more than three to one. It is why Australia is buying these vessels and Japan potentially. In summary ninety or so of these vessels position unknown with ability to retaliate to any attack is undeniably a deterrent.
We don't have any "nuke subs". Which is my point, we need our allies.
Exactly. And that element surely became evident during the covid pandemic where China made it clear they didn’t give a damn about the rest of world. Ok it wasn’t a military venture but it crystallised that NZ would be best to safeguard its security with its traditional allies.
Ok it wasn’t a military venture but it crystallised that NZ would be best to safeguard its security with its traditional allies.
Trump has made it abundantly clear that our traditional allies are not interested in protecting us. If the US is walking back from Western Europe why would they be remotely interested in defending us?
That's my feeling about NZ too - but the million-dollar question is whether they would defend Australia? And I somehow doubt it. I mean they too are kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Recall that the first thing Trump did in his first term was take a call from the Aussie PM and just plain old start bullying him on a 'deal' about refugees from the Tampa that he didn't like.
US building major bases in northern Australia to act as a unsinkable carrier closer to Asia flashpoints so they are certainly very aware of Australia at least.
That's my feeling about NZ too - but the million-dollar question is whether they would defend Australia? And I somehow doubt it. I mean they too are kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Recall that the first thing Trump did in his first term was take a call from the Aussie PM and just plain old start bullying him on a 'deal' about refugees from the Tampa that he didn't like.
Nukes are inherently noisy. Coolant flow requirements in the reactor dictate that level, although they are much quieter now than they used to be. Diesel electric are more quiet. The Swedish produce a sub that is setting new standards.
Zac is correct though, we don't have subs, likely never will. The Aussies do have the Collins class guided missile sub. They're somewhat troubled but still capable. If the Aussies had been on the ball, at least one of these would have been shadowing the ships. With guided missiles they could do it from quite some distance, even beyond torpedo range.
Lots of drones (sea and air) is probably what NZ needs. They are not that expensive relatively speaking. Warfare is changing, as Ukraine war has shown - large ships/tanks are becoming obsolete.
If NZ is attacked the US and Aussie will arrive in short order to bail out our lack of defense funding over the last twenty years. We would also likely end up with a US military base somewhere with sheltered deep water access.
Remember the rainbow warrior. No one is going to bleed for us, except us.
SKF
The US is not coming. Trump just made it clear that they are walking back from Western Europe, they are retreating to their own borders/continent. No way in hell they would set up anything here to help us.
None of this will be of any use, however, in a nation divided against itself. A population composed of mutually antagonistic cultures and identities; a country racked by ideological differences and beset by conflicts made all the more intractable by the demonisation of every side except one’s own, cannot possibly achieve the consensus needed to construct an effective national defence.
I often get the impression from Trotter's writings that he would like New Zealand to develop into a quasi-fascist state. No ideological differences?
We already know our place in the world and that is firmly within the Western world and more specifically the Anglosphere. Where they go, we go, their fate will be our fate.
I don't agree with everything he says however I will say that CT's entire life work that I've been reading for >30 years has come from a historical class Left & basically decent humanist orientation. In recent years he's provided a perspective that's put him offside with the current Left, no bad thing. Elon Musk on X: "https://t.co/Q9OjlJhi7f" / X
I fail to see anything remotely suggesting that " he would like New Zealand to develop into a quasi-fascist state" in your quote. To the contrary, he frequently refers to the lessons of history.
Surely the quote above is hyperbole. To me it reads like propaganda because it doesn't describe the reality of New Zealand at all which is curious.
The best way to deal with bullies is to ignore them competely, they just want attention because their Daddies didn't love them. If they physically cause you or your family any harm though, smash their face in immediately with a cricket bat. There's one for the Chinese sleepers that lurk on this site.
Instead of the alarmist headlines a few joke cartoons making fun of their ships and ability. While quietly building the ability to bloody a nose in the background.
smash their face in immediately with a cricket bat.
New Zealand does not have a cricket bat and even if it did we would barely be able to lift it. Macho bravado will do nothing to make our security situation any better.
Macho Bravado is the reason you don't speak German or Japanese now, it wasn't the intellectual couch potatoes that saved us. And yes, my ancestors served to protect you, so does my son, and so will I. You're welcome.
Macho Bravado, 100% did not save us from Japan and Germany, I'm not sure you and I have the same understanding of the word bravado.
The war with Japan was ultimately brough to a close with the atom bomb, saving many many lives overall. The atom bomb was primarily an intellectual feat if ever there was one. The axis was defeated thanks to the US' cool headed, organised, methodical, some would say intellectual, strategy and logistics.
Neither of these things deny the sacrifice that mine and your ancestors made to defeat fascism. Bravado achieves nothing, it needs to backed by logistics, strategy, tactics and leadership. Macho Bravado (amongst the barbarian tribes) is the reason why Rome was able to conquer most of Europe , Macho Bravado was what led Italy into the war on Hitler's side, eventually losing.
Is it a good idea for one of our frigates to be shadowing the Chinese vessels? Odds are that someone accidentally engages the autopilot and collides with one of their ships causing an international incident.
too soon Westie!.....
People need to keep in mind that this is a very small force. One cruiser, one frigate and a supply ship.
It's not suppose to actually invade, it's to demonstrate how powerless we are to do anything about it. It's always easier to conquer a country by getting them to roll over and surrender before battle than actually fight it out.
Maybe don't buy that Chinese-made automobile.
Boycott everything from perfidious USA
Sweet, let's piss off our only ally that may have the grunt to actually have our backs.
You are somewhat contradicting your earlier comment but given the chaotic and unprecedented policies that the Trump administration have undertaken that is pretty much understandable. Even so it would appear NZ would still be advisable to remain with the tried and tested as a matter of Hobson’s choice. Thus a simple question.Would it be preferable to live under the regimes of London/Washington or that of Moscow/Beijing.
ps. Perhaps herein lies an explanation as to why Australia switched its purchase of subs from France to the USA. That in itself should help square up Trumps’s apparent obsession with balancing the balance of payments.
There is no contradiction. The US is walking back from maintaining global Rule of Law. Our best and pretty much only security option is to work with internal non-isolationist US elements and other allies to try to bolster their influence and help them get back in power in the US. The strategy has to be to walk them back from the cliff.
That means targetting specific US products not all of them.
Apologies had taken your comment to mean the USA not China. Obviously you were responding to the post positioned one above.
All good!
FG.Chaotic and unprecedented are restrained descriptions. But Trumps semi coherent ramblings contain a consistent thread that he intends ushering in a new multi polar world order. Putin has exposed Russia as presenting no military threat to Europe for the foreseeable future. Trump, with some justification, states it is time for Europeans to defend their own society from the Moscow gangster regime. Caesar will callously abandon Ukraine and pivot westward to more directly confront the rising power of China with all the might of imperial Rome. NZ will be inexorably drawn into being part of that pivot, whatever the social, political and philosophical composition of our country looks like. Our internal tribal preoccupations and delusions of independence will be swept aside as the behemoths collide. I suggest your implication that we will have have a preferential choice option is wishful thinking.
Oh certainly but at our age we understand what you prefer is not necessarily what you get. My question is just to think about those options and outcomes, as it would hardly be prudent to mount the less preferred horse and expect to arrive where you would like. Personally as expressed here, and in agreement, it’s Hobson’s choice, NZ is a but a small sloop in the grand fleet, with little option other than to ride along in its wake.
FG Yes. But I think it'll soon be readily apparent which horse we will be compelled to mount. Was in a small pacific country not long ago where I observed a considerable Chinese presence upgrading infrastructure. Much smiling and energetic waving as the happy workers paused their toiling to engage with passing locals and tourists. No hint of a hidden agenda anywhere to be seen. All was altruistic sweetness and light.
Chinese authorities announced that live fire shooting drills will be held in Tonkin Gulf from 0800 Feb 24 to 1800 Feb 27. Happens all the time.
Lets do the same and see what happens then
The usual total over reaction by many. It may pay to remember that China is our main export partner so it would probably pay to pull your heads in as that makes them best mates.
If China stops buying our kiwifruit and dairy, the current defence spend will quickly be 2% of the lower gdp
It's always encouraging to see nations taking an interest in the Tasman, though you'd hope that they'd familiarise themselves with the etiquette of the region before making a spectacle. Live-fire drills are more in keeping with insecure nations seeking attention than those confident in their place among responsible maritime actors.
A quiet word beforehand with regional partners would have been the proper thing to do - we should assume this was simply an oversight on the part of an inexperienced commander, rather than a deliberate lapse in decorum. No doubt as their navy matures, with time and experience they will come to appreciate the value of courtesy in such matters.
we should assume this was simply an oversight on the part of an inexperienced commander
Delusional interpretation.
LOL. Yeah, delusional.
From the 3rd Scroll.
New Zealand gets invaded by Foreign Soldiers with Black Hair. Foreign soldiers come ashore on small boats. This happens on the East Coast between North Auckland and Whangarei. It will be in broad daylight during swimming months while beachgoers are active.
https://www.interest.co.nz/economy/131907/us-ppi-stays-high-us-househol…
Australia should start planning for acquisition of at least 12 submarines of the French Suffren design. The current AUKUS plan for eight nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) has always been flawed, and now its risks are piling up.
We should go ahead with naval-operational aspects of the AUKUS SSN plan, such as supporting US and British submarines when they come to Australia. But for the acquisition effort, we should be ready to drop the plan to buy eight SSNs under AUKUS—three from the US that Washington is increasingly unlikely to supply, and five that are supposed to be built to an oversized British design and probably can’t arrive on time.
Instead, we would commence a joint Franco-Australian construction program for a greater number of submarines of the Suffren class, a design that is already in service with the French navy.
To ensure deliveries could begin as early as 2038, the Australian government that’s elected next year should commit to deciding in 2026 whether to switch to the French design.
Even if the AUKUS acquisition plan succeeds, it will deliver a questionable capability. The submarines’ designs would be a mix of two blocks of Virginia-class submarines, more than 14 years apart in design, and yet-to-be-designed SSN-AUKUS using Britain’s yet-to-be-tested PWR3 reactor. Moreover, SSN-AUKUS would be partly built by the underperforming British submarine enterprise that’s under great pressure to deliver the Royal Navy’s next class of ballistic missile submarines.
Displacing more than 10,000 tonnes, SSN-AUKUS submarines will be too big for Australia’s needs. Their size will increase their detectability, cost and crews. (The large size appears to be driven by the dimensions of the reactor.)
The Royal Australian Navy is already unable to crew its ships and grow to meet future demands. It will have great difficulty in crewing Virginias, which need 132 people each, and SSN-AUKUS boats, too, if their crews equal the 100-odd needed for the current British Astute class.
We have yet to see a schedule for the British design process, nor does a joint design team seem to have been established. In the absence of news that milestones have been achieved or even set, it is highly likely that the SSN-AUKUS program, like the Astute program, will run late and deliver a first-of-class boat with many problems. Knowing that Britain’s Strategic Defence Review is grappling with serious funding shortfalls hardly instils confidence.
Also, eight SSNs will be enough to maintain deployment of only one or two at any time, not enough for an effective deterrent. The difficulty in training crews and building up experience in three designs of submarines would add to the obvious supply chain challenges in achieving an operational force.
Achieving even this inadequate capability is growing less likely. Reports at the recent US Navy Submarine League Symposium reveal continuing US failure to increase submarine building rates. By now an additional submarine should have been ordered to cover the transfer of an existing Block IV Virginia to Australia in eight years, but no contract has been placed. Worse, Virginia production at both US submarine shipbuilders is actually slowing due to supply chain delays. The US’s top priority shipbuilding program, for Columbia class ballistic-missile submarines, continues to suffer delays. In late November, the White House requested emergency funding from Congress for the Virginia and Columbia programs.
This situation flags an increasing likelihood that, despite its best efforts, the US Navy will be unable to spare any Virginias for sale to Australia. The president of the day probably will be unable, as legislation requires, to certify 270 days before the transfer it will not degrade US undersea capabilities.
Meanwhile, Britain’s submarine support establishment is having difficulties in getting SSNs to sea. A recent fire affecting the delivery of the final Astute class SSN can only add to these woes.
The French Suffren SSN class was the reference design for the diesel Attack class that Australia intended to buy before switching to SSNs. It offers the solution to our AUKUS problems. It is in production by Naval Group, with three of the planned six submarines commissioned in the French navy.
At 5300 tonnes and with a 70-day endurance, capacity for 24 torpedoes or missiles, four torpedo tubes and a crew of 60, it would be cheaper to build, own and crew than the AUKUS boats. The design is flexible—optimised for anti-submarine warfare but with a good anti-surface ship capability from dual-purpose torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. It can also carry land-attack cruise missiles, mines and special forces.
The Suffren class uses low-enriched uranium fuel and needs refuelling every 10 years, whereas the US and British designs, with highly enriched uranium, are intended never to be refuelled. But the Suffren reactor is designed to simplify refuelling, which could be completed during a scheduled refit in Australia. Used fuel can be reprocessed, simplifying decommissioning at the end of life.
True, the Suffren design does not have the weapon load, vertical launch missile tubes or 90-day endurance of the Virginia and, presumably, SSN-AUKUS. However, as a nuclear-powered relative of the Attack class it is much closer to the original Australian requirement for a replacement for the Collins class than SSN-AUKUS is shaping up to be. The design offers adequate capability for Australia’s needs in a package we can afford to own. We could operate 12 Suffrens and still need fewer crew members than we would under the AUKUS plan.
If we shifted to the Suffren design, we should nonetheless stick with the SSN training programs we’ve arranged with the US Navy and Royal Navy. We should also go ahead with establishing an intermediate repair facility that would support their SSNs as well as ours and with rotating them through Western Australia.
As for the AUKUS acquisition plan, we need to begin preparations now for jointly building Suffrens with France. Australia cannot wait for the US to finally say Virginias will be unavailable.
To the extent that design needs changing, we can go back to the work done for the Attack class, particularly incorporation of a US combat system and Australian standards.
Difficult, challenging and politically courageous? Surely. But not nearly as improbable getting SSNs under AUKUS on time.
Really worthwhile comment - very educational, thanks!
Really worthwhile comment - very educational, thanks!
We’re a democracy. Halting anything on consensus means never doing it.
We still have a rather strong common ideological bond with one another. Granted we may not realise it until we are faced with an “other” who advocates against our common values, but fundamentally kiwis are liberal. We care about a sense of fairness, we care about the country doing well, and we’re cautious of centralised power in government (even if only when “the other guys” are in).
Right now we’re starting to turn on each other out of desperation. Because everyone can feel that their lives are getting worse.
I would argue that historically defence spending has been one of the most persuasive causes for taking from the rich to pay the poor. I would also argue that, so long as the majority of this spending is kept within the country and funded through taxation of the wealthy, that it would greatly improve social cohesion.
Consensus would come after the fact when people feel their lives improving.
It all goes back to wealth inequality.
SKF
Any message, such as it is, is surely aimed at the US, via Australia.
NZ is not in any way a threat - we're simply too small.
The only strategic value NZ holds is a) proximity to Australia, b) proximity to Antarctica, c) food production.
There's a reason everyone's building nuclear hideout bunkers around Queenstown, and that's because it's very unlikely NZ would even be targeted by a nuclear weapon - our value as a base for a) or b) would be vastly diminished and c) would be wiped out.
In all likelihood, any enemy commander with any IQ would simply send forces to invade/capture AKL/WLG/CHC - the ports primarily - and control from there.
Our defence forces have some strong and very well trained units - particularly the SAS for example - but ultimately even these would be relegated to guerilla warfare with the lack of Naval or Air support. There simply isn't enough investment - even if tripled/quadrupled from current levels to provide a sufficient deterrent.
If our ports were captured by enemy forces, re-capturing (and more importantly holding) them would be impossible - this is doubly so if - as would seem likely - such a naval invasion were supported by an aircraft carrier providing air support from offshore.
I mean, were even one of the Chinese warships currently in the Tasman to decide to go sit in Wellington harbour for a while - do you really think NZ would be able to do anything about it?
Previous commenters were 100% correct, we are reliant on Australian/US submarines to provide defense and projected deterrent against such an attack, and primarily US intelligence to advise on such a flotilla heading in our direction (and frankly being honest, this is only provided due to our proximity to Australia not because we're particularly important - strategically).
Any message, such as it is, is surely aimed at the US, via Australia.
NZ is not in any way a threat - we're simply too small.
Of course we're not a threat, we're the bounty. The exact reason that makes us appealing to multi-billionaire bunker builders makes us appealing to elites in other countries. You think if things go to shit the Chinese Elite are going to stay in China, they will be heading to the best places to hide out from the climate change consequences and subsequent societal collapse. They will have plenty of firepower to easily overpower and take over little old NZ and it's indigenous (by that I mean current) population. The US elite are doing the same but via different strategy, buying up our land and political influence and building doomsday bunkers.
We are simply too far away from anything to even be a bounty. Think about China taking us over, the supply line back to their country would be so long and therefore subject to disruption by any opposing force with a submarine or missile or even drone. If takeover were to happen, it would be after the collapse of all the "other sides" allies. And that's probably only possible under a nuclear war.
Even then, the disruption within NZ from guerilla groups with .22's and the like would make the country very difficult to hold again. They would need soldiers everywhere as the products they are interested in receiving come from rural areas - areas where gun ownership is high.
It just wouldn't be worth it to hold the country and not worth destroying either. Best to just trade with us. That's why if any future war were to break out, we should very much declare neutrality and up our armed forces to that end, to be largely defensive. Then we can do equal trading with both sides, bullets for food.
therefore subject to disruption by any opposing force with a submarine or missile or even drone
What opposing force do you imagine would go toe to toe with China? I can think of only one and they are very far away and signalling that they are going to focus on their own backyard.
the disruption within NZ from guerilla groups with .22's and the like would make the country very difficult to hold again
That's a nice picture, reminds me of Red Dawn but rather far fetched. Some Guerilla activity might persist for a while.
But we're talking about a potential situation of $1.4billion hungry Chinese citizens. We have no navy, no airforce and 15,000 armed personnel. Good on you for thinking a handful of hunters in the South Island would be able to do anything more than pester a Chinese invasion force.
If it reached the situation where China did invade militarily, and I don't think they plan to or would need to in order to take control, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be leaving any locals here. We'd be shipped of to labour camps in the bell end of nowhere and Chinese people would be shipped over to replace us. Our appeal is our relatively good prospects as climate change starts to play out more intensely, our relative self-sufficiency and our distance from elsewhere. Our native population are just a minor inconvenience that can be easily removed.
I think you are fantastically under complicating the logistics involved with an invasion or holding a country while it is reasonably hostile to you. Its why powers generally invade only their neighbours. The US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are great examples of where a power tried to hold a foreign country. The US military is the most capable power to ever exist, its force projection is completely unmatched as its carrier fleets can sail around the world unopposed. It has military bases all over the world "allies" that are too scared to do anything. To back them up is the petro dollar and a world default currency which they control and gives them huge influence. And they couldn't even hope to hold Afghanistan (really they only held parts of it temporarily) and kept Iraq for a short time while they pumped out as much oil as possible, which required constant military activity to hold. After some time, amid mounting losses of soldiers, they had to come up with a plan to hand over power. They were not safe anywhere outside their bases, hence the "green zone" in Iraq. And guess what really forced them out? Constant guerilla warefare threats using IEDs and the occasional attack using basic weapons. You are very much underestimating the effect this has on a force trying to hold a country, its hugely demoralising and resource expensive to prevent.
And you believe the Chinese navy to be capable of holding this country? For what benefit? To feed 3% of their population?
You think they would ship off 5m people to be slaves somewhere? My god. Do you understand the logistics involved there? Rounding up people would take tens of thousands of landed troops, which would required massive people movement and use an enormous amount of resources in energy and equipment as well as the capability to protect all of that in hostile waters. Then say they had 20 ships able to transport 5000 people each, with a 4 week round trip to China (where there would have to be processing places, internment camps, labour details, more soldiers for security etc too), you are then talking 4 years to ship everyone back to China. You then have a country which you have to farm, but would have most of its infrastructure taken out from said guerilla groups. So you would need to rebuild bridges, dams etc, which would take another decade or so and enormous resources again. During that time you would have lost hundreds, likely thousands of troops. All of whom have mums and dads back in China who just lost their only children... you think there would be no internal strife in China?
The Chinese aren't dumb, they would just trade with us and save all of that hassle. And we need heaps of their manufactured goods, so why would we say no?
You are showing a fear of something that is irrational, a "reds under the bed" fear, combined with a lack of knowledge of military matters. We don't have the immediately available resources, nor things like manufacturing capability that would make a prolonged invasion worthwhile.
Is it a state dedicated to ensuring that every citizen has the support required to realise their full potential? Is it mixture of all three?
There is no mixture or watering down of the last one. This is a red bottom line.
We could create a new real estate market for those who fear invasion .... funded privately by individual mortgages at lower than usual rates ... 'everythings down in the undergound city'....lol
A worrying lack of any grasp of geopolitics is on display on these comments.
Very thought-provoking - and exactly the kind of conversation started that is needed at the particular juncture in history.
MTCW - any type of allied relationship with the US is an absolute waste or time, let along being a realistic suggestion. Under Trump anyway - and I fear they may never emerge from this new direction of being an authoritarian bully-state.
So, AUKUS from our perspective is help-only from Australia if we find ourselves having/wanting to defend ourselves from China. That said, Australia is and always has been our best ally - ANZAC is in our defense DNA. My husband's father was sent back from Europe as soon a VE day happened - and was transferred straight to New Guinea to fight the Japanese.
We need to strengthen ANZAC; remain thoughtful of our place in the Commonwealth and remain fully unaligned with the USA.
NZ still has the option of joining the Australian Federation...
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/q….
I did not know that! Thanks for posting it.
When I was in central government, I always felt we needed to strengthen our alignment with Aussie regulatory settings/laws. They just write such better law given they have a bigger pool of people skilled in that regard.
If it came to us becoming a state, I'd be happy with that.
So the defense of Australia and NZ rests on submarines yet to be built?
Let's calm down, That's pretty much what it is, Classic tit for tat
https://www.asiamediacentre.org.nz/taiwan-welcomes-nz-navy-s-first-taiw…
Or Why are Defending...? Could be the alternative viewpoint.
Lets face it were so far behind the 8 ball why catch up? We'd be gone before lunchtime if a major power attacked us. Its a good thing China has never invaded another country - not even Taiwan. BUT we have traded with them for a long time and prospered.
What are we going to spend bilions and billions defending?
- Cows - 4.8million
- sheep - 23.6million
- Tourists - 3.3million a year
- pretty good fishing spots that are probably nearly depleted
- and a teaspoon of rare minerals.
Imagine what our standard of living, the hospitals, schools, water works, roads, public transport and enviroment could all do with 3 billion dollars.
Being sucked into an Arms race is a fools game. Become the Switzerland of the pacific and everyone wins.
Imagine what our standard of living, the hospitals, schools, water works, roads, public transport and enviroment could all do with 3 billion dollars.
Yeah, imagine. But it is a matter of priorities. Did you realise we spend $4 billion per annum on housing subsidies?
No, we would be defending a country isolated from neighbours that is relatively self-sufficient, defensible (for a big power), fairly easy to get rid of the local population, has good access to clean drinking water, and is likely to be less impacted by climate change than most.
The $values you've quoted are based on today's situation not a climate change, energy and material scarcity future.
Based on demographics. NZ will be a Chinese Indian country anyway.
Auckland already is.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.