All they are saying is give War a chance

78 comments on “All they are saying is give War a chance ”

• Comment on post

1. Patricia Bremner 1

   8 April 2025 at 7:51 am

   So we start a standing Army and elect an authoritarian Government, now what could go wrong?

   Who do you trust when all trust is gone?

   Reply
   • lprent 1.1

     9 April 2025 at 10:30 am

     So we start a standing Army…

     You probably have no idea just how weird that reads.

     NZ has had local armed land forces since 1845, it was a volunteer militia then. The first standing army was formed in 1862 and been around in different guises ever since.

     Parts of my extended family were in permanent forces from at least 1878 onwards. There are whole branches that seem to have made it their family profession.

     I had various relatives who volunteered in WW1 and WW2. I really only knew the ones from WW2.

     I was in the army as a territorial in 1977-1982, part of the current volunteer militia. We were trained by regular force members of pit permanent standing army.

     I've had friends in the Navy (started in 1846, permanent forces since 1913), Air Force sort of started in 1913, and established as permanent force in 1923.

     Who do you trust when all trust is gone?

     Personally I wouldn't trust you. I am not quite sure that you live in this country or possibly the current century.

     You appear to have very limited knowledge of what you're talking about and I suspect you'd have to pull your head out of your arse for quite a while to do some basic research (try wikipedia) so as not to embarrass yourself.

     Reply
2. Bearded Git 2

   8 April 2025 at 8:11 am

   Jo Moir, the (right wing) political editor for RNZ said this morning on Morning Report that when told about the massive increase in defence spending contained in the review a couple of hours before its release Chris Hipkins was generally supportive of it.

   But he is about to speak on Morning Report so lets see (8.11am)

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018982297/govt-announces-12-billion-defence-capability-plan

   Reply
   • Bearded Git 2.1

     8 April 2025 at 8:20 am

     Yep Hipkins supportive…no mention of channeling the military billions into the public health service instead.

     Reply
     • Mountain Tui 2.1.1

       8 April 2025 at 10:59 am

       Great headline.

       The issue is this: Luxon says extra $10b or so is easy money, we have the money.

       He said the same thing for prison last year.

       But when it comes to health, he said we don't have $1 extra.

       And yet Kiwis vote and continue to want a government like this.

       Reply
       • Bearded Git 2.1.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 11:50 am

         Exactly.

         Reply
3. Kay 3

   8 April 2025 at 9:09 am

   According to the NZ Defence Force

   "The Government tasks us to support peace and security in a wide range of ways, at home and abroad."

   https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf/what-we-do/peace-and-security/

   There's an awful lot of catching drug smugglers the seem to be involved with, and we know the wonderful work they do in coming to our aid after natural disasters (here and in the Pacific). Also in peace-keeping situation overseas.

   So surely our 'Defence' force could morph into some kind of 'Self-defence' force?

   "In a military context, a "self-defence force" typically refers to a military unit or organization primarily tasked with defending a specific territory or population from external threats, or internal threats, rather than engaging in offensive operations.

   "Primary Role:

   The core function of a self-defence force is to protect its own territory, infrastructure, and citizens from potential dangers, whether those dangers are military or non-military in nature.

   (Google search AI)
   If China wants to invade us, then they will. The state of our military will make absolutely no difference to them.

   Reply
4. aj 4

   8 April 2025 at 9:21 am

   There's an alternative to endless wars between the nations. The alternative is you sit down and you say to your adversary we both have got to live on this planet: can we work out a deal where we give each other the room to function to live, and work to solve the existential issues of climate change and damage to ecosystems?

   Why don't don't we try that?

   Because if we threaten each other what's the end game of this? a number of countries spend a fortune on fighting wars (the USA the biggest spender by far, more than the next six countries combined) and killing people. If they ever slip up and start a nuclear war it's over anyway, so that's a dead end.

   We are in the biggest technological advance in human history. It’s truly amazing what can be done right now. You know, I marvel at the fact that somebody who knows little chemistry won the Nobel Peace Prize for chemistry because he’s superb at AI and deep neural networks, indeed a genius, Demis Hassabis. He and his team at DeepMind figured out how to use AI to crack the problem of protein folding, a problem that had occupied generations of biochemists.

   So, if we put our minds, our resources and our energies towards it, we can transform the world energy system for climate safety. We can protect biodiversity. We can ensure every child gets a quality education. We can do so many wonderful things right now. What do we need for success? In my view, most importantly, we need peace. And my basic point is there are no deep reasons for conflict anywhere because every conflict I study is just a mistake.

   We are not struggling for Lebensraum. That idea, which essentially came from Malthus and later became a Nazi idea, was always wrong, a fundamental intellectual mistake. We have had race wars, national wars of survival, out of the fear that we don’t have enough for everybody on this planet, so that we are in a struggle for survival.

   As an economist, I can tell you, we have plenty on the planet for everybody’s sustainable development. Plenty. We’re not in a conflict with China. We’re not in a conflict with Russia. If we calm down, if we ask about the long term, the long term is very good, that is, if we don’t blow ourselves up beforehand. So, this is my point. The prospects are very positive if we construct the peace.

   The Geopolitics of Peace — Jeffrey Sachs in the European Parliament.
   https://scheerpost.com

   Reply
   • weka 4.1

     8 April 2025 at 9:30 am

     Yes. But, what do you do with the fascists who aren’t going to come to the table in a reasonable manner? If violence is off the table, what will stop the people from committing violence from taking over?

     There’s an argument to be made that presenting something better will win people over. So I agree with his gist. We don’t have that something better to offer. How come?

     I disagree with his last point. We don’t in fact have enough for everyone on the planet to have a civ lifestyle. It’s like he just ignored ecological footprinting altogether. We probably do have enough if the overdeveloped countries dropped their standard of living. Which still leaves us with good lives, just not the energy/goods on demand that we currently have.

     Reply
     • aj 4.1.1

       8 April 2025 at 9:51 am

       Gramsci was right about 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will'.

       Human nature unfortunately will mean violence is always on the table. Even if the planet is slowly dying and people are frying I don't see much hope for concerted action to save either.

       I have a smidgeon of hope because there are numbers of people who have a rational outlook and humanistic views, such as Sachs, but they are unable to merge into a powerful force for change. The propaganda of fear is very powerful.

       I agree with you that the planet cannot sustain increasing demands from 8B people. Four major threats: Nuclear annihilation, climate change, ecological collapse, overpopulation. Where do you start? Not by jumping into a pointless arms race.

       Reply
       • weka 4.1.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 9:57 am

         I agree about the pointlessness of an arms race. We seem more disposed to black and white thinking than even 5 years ago. Res Publica below outlined the more nuanced position and I hope we can develop that more.

         I still have hope because it’s clear we have the technical capacity to solve much of the poly crisis, but we don’t have the will. Yet. I’m a fan of social tipping point theory, that there will come a time when people are forced to change and we need to be ready for that so people tip in the direction of life not fascism. Those tippping points happen over time, the tariff issue is one, Covid was another. We’re not taking advantage of those yet.

         Reply
   • joe90 4.2

     8 April 2025 at 10:37 am

     We should listen to Sachs?

     "The great conundrum is how to privatize a vast array of firms in a manner that is equitable, swift, politically viable, and likely to create an effective structure of corporate control."

     Poland and Eastern Europe: What Is To Be Done?- Jeffrey Sachs

     Reply
     • francesca 4.2.1

       8 April 2025 at 12:13 pm

       You had to go back to 1990 for that one , a time when the west was very triumphalist .Communism had fallen .You can find fault with every single living person if you go back far enough

       The world has moved on and so has Sachs .

       Reply
       • joe90 4.2.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 1:50 pm

         The world has moved on and so has Sachs the neo-liberal hit man who wreaked economic havoc on tens of millions has had a change of spots.

         fify…lol

         /

         Reply
         • francesca 4.2.1.1.1

           8 April 2025 at 4:40 pm

           Sachstemplate worked well in Poland , with massive doses of western money and help.His recommendations that the state must not collapse, that social spending must continue , fell on deaf ears when it came to Russia.Poland was a western ally, Russia not

           SACHS: And my point was that the mechanisms that had worked in Poland should be deployed in Russia – for example, a ruble stabilization fund. The IMF rejected that. Well, what that means is the U.S. government rejected that. I believed there should be a debt standstill. The U.S. government rejected that. I believed there should be large rapid financing. The U.S. government rejected that. And the big difference between Poland and Russia was that the U.S. government viewed Poland as an ally, and it viewed Russia as an antagonist.

           https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1097135961

           “All in all, I would not only stand by these ideas, but also stand by the results,” Sachs told me. “Poland actually transformed. I’m not a heartless guy. I’m not a free-market libertarian by a million miles. I wanted a cushion for Poland. That was a large part of my aims and a large part of their interest in me, in terms of what I could get for them. And I did this in a number of ways. I believe in supporting people in unemployment and old-age pensions and a public health care system. It was never the idea that people should sink or swim. It was the idea to build a real economic base from which you give support. And if you can’t get this economic base on your own, you beg for it and you plead mercy on the basis of old debts needing to be cancelled. I tried every bit of begging and pleading and tantrums and everything else I could think of to help, and fortunately some of it worked.”

           https://fpif.org/jeffrey-sachs-disdains-neoliberalism-embraces-poland/

           Reply
           • joe90 4.2.1.1.1.1

             8 April 2025 at 7:17 pm

             Sachstemplate worked well in Poland ,

             I guess, if worked well means a decade or more of rising inflation, unemployment, poverty rates, and of deaths of despair and, in the longer term, delivering the very thing neo-liberal economic reforms are designed to deliver, an increasingly stratified society where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and an oligarchy.

             Reply
             • francesca …

               8 April 2025 at 9:58 pm

               Aaah, a tankie, grieving the loss of communism

               https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-transformation-economic-success/

               Reply
5. Res Publica 5

   8 April 2025 at 9:24 am

   I totally understand the frustration.

   There are so many urgent needs in Aotearoa right now, and it’s maddening to see billions go to defence and tax cuts for landlords when people are struggling to access basic healthcare, housing, or food.

   But I think we need to be careful about framing this as an either/or. New Zealand is a wealthy country. We can afford a functioning, modern defence force and a responsive health system, if we have the political will. The real issue isn’t scarcity — it’s priorities, and how they're set.

   This isn't about caving to Trump or cheerleading militarism. It’s about recognising that the strategic environment has changed: especially in the Pacific.

   Climate disasters, geopolitical instability, and grey-zone conflicts are all becoming more common. Having a credible, well-equipped defence force isn’t warmongering; it’s part of being prepared, resilient, and able to contribute meaningfully to regional stability and disaster response.

   That doesn’t mean we write a blank cheque. Or stop scrutinising defence spending. And it certainly doesn’t mean we stop fighting for investments in health, education, climate action, or poverty reduction.

   But dismissing all defence investment as a "suck-up to Trump" or morally bankrupt misses the complexity of the moment we're in.

   We should absolutely oppose militarism for its own sake. But we also shouldn’t let our hopes for peace blind us to the instability around us. Sometimes, refusing to invest in defence isn’t a stand for peace: it’s just a failure to prepare.

   Being anti-militarist isn’t about having no defence capability at all. It’s about insisting our military is fit-for-purpose — and nothing more.

   Reply
   • weka 5.1

     8 April 2025 at 9:39 am

     This.

     There’s also the issue of the way NACTF would do this and how governments with different focus and priorities would.

     Reply
   • Scud 5.2

     8 April 2025 at 11:44 am

     Just like Mickey Savage back in 1938, who started to rearm & expand the NZ Armed Forces as he & his Govt saw the War Clouds start to gather again. Even though his Govt has just sign a Trade Agreement with Nazi Germany.

     While over in Oz Pig Iron Bob was exporting Pig Iron to Japan.

     Just like now & back in the 1930 with Smoot-Hawley Act, the stupid Yanks have started another stupid Tariff War.

     Which further worsened the effects of the Depression because every nation launch tit for tat Tariffs.

     Which lead to the increasing rise of Fascism as people got left behind as the economic conditions went Sth.

     Right now China, is the only country that has retaliated against the US Tariffs which includes Export Controls and Trump has retaliated.

     While everyone else has given the US the one finger salute instead. Because they know what the end state is going to be!

     Right now, History is repeating itself, just like the previous 2 Tariffs Wars that the US has started.

     Right now the trends around world isn't good for peace, with have a Tariff War, 2 Major Conflicts with another 2 countries Waving their Willy's and a rise of Fascism in Europe & the US.

     China is a friend of convenience to NZ and time will come when China will ditch NZ. Just like the Pom's in 1973.

     If you trust China, then you have rocks in your head!

     Because I don't trust China, the US & Russia.

     At the end of the day, the economic environment, like the security environment is changing for the worst!

     The Sth Pacific has never been & never will be a Benign Strategic Environment, just ask any remaining any 3 NZ Div personal, like my late Great Uncle Neville who in was 3 NZ Div & heard Helen Clark's statement we in a "benign strategic environment" he said Total Bollocks! Her Govt's decisions is going cost the NZDF in the future in more ways than one!

     If you want the NZDF to Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions?

     Then the NZDF must be equipped & have the required personal to regenerate & maintain the Raise Train & Sustain Battle Rhythm like it did for INTERFET back in 99-00 which should be the benchmark for all future NZDF Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions.

     We also need to understand that NZ's critical vulnerabilities when all out conflict happens?

     Is NZ's Sea Lanes Of Communications! Believe or not NZ is Maritime dependent nation as 95% of NZ Trade departs or arrives by boat. If NZ can't Protect, Defend, Deny it's Sea Lanes Of Communications! Then the NZ's Economic Security is at risk.

     Both WW's saw NZ's Sea Lanes Of Communications degraded by German Merchant Raiders undertaking Surface Actions & laying Sea Mine's.

     NZ was were very lucky in WW2 that the Jap I Boats & the German U Boats (Monsoon Group) operating out of Penang & Singer's was so badly coordinated, the Politics between the Japanese Army & Navy and finally Allied forces Signals Intelligence cracking codes etc. That NZ's Sea Lanes Of Communications weren't degraded effectively to point where it became a critical vulnerability like what happened to GB in WW2. Where the Germans had to sink Merchant Ships at a rate of 3 ships to every 1 U Boat, they managed to achieve a rate 2- 2.5 to every 1 U Boat which culvernating in 1943 when Germany lost it superiority.

     Now China has more Subs than the combined Nations of the Asian Pacific Region, their Surface Fleet is nearing parity with the US Pacific Fleet. This doesn't include Chinese Coastguard, the Chinese Merchant Fleet nor it's Militia Fishing which is law in its self.

     If you still think China is your friend & be trusted? Just remember what lead Axis Powers to War?

     Because those economic conditions are happening right now.

     As my History Teacher said a Hornby High School, at the 1st lesson of our History lesson.

     "History doesn't repeat itself, but offen it rhymes because of peoples arrogance to the past & failure to learn from the past"

     As a Veteran, I hate war much as the next person, but the NZDF is a necessary evil because of Human stupidity in the past, the present & to the future which will never change!

     Reply
     • Res Publica 5.2.1

       8 April 2025 at 12:30 pm

       Is NZ's Sea Lanes Of Communications! Believe or not NZ is Maritime dependent nation as 95% of NZ Trade departs or arrives by boat. If NZ can't Protect, Defend, Deny it's Sea Lanes Of Communications! Then the NZ's Economic Security is at risk.

       I see someone's been brushing up on their Mahan

       Reply
       • Scud 5.2.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 1:26 pm

         Nope,

         Just understand the power of Logistics as it the sum of all things that make things tick from Economic Security to the Military from winning or losing in times of Conflict.

         Especially trying to supply a Remote RAAF base like Scheger or Maus Island while trying to maintain Defence Defence Ops.

         I'm more Corbett, Gove & Friedman

         Which is a bit strange for an ex NCO from the RNZAC & SNCO RAAF Ground Defence

         Reply
   • Anne 5.3

     9 April 2025 at 8:01 pm

     Climate disasters, geopolitical instability, and grey-zone conflicts are all becoming more common. Having a credible, well-equipped defence force isn’t warmongering; it’s part of being prepared, resilient, and able to contribute meaningfully to regional stability and disaster response.

     Precisely.

     And currently we don't have a Defence Force capable of satisfactorily doing the job.

     Sorry Mickey, but I don't think it has anything to do with sucking up to Trump. If in fact that is a part of their thinking, then it is a case of:

     Doing the right thing but for the wrong reason.

     Reply
6. Sanctuary 6

   8 April 2025 at 11:05 am

   The plan is available here – https://www.defence.govt.nz/assets/publications/Defence-Capability-Plan-25.pdf

   Whether we like it or not, NZ really cashed in on its cold war dividend and we have seriously neglected our armed forces for decades.

   The sobering thing when you read it is that nine billion dollars does little more than start the process of repairing our currently sized military after 40+ years of neglect. Lots of the money is going on updating communications and digital capabilities and the defense estate, with a lot of really big equipment items not funded. Service life extension for the frigates merely kicks the can down the road on a decision for their replacement – they'll be 40 years old in 2035 and have been hard worked. The desperately needed ice-patrol ship isn't funded. The replacement for the Canterbury isn't funded. Buying new Javelin missiles will probably do little more than allow us to fire a few time-expired obsolete rounds in training and keep a small war reserve. The same on spending a billion dollars on upgrading the vehicle fleet – notably the LAVs – that will simply allow us to eke another decade out of them until we have to replace them. Replacing our hopelessly out-matched 105mm artillery is also on the wish list rather than funded. The 757s are well past their replacement age and desperately need replacement. And so on and so on.

   I think some decisions will await Australian defense decisions. The ANZAC frigate replacement will be decided on what the Aussies chose, with NZ purchasing 2-4 Australian built ships from the mid-late 2030s. Same with the LAV replacement – the AS21 IFV will be Australian built with the order completed by 2028/29 which would allow NZ to buy some and extend the production run in Australia, something that would go down well with Aussie politicians.

   New capability does appear to be coming in the form of "Long-range remotely piloted aircraft" to the tune of $100-300 million, which would indicate 4 or so maritime Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs like the MQ-9B or the Hermes 900. I think I predicted on this very site the purchase of the P-8As would inevitably be followed by a long range drone purchase, since the P-8 is designed to work with such a MALE UAV to extend it's capabilities and reduce the airframe fatigue of low level flight on what is fundamentally the airframe of an airliner designed for high altitude.

   We have to be careful about viewing drones in general as a wunderwaffe. David Parker's excellent wide ranging interview on Q&A touched on defense, but he displayed little detailed knowledge of the topic – in particular, he betrayed some ignorance of the importance and place of uncrewed systems ("drones") that perhaps reflects the wider wishful thinking endemic in our political elites that we can somehow come up with a silver bullet to get defense on the cheap. For example, he talked about how Ukrainian drones have kept the Russian fleet bottled up in a far corner of the Black Sea and how this could be a guide for NZ. But if we take the sinking of the Moskva as an example drones played only a small – if any – part in the kill chain. The ship was spotted by a surveillance platform (maybe a drone or an ELINT aircraft, or real time satellite data) and the kill was completed with long range anti-ship missiles fired from mobile shore based launchers. Further, the Back sea is an intensely littoral battlefield utterly different from the blue water ocean environment that NZ operates in in the South Pacific. Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) are useful in short range stuff (it is only 300km from Odessa to Sevastopol) but deploying them over the thousands of km of the trackless Southern ocean is a different thing altogether. Large UAVs also have quite low sortie rates and require highly skilled technical support and most importantly if you look at the Moskva example above by the time you buy the sophisticated reconnaissance drone, the integrated digital comms systems to operate them, and anti-ship missiles and launchers to engage the target you are still going to spend a lot of money for a system with just a single use case, whereas frigates equipped with anti-ship missiles and helicopters are a thousand times more flexible in how they can be used.

   So yeah, if you think this is a lot of dosh, wait until we start buying the big ticket stuff…

   Reply
   • Res Publica 6.1

     8 April 2025 at 11:26 am

     I broadly agree that we need to be cautious about treating drones as some kind of silver bullet. They’re not a replacement for blue-water capability, and they certainly don’t negate the need for platforms like frigates or maritime patrol aircraft.

     But I do think the main takeaway from Ukraine is that drones are an incredibly cost-effective way to multiply the effectiveness of traditional assets, especially in ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) roles. They deliver outsized impact relative to their cost. Especially when used as force multipliers alongside more expensive, crewed platforms.

     For example, a long-range MALE UAV providing persistent overwatch and ELINT support for a frigate with VLS completely changes the equation. It extends situational awareness, allows earlier targeting, and reduces wear and tear on the manned platform. That’s not about replacing the frigate. It’s about making it smarter and deadlier.

     You’re right that the South Pacific is a different theatre to the Black Sea. Longer ranges, less land-based infrastructure, fewer chokepoints.

     But that makes persistent airborne sensors even more valuable, not less. Low sortie rates are a fair critique, but that’s a solvable issue with scale and logistics — especially if you’re not using them as strike platforms but as scouts and comms relays.

     I think the risk isn’t overhyping drones. It’s underestimating how fast they’re evolving, and failing to integrate them into a modern combined-arms doctrine.

     If we just bolt drones onto our current force without thinking through how they reshape operations, then yes — we’re just burning money.

     But used intelligently, they offer a serious return on investment, especially for a country like NZ that needs flexible, distributed capability across a huge EEZ.

     Reply
     • Scud 6.1.1

       8 April 2025 at 11:58 am

       To use UAV's effectively, you the necessary satellite band width IOT to operate over the horizon and have the necessary C3 from some like the P8 or similar Aircraft be it a Tier2 MPA or Ship.

       Line of Sight Base Stations are only if the UAV maintains LOS.

       But heavy reliance on UAV's leaves the end user vulnerable GPS jamming, UAV Counter Measures as we are currently seeing Ukraine & Iran with some success or worst case Satellite Killers aimed at GPS satellites etc which only the US, Russia & China. Which only China has successfully trialed a Satellite Killer a few yrs ago in space.

       Even with AI entering the Battlespace, you still need boots on the ground, Aircraft in the Air & War Canoes on the Water & or U Boats under the water.

       Reply
       • Res Publica 6.1.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 12:24 pm

         Totally agree!

         UAVs aren’t a silver bullet. Without the right C3 infrastructure like satellite bandwidth, secure comms, and a platform like a P-8 or Tier 2 MPA, they’re just expensive targets. Investing in that backbone is almost as important as the hardware itself.

         And as we’re seeing in Ukraine and the Middle East, GPS jamming, counter-drone systems, and even anti-satellite capabilities are no longer hypothetical.

         New Zealand’s reality is we’re unlikely to ever field a full frigate group. We might get one on station : maybe a pair in extremis, assuming we have more than just Te Mana and Te Kaha in the future. That makes it even more critical that the assets we do have can slot seamlessly into allied task groups — with Australia, the US, Singapore, or others.

         So yes. We need boots on the ground, ships in the water, and aircraft in the air.

         But we also need systems that can talk to each other and to our allies, survive in contested environments, and punch above their weight.

         If we don’t, we’ll be left blind and dumb. Stuck playing tiddlywinks while our allies and adversaries lob missiles at each other from hundreds of kilometres away, well outside our reach and our awareness.

         Reply
   • Bearded Git 6.2

     8 April 2025 at 11:56 am

     I'm happy with one percent of GDP being spent on war materials in NZ. If we can't afford a functioning public health service then we can't afford billions on war machines.

     The Australian economy is seven times as big as NZ's and they are on the frontline-they can afford a decent defence force-and they do have a functioning public health system.

     Reply
     • Scud 6.2.1

       8 April 2025 at 12:07 pm

       Even at 1% of GDP, the NZDF won't be effective at Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions like INTERFET back in 99 which the NZDF struggle to maintain the Raise Train & Sustain Battle Rhythm without cutting other areas of NZDF Budgeted operations, training & assistance etc.

       Then you have the increase need of the NZDF to HADR responses

       The increasing need of the RNZAF & Naval to effectively patrol NZ Waters, those of Sth Pacific Nations EEZ & the Sth'ern Ocean/ Antarctic Oceans.

       Reply
       • Res Publica 6.2.1.1

         8 April 2025 at 12:29 pm

         If I were setting our strategic priorities, I’d start with the RNZAF and RNZN. Air and maritime capabilities are critical for a country like New Zealand — not just for defence, but for sovereignty, surveillance, humanitarian response, and regional presence.

         We are a maritime nation in a vast oceanic region. Our security challenges arrive by air or sea long before they reach our shores.

         That doesn’t mean the Army is irrelevant — far from it. But our land forces need to be shaped by realistic roles: expeditionary support, civil defence, peacekeeping, and integration into coalition operations.

         We’re not going to field a large land component in a major war comparable to the NZEF during WW1 and WW2. But we can be credible, deployable, and useful.

         It’s unfortunate, in many ways: given the reputation, professionalism, and weight of history carried by the Army.

         There’s real pride and mana there. But strategic planning has to reflect today’s threats and tomorrow’s battlespace, not just yesterday’s traditions.

         If we get the sequencing right — build out credible air and naval capabilities first — we can then reshape a land force that fits the force structure we actually need: lighter, better equipped, more mobile, and more interoperable.

         Reply
       • Ad 6.2.1.2

         8 April 2025 at 12:31 pm

         I think the entire lot of NZDF need a decent pay rise.

         We can't keep losing vital staff. I'd be happy to spend a lot more money on recruitment, retention, and conditions. And it would of course be a very Labour thing to do.

         Reply
       • Sanctuary 6.2.1.3

         8 April 2025 at 1:05 pm

         This is the point I was trying to make – this nine billion in additional spending is simply to get the armed forces to a position where the current force structure can operate efficiently. It doesn't get new ships, armoured vehicles, artillery, or a third battalion or an enhanced territorial force. Its basically just to get the patient sitting up in bed and asking for the remote control.

         I am disappointed the document doesn't really recognise that rearming will be prohibitively expensive if it doesn't come with some sort of industrial policy to re-create some domestic production of even just basic stuff. Surely, with Trump basically declaring globalisation is over the government can help and create some capacity to manufacture military equipment here – even just uniforms, personal kit and small arms. A wider opportunity might be ammunition production – Japan and Australia are discussing joint manufacturing of artillery ammunition, maybe we could leverage our remoteness to build modern factories safe from attack to make ammunition for them, ourselves and make some export $$$ as a side hustle?

         Now, having said all that, I am not necessarily in support of spending any additional money until New Zealanders are consulted on when and where we expect to fight and if as a country we fully believe it is time to divert cash from health or whatever to guns. The military is a supreme example of form following function. In the age of potentially losing the USA to fascism we might decide to become a neutral south pacific porcupine, an island fortress bristling with drones and anti-ship missiles and not much else. Or what if we decide that an attack on a democracy is an attack on people like us and we can't stand aside in the case of Taiwan, that means we would need an expeditionary force capable of going toe to toe with China as part of an alliance. Once we've got a clear eyed, bipartisan expectation of where and when we plan to fight, then spend the money as needed. Not before.

         Reply
         • Bearded Git 6.2.1.3.1

           9 April 2025 at 9:44 am

           I heard Collins say on RadioNZ yesterday that the extra money would be, at least in part, in order to buy a long list of military hardware. That doesn't seem to be consistent with what you are saying above Sanc.

           Reply
       • Bearded Git 6.2.1.4

         10 April 2025 at 10:08 am

         I'm not buying into the "increased need" line.

         I think China now has far too much vested interest in keeping the world trading to start a conflict

         Witness it's reaction to the idiot-Trump's tariffs.

         Reply
         • Res Publica 6.2.1.4.1

           10 April 2025 at 10:20 am

           If Kant was right and trade truly guaranteed peace, then neither of the world wars would have happened.

           Germany was no less integrated into European and global markets in 1914 or 1939 than China is now. Economic interdependence didn’t stop catastrophe then, and we’d be fools to assume it will now.

           Reply
7. Drowsy M. Kram 7

   8 April 2025 at 12:48 pm

   https://www.overshootday.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/

   At the start of WWII, the human population of spaceship Earth was ~2.3 billion.

   It's now 8.2 billion – civilisation exists in an overshoot bubble. If the idea is that we can stabilise and protect our little piece of that bubble by 'investing' in military hardware and personnel, then let's hope our military can be put to 'good' use when the bubble bursts.

   From about 1980 onward, my writing, either solo or in tandem, has sought to spread awareness of the urgent need for everyone, including sociologists, to recognize that our lifestyles, mores, institutions, patterns of interaction, values, and expectations are shaped by a cultural heritage that was formed in a time when carrying capacity exceeded the human load. A cultural heritage can outlast the conditions that produced it. That carrying capacity surplus is gone now, eroded both by population increase and immense technological enlargement of per capita resource appetites and environmental impacts. Human life is now being lived in an era of deepening carrying capacity deficit. All of the familiar aspects of human societal life are under compelling pressure to change in this new era when the load increasingly exceeds the carrying capacities of many local regions — and of a finite planet. Social disorganization, friction, demoralization, and conflict will escalate. – Willim R. Catton Jr (2008)

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(book)

   The Biocapacity Blind Spot in National Security Strategies [30 Sept 2024]
   No one would bring their money to a bank that does no bookkeeping or fly in a plane that has no fuel gauge. Yet despite the unavoidable dependence of our economies on the physical material ecosystems produce, most countries do not consistently track how much nature they have and how much they are using. No country yet carefully manages its biocapacity budget.

   Defining limits: Ecological overshoot as a driver of conflict
   Governments will need to use all existing capacities to address overshoot within a framework of human rights and accountability; security institutions offer innovative tools and approaches that can play a key role in broader strategies for shifting current trends. The time required to implement transitions to sustainable systems and infrastructure means that today’s decisions about systems of production and consumption have far-reaching consequences for security and conflict prevention. Ultimately, sustainable peace and development will only be possible within the planet’s biophysical limits.

   https://www.populationbalance.org/

   Reply
8. Susie 8

   8 April 2025 at 4:32 pm

   Hmmm. So the NZ ships are 30 years old- – actually they aren't. Two are about 25 years old.

   Note that of the 60-odd British navy's active ships, a third are between 36 and 46 years old, and only around a third are younger than 25 years old. These things last.

   I have been living a fantasy: Over decades, I've thought NZDF was about UN peacekeeping, minesweeping, protecting civilian populations, rebuilding towns, training local police, overseeing elections and the like, a good deal of this in the Pacific and some of it very good work too.

   Nobody is going to pick a fight with New Zealand. The idea of us as a country wielding 'lethal force' is preposterous. This is about Luxon wanting to be seen as having a big donger. The guy is cripplingly, perilously naive. To be a pawn in someone else's war is a really dumb thing to do and a lot of little countries get wiped out by this.

   Not sure who we would end up as a pawn for, though do we know that NZ and India now have a defence pact? https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-new-zealand-defence-pact-maritime-safety-modi-meets-pm-luxon-9890895/ And India is arming up massively with new expensive tech.

   Yes the South Pacific could get snarly, and little countries become disposable puppets. SO much wiser to remain totally unentangled and unarmed. Keep the hell out of AUKUS. And this is a really good article: https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/the-proxy-war-coming-to-the-pacific/

   Reply
   • aj 8.1

     8 April 2025 at 6:28 pm

     Surely we need the tools to shoot down Chinese weather balloons….

     Reply
   • Scud 8.2

     8 April 2025 at 7:19 pm

     Even at 1.2% of GDP, the NZDF can't be effective at Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions like INTERFET back in 99 which the NZDF struggle to maintain the Raise Train & Sustain Battle Rhythm without cutting other areas of NZDF Budgeted operations, training & assistance etc.

     Then you have the increase need of the NZDF to HADR responses & remember the country is likely to face at 2 earthquakes in the next 20yrs of +8 magnitude! Even during the last 2 HADR's within NZ, the NZDF struggle to force generate the required personal & Equipment compared to Cyclone Bola back in the late 80's when the NZDF had the personal & equipment when the Defence Budget was around 2.5% and we didn't have the stupidity of Captial Charges either back then.

     The increasing need of the RNZAF & Naval to effectively patrol NZ Waters, those of Sth Pacific Nations EEZ & the Sth'ern Ocean/ Antarctic Oceans. Is going to require more ships and Aircraft and that before we even look a Unmanned aerial & surface vehicles

     Then we have the Army which is barely struggling to maintain the Raise Train & Sustain Battle Rhythm for both the Regular & Reserve Force.

     We once had over 10k effective Reserve's until the 90's, which was considered the bare minimum for not only for Warlike & Non Warlike Operations to provide backbone to the Regular Force Deployment under the Raise Train Sustain Battle Rhythm but also for HADR responses within NZ.

     Reply
     • Susie 8.2.1

       8 April 2025 at 8:02 pm

       Scud, the logic of what you say dovetails into a view of what is beneficial for us and the Pacific.

       But there is that thing about lethal force that gives me pause around the storyline behind all this. SLOCs, for sure. But seriously. a war with China? What kind of scenario is imagined, even with a fivefold increase in NZ military capability? From that point surely it looks like a classic John Pilger movie.

       Reply
       • Scud 8.2.1.1

         9 April 2025 at 12:58 am

         Because I've been there & bought the house with a free set of steak knives for when I go into a dark places that you wouldn't understand.

         I've done everything from

         -Warlike Operations ie the Sandpit

         Non Warlike Operations ie

         Op Astute which was Chapter 4 style Peacekeeping Misson

         Then we have a Chapter7 Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Mission aka INTERFET 99-00 the liberation of Timor Leste from Indonesia.

         Which had everything from Warlike, to Non Warlike- Law enforcement, COIN, & HADR.

         Had Two weeks in Sth Sudan, because UN Peacekeeping Misson almost collapsed which needed us Westerners to add some backbone to defend the Airport!

         And I thought I had seen everything in East Timor, until I seen rape used as wpn!

         I've lost 2 mates to Peacekeeping.

         One because a nation and its government choose to cut the Defence Budget by almost 25% in the 90's which those cuts are still being felt today.

         My mate was deployed on Ops even though his Battlegroup wasn't even fully worked & still issues in Training & working SOP's down to section level which stem back to the defence cuts of the 90's.

         The Australian's were still working from the INTERFET ROE, OFOF powers of detention, but NZG thought they knew better & refused the NZDF request to a line the NZ ROE with Australia's even though both Battlegroups were in the bad lands.

         So not only my was poorly prepared for Ops, but Govt was send him in the jungle along active border with active insurgents with faulty ROE more suited to urban Security than in the Jungle!

         He was a lead scout who ID the militia, his No2 failed to cover him while he verbally challenged them, the Militia went straight in a immediate Ambush & open fire!

         Lenny was KIA before he even got a shot off, has No2 failed in his duties a No2 Scout because he wasn't trained properly nor understood his role.

         With an NZG mandate ROE which wasn't fit for purpose before they even left NZ because the stupid NZG said you are a Chap5 UN Peacekeeping Mandate and you don't need a Chap7 Warlike ROE ie he who see's the enemy in the Jungle shoots 1st IOT bring overbearing firepower to win the firefight in the Jungle!

         Lenny tired to convince me to come over to the Darkside ie join the 2/1 Battalion and become his No2 as we 2 peas in a Pod when we were Tankies and Assualt Troopers Armoured Infantry in a Cav Troop and yes I was No2 Scout.

         My other mate was ex 2AFDS RAAF from INTERFET, who a early release from his 4yr Contract because we had done operational service. He was Australian Federal Police on a Chap 2 or 3 UN sanctioned Peacekeeping in the Solly's when he got shot in the back from a SLR from the Militia in a hit & run attack around Xmas time.

         But I should also mention the countless funerals I've been too or cutting down my FSGT at work when he committed suicide nor the funerals I couldn't attend.

         including a mate in CHCH who had a full life incl 2 Non Warlike Peacekeeping Deployment with the NZ Army & was heavily involved with the CHCH Earthquakes ie recovering people either injured or dead. He was later discharge from the Army on medical ground & later had a stroke, because of way the NZ Veterans Act is written! He was denied assistance and sent him over to ACC, ACC said you are an NZDF/ Veterans Affairs issue and back & forth he until he committed suicide a day before ANZAC Day of days?

         I have skin in this game because in a Realist from the left side of Politics when it comes to Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions to Warlike Ops & back Non Warlike to HADR.

         I'm not a airy fairy idealist who hasn't done a days Peacekeeping until most on the left especially here on the standards or over at Bombers blog. I once had romantic idealistic notions of Peacekeeping/ Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Missions, but reality struck me like a bad hangover from the baggies bar when I landed in East Timor back in Sep99 2 wks after Basic ADG Training.

         My notion of Peacekeeping got kicked into touch very quickly & it was the same for my cousin in 1 NZBATT as an Engineer who was the only sparky and believe it or not the only Engineer to have a full dive ticket! So while he wasn't doing his sparky thingy they sent him down drink wells too fish out bodies! Where as me I was digging them up around Dili some still fresh, some burnt, some old or somewhere in between.

         By now you have realised that I don't dress up my military service from NZ to the ADF like meat in a butcher shop. But tell as I see it, feel it & understand it from POV as an OR to SNCO and not some Silver Spoon twat from the Officer Corp but from the working class or whatever Soapy call us these days.

         When I say that NZDF/ MoD Budget should be around 2 to 2.5% of GDP, it's not some number that Judith or Luxon have pulled out of their respective ass! But from my experience on the ground as an OR/ SNCO.

         Because the war you are trying to avoid is the war you end up fight in weather want too or not.

         The other is-

         No one Peacekeeping or Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Mission is the same & in most cases you may start on a Chap3 Mission & suddenly up in a Chap7 Mission, but if your Govt & the public want to kit you out just for Chap3 Missions? Then the Troops are up shit creek & more likely to be coming home body bags!

         Then we train for Warlike Ops because it harder to Rise Train & Sustain the Battle Rhythm. Because it's easier to step down the Misson Scale than it is to climb the ladder from a Chap3 Table of Establishment to suddenly to a Warlike ToE/ Mission Scale.

         Anyway that's enough for me for tonight as I've taken my cocktail of pills to make me sleep instead of barking out orders & or doing fire & moment in the bed to crying for my lost mates or those I can't save.

         Reply
9. Jono 9

   8 April 2025 at 8:21 pm

   Just LOL at some of the George W Bush worshippers on here. For us or against us narrative thinking means zombie already. I could easily switch the narrative..here goes: NZ spends 9 million on being suckers for attacking and killing in some far off proxy war initially escalated by the United States to keep its Military Industrial Complex healthy by antagonizing some "enemy"..until it has no choice but to react.

   I wonder how the jan29 02 brainwashed respond?

   Reply
10. Res Publica 10

    8 April 2025 at 8:45 pm

    Just LOL at some of the tankies on here who are still trying to make a 25 year old burn somehow relevant and think its cool to warn us about the military-industrial complex like its a new thing.

    Nobody here is arguing we should start a war, amigo.

    Just that if one comes: which has become a great deal more likely, it would be good if we weren't reliant on politely asking our enemies to stop.

    Reply
    • KJT 10.1

      8 April 2025 at 9:36 pm

      Well. We will be reduced to that. Regardless of any possible amount of NZ military spending.

      As for relying on the USA……..

      Reply
      • Res Publica 10.1.1

        10 April 2025 at 10:15 am

        So, the answer is to give up entirely?

        Refuse to play any part, take no responsibility, and just sit back while the world burns: all so we can feel principled, safe, and smug?

        That’s not virtue. That’s cowardice masquerading as morality. It makes us worse than Trump. At least he throws a punch, even if it’s at shadows conjured by his own fevered imagination.

        New Zealand has never shied away when it mattered. We’ve stood up: not because it was easy, but because it was right.

        If we still believe in the values that define us, then we must stand up again. Now.

        Reply
        • KJT 10.1.1.1

          10 April 2025 at 11:39 am

          Talk about gas lighting. And lack of understanding of nuance.

          I've supported peace keeping forces and advocated for giving our forces the best equipment when/if we send them into harms way.

          Our responsibilities do not include joining in wars to keep US oil cheap, joining in the escalation towards WW3. Our responsibilities should be to advocate for a world where situations such as Ukraine, or Vietnam do not happen

          "Cowardice"?

          It is people I've trained, and my friends and workmates who will be dying in a war. We are more at risk than the armed forces. Though some will transfer to the Navy. I prefer that doesn't happen. But if it does no doubt I will be joining them as I have essential skills for a war.

          The most enthusiastic supporters of war, are always those who will be on the sidelines, making money.

          Reply
          • SPC 10.1.1.1.1

            10 April 2025 at 3:40 pm

            I've supported peace keeping forces and advocated for giving our forces the best equipment when/if we send them into harms way.

            If and when is too late.

            Any student of history would know that.

            Reply
11. Jono 11

    8 April 2025 at 8:46 pm

    Double post? Apologies..not sure how.

    Anyway..last to add:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_State_of_the_Union_Address

    Reply
    • Incognito 11.1

      8 April 2025 at 8:47 pm

      I just deleted the duplicate.

      Reply
    • KJT 11.2

      10 April 2025 at 11:07 am

      Talk about gas lighting. And lack of understanding of nuance.

      I've supported peace keeping forces and advocated for giving our forces the best equipment when/if we send them into harms way.

      Our responsibilities do not include joining in wars to keep US oil cheap, joining in the escalation towards WW3. Our responsibilities should be to advocate for a world where situations such as Ukraine, or Vietnam do not happen

      Reply
      • KJT 11.2.1

        10 April 2025 at 11:46 am

        Was reply to Res Publica. See above.

        Reply
12. Psycho Milt 12

    9 April 2025 at 8:09 pm

    I get that a lot of people hate the idea of spending money on having military capability, but Ukraine has recently been forced to give the world an illustration of the concept "You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you." We've been under-spending on defence for decades, it has to stop sometime.

    Reply
    • Scud 12.1

      9 April 2025 at 11:17 pm

      Nice to see someone quoting old Lenin here on the standard.

      Or this one-

      The War you are trying to avoid, is the war you end up in weather you like or not.

      Given the way the US Treasury Bonds are tonight, it has gone off like a can of instant Sunshine!

      To a point the USD could end up like the German Deutch Mark during the 1930's and finally everyone in the US becoming a instant Billionaire overnight LoL

      And the price Oil has sunk faster than a ExxonMobil Oil Tanker!

      Which probably means Some sort of Global Conflict isn't too far off atm and this DCP like every other will blow up in everyone's faces LoL.

      Reply
13. SPC 13

    10 April 2025 at 12:26 am

    If there was a war coming, this is not a plan to be ready for it.

    It is a base level capability for the 21st C (tech modernisation).

    Because this has to be sorted asp – beyond the replacement of some 20th C assets – ANZAC frigates (not fighter planes) a few decades back, the more recent surveillance plane and (belated) transport plane replacement – because things are changing around us.

    So we can partner with the other grown ups in the wider up trading world.

    Drones have all sorts of uses.

    https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/army/army-news/vector-scorpion-gives-army-new-edge-on-battlefield/

    Reply
    • Scud 13.1

      10 April 2025 at 12:46 am

      Beyond the horizon or Line of Sight, under less you have the necessary satellite band width, Base Stations & or Aircraft like the P8 or a Tier 2 MPA etc UVA's are just an expensive hanger queens.

      Heck even the so-called ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) are controlled by ASW MPA haven't been fully tested yet under a operational environment, so we don't even a baseline to know what they are capable of or if it actually works.

      So we have to resort back to what we know works, but NZDF critically lack mass (numbers) to be combat effective because of the so-called Peace Dividend from the massive Defence Cuts of the 90's. Even then we can only chase U Boats, but can't safety engage any type of surface Vessel be it a War Canoe or a Armed Merchant Raider which is likely to have some form of Air Defence Capability like a Close In Weapon System & or Short Range Surface to Air Missile defence system.

      Reply
      • SPC 13.1.1

        10 April 2025 at 2:46 am

        It's have, then train up, then interoperability in the field working with others – combined exercises. For us it's about being part of a team.

        Missile capability is in the wider plan.

        Drones as weaponry is part of that independent capability in the Pacific future.

        https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/04/07/govt-announces-huge-boost-to-defence-spending/

        https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/557573/there-should-always-be-a-human-in-charge-defence-minister-on-nzdf-s-killer-drones

        Reply
        • SPC 13.1.1.1

          10 April 2025 at 2:57 am

          The New Zealand Defence Force ordered an undisclosed number of Penguin Mk2 Mod 7 anti-ship missiles from Kongsberg in 2013 to replace its AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles.

          One of the missiles was only fired more than 10 years later because it had to undergo a re-motoring program, referring to upgrades in the missile's rocket motor, which was scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2024.

          https://thedefensepost.com/2025/02/19/new-zealand-penguin-missile/

          Reply
          • Scud 13.1.1.1.1

            10 April 2025 at 12:10 pm

            The Penguin ASM's actually came with the ex RAN Seasprites which along with automated FMS & the stupid 2 man Crew policy which cause of so many problems the RAN before it was finally ditch by Australia.

            Yes it nice to finally see the NZDF getting in the UAV business after fits & starts. But some Army units like QAMR, saw members privately purchasing their own COTS UAV's to provide Battlefield ISR. But for the bigger UAV's it requires alot of infrastructure & especially the necessary satellite band width to get the full benefits.

            Reply
    • KJT 13.2

      10 April 2025 at 6:30 am

      "Dick waving" is not "grown up".

      It is what immature teenagers with small penis anxiety, do!

      Reply
      • SPC 13.2.1

        10 April 2025 at 7:38 am

        That sort of denigration of being in it together as per collective security and trading relationships is Trumplike.

        Reply
        • KJT 13.2.1.1

          10 April 2025 at 8:04 am

          Utter bullshit.

          Grow up.

          You may have noticed what is happening to the shares, in manufacturing means of dis-membering children, as Trump pushes for increases in arms spending.

          Reply
          • Res Publica 13.2.1.1.1

            10 April 2025 at 10:24 am

            While you're busy lobbing cheap jabs, some of us are actually trying to have a serious conversation about geopolitics.

            One that acknowledges complexity, responsibility, and the real-world consequences of inaction.

            If you’re not ready for that, maybe take a step back and let the adults talk.

            Reply
            • KJT 13.2.1.1.1.1

              10 April 2025 at 10:40 am

              I am having a serious conversation.

              While jingos and those who haven't studied history. Pontificate!

              I note the enthusiasm for ever greater bangs comes mostly from people who have never led anyone in a risky endeavour.

              If we are going to send people into harms way we should pay, equip and support them as best we can. But we should question whether we are sending them to prevent war, or add fuel to a fire we would best keep out of.

              That is a different story from joining enthusiastically in with the current, baby killers, de jour. Whether it is Putin, Trump, Netanyahu or Saudi Arabia.

              Helen Clark was correct in keeping us out of US imperialism.

              Are we at war with Eastasia or West Asia, this week?

              Reply
              • Res Publica …

                10 April 2025 at 11:26 am

                Oof. A reference to Orwell. How devastating. I guess you win. shrug

                I don’t think anyone — even Judith Collins (talofa!) — is suggesting we jump into the Houthi or Israel-Palestinian conflicts, except perhaps under a UN peacekeeping mandate.

                I’m genuinely puzzled by your argument.

                What kind of defence spending would satisfy your desire to avoid US imperialism while still ensuring we give our soldiers, sailors, and aircrew the capabilities to do their jobs in an increasingly unstable world — one where people with more guns and fewer scruples may wish them ill?

                Or is this just another round of “US bad, so military bad”? Would you feel better if we bought Chinese or Russian hardware instead?

                Reply
                • KJT …

                  10 April 2025 at 11:48 am

                  I don't participate in the USA bad, China good or visa versa.

                  I leave that to the jingos.

                  No amount of money we spend on fancy bang sticks will protect us if, say China, decides to invade. Looking after our services properly gives us the capability to participate credibly in peacekeeping and disaster assistance.

                  More sustainable Energy self sufficiency removes us from the oil wars.

                  Probably get more reliable and cheaper equipment from China? Sarc.

                  It is almost comical that the Coalition of Cockups who think a third world war with China is a realistic scenario are the same people busily selling us to the same country for their own profit.

                  Reply
                  • Res Publica …

                    10 April 2025 at 12:33 pm

                    I’m not sure who you think you’re arguing with, because it sure as hell isn’t me.

                    All I’ve said is that reflexive opposition to any increase in defence spending is hollow, unrealistic, and unhelpful. What I’m calling for is a serious, grown-up reassessment of what capabilities we actually need — not more jingoism, and not hand-waving pacifism either.

                    Nobody’s suggesting New Zealand is preparing to go to war with China. What is being said — and should be taken seriously — is that China’s growing assertiveness, strategic muscularity, and willingness to push right to the edges of international law, combined with sustained military investment and increasing unpredictability from the US, is raising the risk of conflict in our region.

                    If that happens, we need to be ready to play our part: not as aggressors, but as credible, reliable partners alongside our friends and allies.

                    We're not buying “bang sticks” for the sake of it. We're making sure that, in a crisis, we’re not the weak link in the chain.

                    Reply
                    • KJT …

                      10 April 2025 at 4:42 pm

                      . it's clear that the emphasis across the document is definitely on high-tech war fighting capabilities."

                      New Zealand has joined the arms race – law professor | RNZ News

                      In the meantime, armed forces wages, housing recruitment and training, as well as support staff has been cut.

                      More "bang sticks" and less people capability.
                  • Drowsy M. Kram …

                    10 April 2025 at 3:27 pm

                    I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

                    Difficult to know if military investment increases the risk of conflict – maybe China’s (bad) investment does and NZ’s (good) investment doesn’t?

                    Anyway, I'm with you – the primary goal of NZ defence funding (which will come, in part, from NZ's trade surplus with China) should be to ensure our military forces have the capability to participate credibly in peacekeeping and disaster assistance.

                    I do worry about the idea that 'we' need a WWIII to sort everything out "once and for all" – only when all potential foes have been eliminated will we be truly safe.

                    Multi-billion dollar Defence plan unveiled [7 Apr 2025]
                    The 2025 Defence Capability Plan outlines indicative investments to ensure the NZDF is:

                    • Combat capable with enhanced lethality and deterrent effect

                    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/557457/new-zealand-has-joined-the-arms-race-law-professor

                    Reply
            • KJT 13.2.1.1.1.2

              10 April 2025 at 10:56 am

              Adults, wouldn't be so keen on sleepwalking us into WW3, which nobody can win.

              I suppose it will keep arms manufacturers rich, the US economy stimulated, and distract us from the theft of our commons, and the increasing dictatorship of Oligarchs, until we all vanish in a nuclear cloud or die of heatstroke.

              The biggest threat to NZ at present is energy sufficiency. 12 billion would go a long way towards import substitution with sustainable energy. Removing us from the oil hegemony.

              Reply
          • SPC 13.2.1.1.2

            10 April 2025 at 3:44 pm

            You are the one not debating maturely.

            And that is, Trumplike.

            Reply
            • KJT 13.2.1.1.2.1

              11 April 2025 at 8:25 am

              Advocating marching like lemmings in lockstep with a USA, run by dangerous idiots, towards a war that no one can win is "mature" FFS.

              Reply
              • SPC …

                11 April 2025 at 11:51 am

                Strawman, what of my posts are you replying to?

                Reply
14. SPC 14

    10 April 2025 at 4:54 pm

    To have a 21st C defence force, which is what this is about – also requires people.

    There has been a longstanding difficulty retaining them.

    One cannot have a defence force, or health system, without sufficient trained people.

    https://www.missionhomefront.co.nz/

    Reply
15. SPC 15

    10 April 2025 at 4:58 pm

    The wider issue is how to do 2 things at the same time.

    One does not fund an increase in defence from operational spending without consequence.

    Has the C of C not noticed, how Germany and the UK are funding their defence spending increase? Are they not paying attention?

    A defence of our "democratic" multilateral collective security civilisation does not come from undermining the well being our society.

    Reply
    • aj 15.1

      10 April 2025 at 5:29 pm

      If we need to pay more for defence the last people who should pay for it are those most dependent on the state. It’s the richest who should be covering the cost.

      Richard Murphy: a short video from a UK perspective but fully applicable to us as well.

      https://youtu.be/D8vt7hXlqZM?si=MjN00woGlXP2Kaz3

      Reply
      • SPC 15.1.1

        10 April 2025 at 5:47 pm

        They want to spend up to 20 billion more on defence.

        Apply a 2% tax on assets over £10 million, to raise up to £24 billion a year

        Reform the Capital Gains Tax system through increasing rates and closing loopholes, to raise around £12 billion a year

        Apply National Insurance to investment income, raising up to £10.2 billion a year

        They can do that and end their austerity regime if they choose to.

        https://patrioticmillionaires.uk/latest-news/policy-recommendations-2025

        Reply
        • aj 15.1.1.1

          10 April 2025 at 6:36 pm

          Yes. There is plenty of money. There is not the political will to do it.

          Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS