Climate Change and the New Zealand Defence Forces

Written By: advantage - Date published: 8:00 am, January 12th, 2018 - 74 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, global warming, greens, jacinda ardern, labour, Politics, war - Tags:

It’s always bugged me that our military forces are under-used in New Zealand. It’s time we invited them to protect us from climate change.

They are the only public sector entity in this country with the capacity to do much about it.

They are extremely horizontally integrated, with one Commander Joint Forces, one Defence Shared Services across all of them, and a really clear overall structure.

They have between them over 2,000 sailors, 7,000 troops, and 2,500 in the air force.

We’ve often wondered what it would be like to react as a nation to climate change as we did to the threat of World War Two in the Pacific. The Pacific itself is now the threat.

So, James Shaw, here’s your chance. Hire them.

But you can’t just stick Lieutenant James Keating on the Climate Commission. Oh no. To get your mitts on all that beautiful, equipped, motivated, loyal, logistically streamlined, highly trained and focussed set of organisations, you would need to do some work.

You would have to invite NZDF and MoD together to describe climate change as a threat to national security. As a Rand Corporation report on NATO, climate change, and international security states:

In the case of nuclear weapons, terrorism, and cyber issues, each offers more uncertainty than climate change … If the attitude to risk of the climate change deniers were transposed to other areas of national security, then we would have to wait until there was a certainty that terrorists would acquire nuclear weapons before taking action or to wait until there was a certainty that the Russians would invade the Baltics before deploying forces to deter them.”

Our defence establishment can play an important role in providing hard-headed calculation of risks to New Zealand, including about climate, to public debate.

The last Defence White Paper would probably need to be revisited.

Our armed forces are also the one institution that retains the confidence and respect of the great majority of New Zealanders, and political parties.

That proposal will of course be hard for the Greens, who want to constrain our service men and women to “peacekeeping, search and rescue, disaster relief, and fisheries protection”, without any frigates.

To make it a little easier, what James could do is expand on the Green purpose of the NZDF of “the provision of peace, justice, and the environment.”

All too many in the hard left have an aversion to recognising the legitimacy represented within the defence establishment of national security issues, national interests, and nationalism as mobilising forces. But this government’s climate policy was not written for citizens of the world. It was written for New Zealand as a nation-state with the legitimacy to implement national policy with national citizens. You may think globally, but you act locally.

Bringing NZDF as a key agent within climate change, both in policy expressing climate change as a risk to national security, and in programme work to mitigate against it, has some other advantages:

It would give Ron Mark something to do other than pissing all the generals off.

It would be a National show-stopper: the right can’t ever criticise the armed forces about anything.

It would also lighten the load of the agency currently most at the front line of climate change: NZTA. Minister Twyford will shortly have them fully in harness lowering transport emissions from road to rail.

The political and policy link Shaw needs to make, however, is not with transport. The real breadcrumb trail is from climate change, to nation-state instability, to immigration. That doesn’t just wake up our commanders of border security. It wakes up Australia.

The NZDF, our greatest and most respected public entity, deserve a real and fresh role in New Zealand. They are a proud institution and this government can help them stay proud. By comparing climate change to the threat of nuclear war, our Prime Minister has already signalled it as a national security issue.

With that national security threat clear from the top, it’s time for the armed forces to step in.

74 comments on “Climate Change and the New Zealand Defence Forces ”

Comments are now closed

Sanctuary 1

12 January 2018 at 8:20 am

“…The NZDF, our greatest and most respected public entity,..”

Is it?

The professional NZ military have largely always been a bit of a joke IMHO. The professional military in NZ history has invariable been ridiculously conservative and not particularly competent.

The army we all think about (when we think about the military at all, which thankfully we don’t very often) as “our” army are the two great expeditionary forces of the Great War and World War Two, which were not professional at all, but rather a citizen militia made up of conscripted civilians in uniform for the duration.

To your point, routinely using the military, which is equipped and trained to a high standard to fight wars and defend our home islands from our enemies, in roles for which it is neither trained or equipped or inclined towards is an enormously inefficient use of resources.

We would be far better off siphoning a swag of money away from the defense budget and into a new dedicated organisation to create a civilian controlled, uniformed ranger & coast guard service with the resources to holistically tackle climate change, conservation, maritime protection, SAR, etc.
- Draco T Bastard 1.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 11:20 am
  
  We would be far better off siphoning a swag of money away from the defense budget and into a new dedicated organisation to create a civilian controlled, uniformed ranger & coast guard service with the resources to holistically tackle climate change, conservation, maritime protection, SAR, etc.
  
  Nope. Would be better off increasing the defence budget so that they’re capable of carrying out their role.
  
  And then possibly also budget for a full civilian coastguard. Of course, coastguards that do as you say are invariably well armed with ships of corvette class or bigger.
  - chris73 1.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 1:49 pm
    
    You’re on fire this morning
    - Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 1:49 pm
      
      And you’re trolling.
      - chris73 1.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:53 pm
        
        Which would make me the worst troller ever since I happen to be agreeing with you on this
        
        Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 2:02 pm
        
        Ah, sorry.
        
        chris73 …
        
        12 January 2018 at 2:06 pm
        
        No worries, its a surprise to me as well
  - Cemetery Jones 1.1.2
    
    12 January 2018 at 2:17 pm
    
    I actually really value the stuff you have to say about the military. Totally agree re. naval reform! If you look at the direction the Russians are going with the Steregushchiy class corvettes, we can definitely get good bang for buck if we design smart and multipurpose!
    
    I’d also be adding some aviation, however unpopular the notion may be. At least two Swedish Saab Grippen squadrons as well as a couple of Brazilian turboprop Super Tucanos as dual purpose trainers/low-altitude support platforms in the manner the Afghan Kabul government has them.
  - millsy 1.1.3
    
    13 January 2018 at 11:42 am
    
    I personally would have the Fire and Ambulance service integrated into the NZDF. Maybe as part of the TF, so the voluntary aspect can be preserved. Same with rescue choppers and air ambulances.
    
    The Paris and and Tokyo Fire brigades are are part of thier respective armed forces.
    - Sam 1.1.3.1
      
      13 January 2018 at 12:18 pm
      
      Well if we’re putting wishes on list I go for a combat search & rescue, naval escort, maritime strike, humanitarian & disaster relief, peacekeeping, EEZ patrol, counter insurgency, cyber security. Probably about $25 billion recapitalisation so about $5 billion more than the CAPEX is set at, and about $2 billion annual operating budget and start exporting technology to the Pacific Isles and create a protection racket.
- Ed 1.2
  
  12 January 2018 at 12:21 pm
  
  “…The NZDF, our greatest and most respected public entity,..”
  
  After the events of Aghanistan, I beg to differ.
  - chris73 1.2.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 1:47 pm
    
    And you’d be wrong, again
Stunned Mullet 2

12 January 2018 at 9:12 am

😆
- Ad 2.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 9:49 am
  
  😉
Stuart Munro 3

12 January 2018 at 9:26 am

The frigates were a poor fisheries protection option, they obtained relatively few prosecutions at high cost – the patrol vessels are better suited – though the toothfish fishery requires a longer range weather and ice resistant option of some description.

Diverting most of the military to a long term issue like climate change might degrade their capacity, though increased preparations to relieve disastrous related events like cyclones or floods would be realistic deployment exercises. A scenario where a major NZ town lost potable water, fuel supplies, and contaminated its swimming beaches with untreated sewage seems a pretty credible threat these days.
red-blooded 4

12 January 2018 at 9:44 am

This is a really interesting post, Ad. Thanks for an innovative suggestion, clearly reasoned through.

I have reservations about our military, although I admit that I haven’t made a study of them.

They can’t possibly defend NZ against any creditable threat from another nation although I guess that’s why we have alliances, joint training, shared missions etc.

I’m at heart a peacenik, although I realise that in the real world sometimes that’s not a viable position. I do think that our military have been involved in some conflicts and some roles that I’m uncomfortable with, and of course I wish they’d own up to mistakes more readily (think Hit and Run).

They’re still very male-centred and it seems to be much harder for a woman to make her career in the defence force or to progress on to leadership roles. I’d hazard a guess that there’s still a lot of homophobia there, too.

The defence force seems to soak up working class guys, especially Māori and Pasifica men, who often seem to be in the frontline roles.

So… I guess I naturally sympathise with the Greens when it comes to my view of the defence force. Having said that, I accept that they do a really good job in times of disaster and that disciplined structure comes to the fore at such times. They were wonderful in Kaikoura and ChCh after the quakes, for example. I suppose I can see that the definition of “natural disaster” could conceivably include climate change. After all, it doesn’t have to be sudden in order to be a disaster, surely?

Definitely something to think about.
- Draco T Bastard 4.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 11:31 am
  
  I have reservations about our military, although I admit that I haven’t made a study of them.
  
  The biggest problem with our military is that they’ve always been seriously under-funded with the result that they don’t have the gear and personnel that they need.
  - chris73 4.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 1:43 pm
    
    Bloody hell, is this April 1st? Something we both agree on
    - Ad 4.1.1.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 2:34 pm
      
      I just knew this post was going to bring everyone together.
      Young and old, left and right, north and south, I could feel it. 🙂
      - chris73 4.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 2:40 pm
        
        It does get people engaged thats for sure
- Ad 4.2
  
  12 January 2018 at 11:33 am
  
  Just pushing a boat out about the horizontal scale and latent agency of the remaining public realm.
  
  I mean seriously, I’d pay god money just to be in the room and see Shaw raise it with Peters.
  
  With the scale of floods to come particularly in Thames-Coromandel and Bay of Plenty, we need a fleet of army graders more than we need a fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles. Councils are only good for setting up welfare agencies these days.
  
  http://www.dw.com/en/act-now-to-protect-millions-from-floods-study/a-42110153
  
  Plus, the Defence Forces have some awesome land acquisition powers, which would really help small towns abandon non-viable coastal enclaves.
  - Draco T Bastard 4.2.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 12:30 pm
    
    …we need a fleet of army graders more than we need a fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles.
    
    http://www.army.mil.nz/our-capability/operational-vehicles/nz-lav.htm
    
    …seven of the 102 IMV’s come equipped with an earth moving blade allowing it to be used for light engineering tasks.
    
    Plus, the Defence Forces have some awesome land acquisition powers,
    
    The defence forces don’t have that power – the government does.
  - Exkiwiforces 4.2.2
    
    12 January 2018 at 1:28 pm
    
    The reason why we have so many LAV’s is because the then Chief of Army ( The Dobson and Jerry show) had agenda at the time, which in turn blew in their faces and did a shit load of damage to the whole NZDF.
    - Ad 4.2.2.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 1:41 pm
      
      Ex, I hope you didn’t take the post as a critique of the NZDF. It’s not at all intended that way. More the opposite.
      - Exkiwiforces 4.2.2.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 2:35 pm
        
        No I didn’t Ad and i’m sorry if my reply did.
        
        I was at a Reunion in late Nov and during the semi formal dinner I was sitting next to the project manager for the AFV replacement program and the former Deputy Head of Army of Operations or future Plans/ Operations (can’t remember now) and we taking about Bushmaster opeations and the new Hawkei Vehicle here in Oz. Dobson and Jerry show have got a lot to answer for in light of past, current and possible future operations.
    - Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.2
      
      12 January 2018 at 1:54 pm
      
      One of the reasons why I agree with the Greens with a review of Defence force equipment review. Although I’m pretty sure that such a review would bring about a different result from what most of the Greens would expect.
tc 5

12 January 2018 at 9:44 am

“They are the only public sector entity in this country with the capacity to do much about it.” Nailed it Ad

They should be equipped to do it properly as we’ve seen councils lack the resources to deal with the types of events which can impact a few of them at once.
- Stunned Mullet 5.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 9:52 am
  
  “They should be equipped to do it properly as we’ve seen councils lack the resources to deal with the types of events which can impact a few of them at once.”
  
  The NZ Navy/naval base at Devonport is one or the largest troughs in the country, the amount of time servers, rorters and outright crooks that have been through their doors and gorged on their subsidies over the years is the stuff of legend on the Northshore.
  - Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 11:31 am
    
    And is probably all bunkum.
    - Stunned Mullet 5.1.1.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 1:36 pm
      
      To be fair when it comes to the subject of bunkum we must all defer to your years of expertise in the field.
      - Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:56 pm
        
        It’s pretty much a given that the Northshore has absolutely NFI WTF goes on in the naval base.
        
        Stunned Mullet 5.1.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 2:02 pm
        
        They are the second largest employer/contractee on the North Shore people on the North Shore and indeed anyone with naval base contacts have a very good insight into the goings on at the naval base.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        12 January 2018 at 7:48 pm
        
        No, really, they don’t. Even the majority of people who work there don’t have a friggen clue. That’s part of the problem of hierarchies. The people at the bottom don’t know and yet they’re ones also complaining about bad things.
Bill 6

12 January 2018 at 10:52 am

You already know I’m supportive of this.

But I’m not so sure you aren’t slipping over into some form of militarism there Ad when you propose they be charged with the provision of peace, justice, and the environment.

A small tweaking of what disaster relief might mean (as per current Green Party preferences) would suffice to set them to it.

Here’s a sticking point or two.

This country is pretty well market dominated and that amount of direct government activity in the economy, no matter how sensible and necessary it might be, would be a hard sell and come up against very entrenched and powerful interests (possibly international as well as domestic).

That, and the government would finally be admitting to the serious depth of the shit we’re in. And if there has been one consistent signal from governments of all hues in all wealthy nations these past 30 years, it’s that everything is somehow in hand – or soon to be in hand – and so people should just complacently carry on carrying on.

If government is to suddenly acknowledge that was all bullshit (that was all bullshit), what then? I’d envisage quite large consequences or serious fall out from that admission. Not a bad thing in itself in my book, but y’know….
- Ad 6.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 11:13 am
  
  That purpose is already Green Party policy, in those words:
  
  https://www.greens.org.nz/page/defence-and-peacekeeping-policy
  
  Don’t worry Bill there’s no chance it will happen.
  
  The post is just a way of reminding that the state needs more horizontal coordination to respond well, and there are some institutions already geared to do this.
  
  I didn’t bother for example to get into the Ministry of Civil Defence, or MoE.
  
  I’m not expecting major structural moves from this government unless they get a second term. Sure ain’t no threat of the state crowding out the economy in this country.
  - Bill 6.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 11:33 am
    
    I read “promotion and protection” as different to “the provision of”. The latter lacking any sense of accountability to me.
    
    That aside, sure, it won’t happen. Nothing even close to it will happen. (Maybe when we’re reeling under impacts, but that’ll be a different and altogether more oppressive scenario.)
    
    Meanwhile, we’re stuck with society’s concentrations of power (political and otherwise) eagerly and hopelessly bent to extending the shelf life of capitalism.
    
    But does that mean ideas shouldn’t be flung out there and discussed? No.
roy cartland 7

12 January 2018 at 11:00 am

And we could incorporate a citizen’s ‘home guard’ or other nomenclature in which everyone takes part – a non-military, mandatory civil service for a couple of weeks a year. Like they do in other countries but, you know, without the guns.

If every single citizen had a task to do – tree planting, recycling, beach-cleanup, state-home repair, riparian planting, possum/wasp control – what a sense of inclusion that would provide. Of course millionaires would scoff at the idea of people ‘working together’, but it could really be the catalyst for a new utopia.
- Stunned Mullet 7.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 11:32 am
  
  Let’s start with the un(der)employed.
  - roy cartland 7.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 11:47 am
    
    And presumably the ‘pointlessly employed’ as per this article:
    
    https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
    
    “…private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs…”
    - Stunned Mullet 7.1.1.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 11:59 am
      
      Sure if they’re being paid for by the public coin (state services, councils).
      - Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 12:31 pm
        
        They’re always being paid for by the public. Where else do you think businesses get money from?
        
        Stunned Mullet 7.1.1.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:36 pm
        
        🙄
      - roy cartland 7.1.1.1.2
        
        12 January 2018 at 12:37 pm
        
        Snap Draco. And don’t they all use public resources?
        
        Stunned Mullet 7.1.1.1.2.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:37 pm
        
        …and don’t they all play their personal and business taxes for the use of those public resources ?
        
        Stuart Munro …
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:40 pm
        
        Pretty much – playing their taxes instead of paying them. Nice Freudian slip.
        
        Stunned Mullet …
        
        12 January 2018 at 1:50 pm
        
        No freudian slip just parroting the usual lines go to lines for DTB and his ilk.
        
        …..we can’t afford the rich, nationalise everything, we can manufacture everythin we need locally etc etc..
- mikes 7.2
  
  12 January 2018 at 5:18 pm
  
  You mean like…..conscription? Being forced to do things rarely provides a sense of inclusion. What would the penalties be for non-compliance. I’m assuming taxpayers or employers would foot the bill for the extra two weeks off work? You’re joking of course though….?
roy cartland 8

12 January 2018 at 11:01 am

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_titley_how_the_military_fights_climate_change
Draco T Bastard 9

12 January 2018 at 11:10 am

That proposal will of course be hard for the Greens, who want to constrain our service men and women to “peacekeeping, search and rescue, disaster relief, and fisheries protection”, without any frigates.

The Greens say that they want the Defence Forces to do what you want. They also say that they want a full review of the gear used so that it can be more appropriate to the tasks at hand. Interestingly enough, IMO, to do what they want to do (especially in regards to our Pacific neighbours) would probably require an upgrade to destroyer class ships and more of them.

Getting rid of the frigates is pure ideology. To a lot of people the frigates represent an expensive, violent, force projection that needs to be constrained and removed.

The overall goals of their policy I agree with and, yes, bring in Climate Change to their role (every other nation’s defence forces already do) but it’s been written by someone who obviously doesn’t know WTF they’re talking about.

With that national security threat clear from the top, it’s time for the armed forces to step in.

With national security on top we should do what the US does – and make it illegal to use offshore weapons parts. Not being able to produce our own is a national security issue and being able to do so would do wonders for our manufacturing and R&D.
- Exkiwiforces 9.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 2:10 pm
  
  DTB is right on the money with this comment.
  
  “Getting rid of the frigates is pure ideology. To a lot of people the frigates represent an expensive, violent, force projection that needs to be constrained and removed.”
  
  The Greens seem to forget that RNZN deploy Frigates to East Timor during INTERFET and later during the UN Peacekeeping OP that follow after INTERFET.
  The roles of the RNZN Frigates was to provide the following as required:
  Naval Gunfire Support for the Infantry
  Point Air defence
  Support the Army in case Comms, Control and Command (C3) if Land based HQ’s were compromise,
  Convoy protection of the Sea bridge from Darwin to ET aka Air Defence, Anti Surface Warfare and Anti Sub Warfare. The old Type 12 Frigate (Canterbury) twice tracked and attack a TNI Sub via Non Lethal means (using active sonar in other words pinged it to death, but at any stage it could’ve sunk if it wanted too.) and
  To protect and uphold East Timor’s Territorial Waters and Sovereignty.
  
  The Greens also against the RNZN having a Fleet Replenishment Ship and Landing Platform Dock Ship (LPD). A LPD Ship has a docking well inside the Ship for Landing Craft which in enables the Ship to shore transfers/ loading and unloading up to Sea State 6. Which would very useful around the NZ especially on the West Coast (when the Alpine Fault line ruptures) as there is only 3 sheltered places where the Navy can to do Ship to shore transfers if it had a LPD as the current Landing Ship can only do Ship to shore transfers up to Sea State 1. The last earthquake in the Kaikoura the Canterbury had to move around from North Bay to South Bay and back a few times due to the sea state and wind. It won’t be able to do that on the coast and probably not at Wellington as well.
- Cemetery Jones 9.2
  
  12 January 2018 at 2:27 pm
  
  I don’t know how the IP would work, but the German HK416 seems to be a pretty superior iteration of the AR15 platform. Or doing it from scratch, the new Turkish infantry rifle in NATO 7.62 looks pretty sharp – and that’s replacing their old G3s, which means Germany can probably kiss goodbye a tidy export earner.
  
  And I do remember hearing that the Hillside Railworks was knocking out Stens by the end of WW2. Granted that was one of the simplest firearms ever, but surely we could start with some kind of indigenous small arms development and go from there. Even if we had to licence a foreign design but make our own it would be a great start.
  - McFlock 9.2.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 4:48 pm
    
    I read recently that the 416 has been adopted by the USMC as the M25.
    And of course it’s made in the USA under license.
    
    But then the cautionary tale for doing it from scratch is the Indian Insas rifle – defective in a multitude of ways when introduced, and expensive.
    - Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.1
      
      12 January 2018 at 6:01 pm
      
      There is such a thing as taking caution too far and simply using it as an excuse not to do what needs to be done.
      
      NZ excels in doing just that though.
      - McFlock 9.2.1.1.1
        
        12 January 2018 at 7:33 pm
        
        Funny how “Insas” sounds like “INCIS”.
    - Cemetery Jones 9.2.1.2
      
      17 January 2018 at 5:07 pm
      
      Interesting, I hadn’t read about the Insas before (your INCIS reference is very pertinent). Sounds even worst than the issues with the SA80/L85. Plus the Kargil War would have been a gnarly time/place to be relying on a problematic new and unproven weapons system.
Rewa Miller 10

12 January 2018 at 12:17 pm

Rachel Stewart says it perfectly here – from a few weeks back. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11943870
- Ad 10.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 2:31 pm
  
  NZDF can do more than rescue a few whales.
  
  The White House has instructed the Pentagon not to include direct references to climate change in its threat assessments.
Keepcalmcarryon 11

12 January 2018 at 1:38 pm

A true story from a recent earthquake.
Army truck pulls up at rural address, male farmer has been evacuated for health reasons. Female farmer ( wife) is assessing house damage.
Officer in charge “ how can we help”
Farmer “ awesome thanks guys can you get rid of those chimney bricks”
officer ( shuffles feet awkwardly) “ sorry we don’t have dust masks we aren’t allowed to”
Farmer “ well f:.%k off then”
chris73 12

12 January 2018 at 1:58 pm

This isn’t something the NZDF should be fully concentrating on, like yes if in the area or requested by government then sure help out but this sounds quite…nebulous

Can you give an example of how this might work?
- Ad 12.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 2:48 pm
  
  I would be pretty loathe to be proposing programmes for the NZDF, but a few random thoughts from this line in the post:
  
  “Bringing NZDF as a key agent within climate change, both in policy expressing climate change as a risk to national security, and in programme work to mitigate against it…”
  
  The first part of that is the policy thinking in “policy expressing climate change as a risk to national security” means re-tooling the White Paper. That would mean a bit more input from Civil Defence, MfE, border security agencies, Australian military strategists and climate specialists, and as indicated joining the dots between climate change, small state stability, and immigration. Lay the actual policy settings, from which programmes evolve.
  
  The second part , out of that foundation of thinking, is the actual programmes based on climate impact risk. Thames-Coromandel, Bay of Plenty, and Gisborne would be places that need a whole bunch more plant and personnel ready to deploy in emergencies. Maybe even consider bulk buying of fridges and washing machines to get households back up and running.
  
  As noted, might also want to look at using the NZDF land acquisition powers to buy out uninhabitable or uninsurable coastal or estuarine properties and accelerate appropriate retrreat from the shorelines. NZDF could certainly do with more practice on marine landings and evacuations – a whole bunch more use than their subalpine bases in the m ddle of the North Island.
  
  There’s plenty to do.
  - Sam 12.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 3:17 pm
    
    Something that has been on my mind in the last 2 months, give or take, is the speed at which Bill is traveling right now…
    
    The Greens defence policy is about 200 years to early and billions of dollars too short. It would be nice to have operating environments that didn’t require high end war fighting abilities, at least it would be nice.
    
    New Zealand spends about $170k per service person, per year. That pays for training, food, wages, equipment, maintenance/health, subsidies. When you consider grader operators, for example, can be trained for less than $5k, and a starting wage of $18 then you should be able to spot the allocation of resources pretty quick. Your typical rain event now a days require about 2000 truckloads of wast to be removed, and this is payed for be council typically at heavily discounted rates. So it’s a drain on the industry. So something like doubling the armies vehicle fleet from about 200 to 400 would probably be prudent so we can tuck a bit of performance away for when economic performance drops in the future.
    
    The Navy reserves will be restructured as per NZFirst defence policy to perform chemical and biological clean up at sea. And again there are limits to what civilian personal and equipment can perform because there are little financial justification for dive vessels, or underwater survey vessels to operate beyond 30ks off shore, because there are no economically viable resources off shore, and if there are we usually contract those extraction models out to foreigners.
    
    So there are places where defence personal can go that civilians can not. And there are places where civilians can go the defence personal should not, and we shouldn’t confuse the two.
Exkiwiforces 13

12 January 2018 at 2:23 pm

Ad,

I’ll reply your Post and to The Fielding Rattler questions from a couple of days ago. As I need my laptop as it has more info than my wee IPad. It will be quite long I’m afraid and need to down load the Greens Defence Policy as I’m full bottle with it. I only look at the NZF and Labours. Nationals is all smoke and mirrors and after what they did to NZDF in 90’s and the last term in office is plain B/S.

Hope to provide some Questions and Answers with some links. Maybe some solutions as well and likely costs.

I could do a IMAP and CONOPs brief, but that might be going a wee bit overboard for some
- Ad 13.1
  
  12 January 2018 at 2:35 pm
  
  Just you go for it Ex.
  - Exkiwiforces 13.1.1
    
    12 January 2018 at 4:43 pm
    
    Cheers Ad,
    
    I look forward to adding more to this discussion/ thread and I hope to get asked a few questions as well about Peacekeeping, why the need to maintain a war fighting role, planning/ operational planning, etc.
    My reply should be drafted over the weekend if not sooner depending the weather as our wet season been a stop start affair this year unlike last. For everyone’s information the Northern Territory weather for 2017 has driest/ hottest dry season on record and we had the 2nd wettest wet season on record, but only one and a bit cyclones (there is some debate on weather the 2nd should’ve been classed as one).
    
    Anyway I will leave Rt Hon Ron Marks article Dated 28 Dec 17 here for everyone to read.
    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/12/21/70663/defence-minister-plots-a-war-on-climate-change
patricia bremner 14

12 January 2018 at 5:40 pm

In Australia there is a force who turns up to disasters to fill and distribute sand bags in floods, clean up after etc. I think more of this would be good, and to co-ordinate local efforts in bridge building, road clearing an bringing in supplies. We are going to need a force to deal with future events and a co-ordinated response. This runs along side full training I understand.
- Exkiwiforces 14.1
  
  20 January 2018 at 5:52 pm
  
  The Force you are referring to is called the State Emergency Services (SES) or in the NT its called NTES. The SES/ NTES have a mix of Fulltime and volunteer’s depending what state or territory you live in. They also have the power to request ADF support via the States or Territorial Governments would be either the local Army/ RAAF Reserves or the Regular Forces. The Police can called them out to help for SAR
  
  They conduct training in blocks over a week long, one night a week and usually a weekend every month from High Ropes, Swift Water Rescue, Searching and aid in Bush fire support if required in Evac centres, supply food to the firies etc.
beatie 15

12 January 2018 at 8:36 pm

In October 2017 we had a military exercise on the West Coast

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1710/S00015/why-are-military-exercises-being-held-in-local-communities.htm

These exercises were designed to quell civilian unrest in a fictitious place called ‘Becara”. Some here think it was linked to recent moves to aerial survey South Westland and Fiordland for various minerals.

They had an exercise at my local beach and they were so well set up, no scrimping and saving for them. On the same beach is the old Greymouth dump. It was built on coastal wetlands and now the sea is seriously undermining it. Apparently the local council can’t afford to fix it. There’s all sorts of toxic shit in there, asbestos, chemicals, radioactive waste from the hospital etc, etc. After a bit of pressure the GDC has cleaned up the visible rubbish.

My point is that there is plenty of money for an exercise designed to quell ‘civilian unrest’, but none for cleaning up toxic waste sites.
- Exkiwiforces 15.1
  
  20 January 2018 at 6:32 pm
  
  The reason the NZDF and the Whole of NZ Government agencies that partake in Southern Katipo on the West Coast, Golden Bay/ Tasman and Marlborough regions is that the Terrain, Point of Entry Places, Climate, Environment etc is some of the most challenging in the country and not to similar to East Timor, Solomon Is, PNG and you could throw in West Papua as well. There are two reason why the NZDF have chose those Regions is its the ideal place practice the lessons learnt from the NZDF deployments on Peacekeeping/ Peace enforcements operations as those missions require a lot skill sets and planning etc at all levels of command from the Beehive down to infantryman/ women blogs which you can’t get from a Warfighting Ex because both are complex in nature but require different skills sets to achieve the overall mission.
  The other reason the NZDF and the Whole of NZ Government agencies that partake in Southern Katipo on the West Coast, Golden Bay/ Tasman and Marlborough regions is its a dress rehearsal for when the Alpine Fault line fails. As the only way you going to get into some of these places is via Air or over the Beach via the Sea if the Greymouth and Westport ports can’t used as road and Rail access from the East Coast will be block for a least 6mths plus possible longer depending what you read.
  And from my own experience from Peacekeeping/ Peace enforcements operations and my basic understanding of the Human Psychology and Physiology this is going to really test the NZDF, Whole of Government agencies and locals to the max when the Alpine Fault eventually fails.
  This is a very smart move from the NZDF and from the Director of the Southern Katipo Exercises to move Southern Katipo to the Coast and to the other regions. Colonel Martin Dransfield who was the CO for NZBATT2 in East Timor in 2000 should be congratulated for this far sighted move and it will pay dividends in the future.
timeforacupoftea 16

12 January 2018 at 10:25 pm

Surely we could just sell our NZDF to NATO or the wonderful UN.

I am sure they will protect us.
- corodale 16.1
  
  13 January 2018 at 1:50 pm
  
  Insightful – then we could lease them back at unfair prices, like the Germans do with their Israeli made drones.
corodale 17

13 January 2018 at 1:41 pm

PC has no place in the military. I thought man or men could be also be used to signify unspecified gender? (Madam Chairman, etc) The term “service women” seems like a setup for jokes about — ——-.

In terms of the 5 eyes, is our eye patch to hide the makeup?
- One Anonymous Bloke 17.1
  
  13 January 2018 at 2:00 pm
  
  Meanwhile, on Earth, disrespectful ill-mannered bigots have no place in the military. Love to see you assert your beliefs to this guy 😆
  - corodale 17.1.1
    
    14 January 2018 at 9:41 am
    
    Human goodness is natural. Its not that humans tend to evil and ignorance. Its just that ignorance and chaos are with us all, from birth, to various degrees. Goodness, we are all working toward it on some level. Same can be said of institutions like our Army, etc.
Exkiwiforces 18

23 January 2018 at 2:31 pm

Here is a summary of the main points from my 14pg document that I have sent to Ad via The Standard Mod’s email address for further discussion. I’m more than happy to take questions as I’m now home until Friday.

Get the NZDF involve with the Climate Change Commission is good for long term planning as we have a rough idea what Climate Change will bring, but the Politician’s, Treasury and the public need to understand that vote defence will likely need to be increase in the long term as a result of Climate Change.

It’s good to see the current MoD reviewing the 4 Principles as set on the 2016 Defence White Paper

The lost decade of the 90’s is still hurting the NZDF as result of short term Politics/ political ideology and the Treasury short term thinking. In particular to the RNZN and RNZAF as they are always be Capital intensive equipment wise.

There is not an enough redundancy within the NZDF to reduce friction as the NZDF is doing with less and almost twice in the last decade the NZDF has almost came unstuck in 99 and in 2006. The next time they may come unstuck, but the NZDF will get the blame instead of the Politicians and Treasury as of their short term thinking by the Public (the taxpayer)

The way Treasury applies the user pays, accrued accounting system and wants a return on its investments. As a result of Treasury’s crazy accounting system the NZDF finds it hard to pre-position stores or maintain Army Reserve Depots in at risk areas such as the West Coast of the South Island, North Islands East Coast Bays and other similar areas in NZ since the MoW has gone the way of the Moa.

I see the need to decentralise the NZ Navies Patrol Group if and when additional OPV’s and IPV’s are purchase along with RNZAF if they go down multi- tier MSR assets on the Chatham Islands, Invercargill or Dunedin. I also see the need for Multi user/ Joint Operations base in Fiji near Nadi Airport as the Pacific Patrol Boat program and the training school is based at the nearby port for HADR, Fisheries duties and Whole of Government Aid programs/ projects.

I like the idea that NZDF and Whole of Government agencies get together for the Southern Katipo every two years. West Coast and Upper South Island provide very challenging complex terrain and very challenging environment combine with lessons learnt from NZ’s experience at Peacekeeping/ Peace –enforcement duties since 1994 onwards. The other thing that most on the left and probably everyone else forget this is also good training for HADR duties when the Alpine Fault line fails when I use the Military Appreciation Process (MAP) as I have ID a large number of issues and having a basic understanding of the Human Psychology and Physiology is going to really test the NZDF, Whole of Government agencies and locals to the max.

NZDF Reserves have to rebuilt and investment in new equipment for the NZDF this will allow the NZDF to adopt the Raise, Train and Sustain motto and also it would allow regional and Rural NZ councils to some backbone for CD callouts and DACC.

A High Readiness Reserve Scheme for the NZDF should be investigated also a similar scheme for the CD and for 1st Responders for those members that find the NZDF is not their cup tea as this would paid dividends in the long term across the country.

Finally we need to remember the NZDF plan’s, prepare and train for worst case scenario which is Warfighting, then we work back because we can’t see in future as we only have lessons learnt, intuition and experience to guide NZDF.

We no longer live in a Benign Environment, but a Dynamic Environment when you add Climate Change to the mix and this will cause friction not only to NZDF mandated tasks, but to Whole of Government all the way down the individual and the environment which will get hit the hardest before us human’s really feel it in the “Hip Pocket” unless you have small plot or vegie garden to supplement your weekly groceries, someone who has gone totally off Grid or those whose major source of income is from the land.