The response to my recent essay on the Four Fallacies of Defence encouraged me to bounce it off the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, who were polite and "took note of its contents".
"There's a new threat to two of the world's most endangered species" announced TV1 recently, and went on to specify whales and elephants. To these add Kiwis, unless some decided changes are made to our security arrangements.
The first step is to look at the dictionary: "Defence" means "capability or means of resisting an attack: protection" - quite different from our armed forces mission statement at present, which neglects to mention such crude matters.
A wider assessment of NZ's defence needs is to be commenced in the near future. Rest assured, taking the F16 squelch as an example, that the reviewer will take the tiny Defence Force vote as a Procrustean bed, use it to measure the Defence Force, then chop bits off the Force until it fits the bed. Any of us who paid attention to the Quigley Defence Beyond 2000 report will know what bits will be first to be amputated; RNZAF bases at Hobsonville and Whenuapai.
Agitation has already begun for Hobsonville to be used as a centre for super-yacht construction, quoting the advantage of deep-water access and so on. An excellent idea.
It has come to my ears that the Japanese, under pressure from an increasingly aging population and restricted land area, seek sites for retirement villages in New Zealand, and that Whenuapai is being advocated for this purpose. The extensive flat area will be ideal for the elderly denizens to grow their own crops. As our Government will receive their pensions, a handsome profit will result, producing funds to maintain the Beehive, Te Papa and other architectural embellishments of Shiny Bum City.
To be serious, the "niche" defence advertised by the Quigley report is in fact "nil" defence for the simple reason that no foe will restrict operations to the niche areas selected because they are cheap.
Folk concerned in this matter - and we all should be - must prepare to dispatch a few barbed shafts when the terms of the defence assessment are announced, in support of the "balanced force" concept. An attack on this country will come across the sea or through the air but probably both. It follows that the prime essential is to be able to control the approaches to our main harbours and the air space above our cities and airports. To be effective, defence systems must be able to inflict unacceptably high losses, regardless of the mode of attack. This cannot be done by warships which lack their main armament, an Air Force reduced to a transport role, or a light infantry army without coast or heavy antiaircraft artillery. Stand by to speak out.
May 2000
(This article first appeared in "The Causeway")
Return to top
Now read Four Fallacies of Defence by Jim Ross
Return to Shrapnel page
Read about Jim Ross