quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Thats because you have your back up and are not actually reading what I have written. Ive clearly spelt out my opinion of both countrys attitudes, and explained why. Your reaction is quite ironic given that.

Also, there was actually no plan from the japanese too invade nz or australia. Sure that might have come later.
Countries involved against japan in the pacific theatre.
Phillipines, British, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Burma, Fiji, Tonga, Dutch,
at least Resistance groups from Thailand,
Canadian, Mexcian, Free French.
The Dutch submarines I beleive were more successful than the US Navy.

Your attitude is ignorant. Do you think The US would have achieved what it did alone? Whether Pacific or Europe it took a whole heap of nations helping each other.

80 percent of US War Production went to Europe. The U.S. fought the War in the Pacific on 20 percent. That is just a fact.

Would the U.S. had accomplished victory over Japan without NZ? Stayed better would the U.S. had achieved victory over a Japan without the UK and Commonwealth Nations? Objectively, the answer is Yes. Would it have been more difficult? Yes. Would it have been more difficult for UK aligned nations to defeat Japan than the US alone? Yes. I do not not believe Japan starved of resources as it was would have been able to conquer its way out of the war had the U.S. not got involved.

Would UK and alliance nations been able to bring enough navel power to bare to defeat Japan alone wo the U.S. being brought into both Pacdic and Europe? Unknown. Germany’s inability to defeat tge USSR by late 42 meant Germany could not win the war in Europe. Germany itself changed from trying to defeat Russia to fighting it to a stalemate. Germany likewise could not win a war of attrition. The whole War of Movement was designed to prevent attrition. Eventually, so the U.S. Germany loses, and Britain can send its never to in full(er) to the Pacific.

Bottom line, I do not think it is arguable US presence in both theaters caused the war to end sooner and more complete than had the U.S. remained a mere provider of aid. The U.S. was even conducting lend lease w the USSR.

Would Britain had made a peace with Japan losing some territory wo US intervention? Unknown.


The threat now is not from the Japanese, but from the Chinese. Your governments actions is to the delight of and benefit of China.

The problem is not with you. You clearly call the policy to exclude, US nuclear powered submarines as a “bad policy.” It is not your fault. It is not the fault of all those who made the works more tolerable, if only for a little while, in WWII.

It is the fault of those in power who have forgot old alliances that made the works more stable as new threats are pushing forward.

It is typical of the U.S. to forget such slights when needed. I pray the need does not come, but this action by your government makes it that much more likely the U.S. will be needed on a scale we do not want to see.

What happens to NZ when China started blocking all that coal importation in some straight or international water China decides to claim as theirs?

Anyone expects anything positive from cabbage brained rabbits??

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:



The threat now is not from the Japanese, but from the Chinese. Your governments actions is to the delight of and benefit of China.

The problem is not with you. You clearly call the policy to exclude, US nuclear powered submarines as a “bad policy.” It is not your fault. It is not the fault of all those who made the works more tolerable, if only for a little while, in WWII.

It is the fault of those in power who have forgot old alliances that made the works more stable as new threats are pushing forward.

It is typical of the U.S. to forget such slights when needed. I pray the need does not come, but this action by your government makes it that much more likely the U.S. will be needed on a scale we do not want to see.

What happens to NZ when China started blocking all that coal importation in some straight or international water China decides to claim as theirs?

Im going to try to give a relatively long reply from our countries perspective too the modern day issues you raise. To make it clear again. Im not supporting our nations Nuclear free policy. Even though I may not agree with all you say.
What happens to NZ when china blocks indonesian coal imports too out nation? it would be hard to do and I anticipate that Indonesia might well be at war with china for that to occur. But if it did and it was a national emergency we'd use all our own coal, which we have plenty of, that our stupid lefties wont let us currently exhume and burn ourselves. Higher quality, cleaner burning coal as well... Go figure.

without claiming first fault or laying blame, one action from Nz too the threats of trade sanctions and the reasonably harsh trading situation the US did place us under, was to seek out greater trade with China. That is still our biggest risk. One we recognise and are slowly mitigating.
Our geographical position means we are of little use to the American Navy, or any of your armed forces and our stance is of no benefit too China militarily. Its solely about perception.

Re this piece.

quote:

It is typical of the U.S. to forget such slights when needed. I pray the need does not come, but this action by your government makes it that much more likely the U.S. will be needed on a scale we do not want to see.

Its BS! The US will not get in a nuclear conflict with China. Just as its proving it wont with Russia. The example is there. And again we are in the wrong direction for the conflict that will/may arrive. Im also not sure a future isolationist trump lead govt would offer to help. Ban or no ban. We have nothing to offer him either way.
What i do think is that if war with China comes, we will most likely drop the Nuke ban, not because we feel any direct risk of invasion, but because we will choose to support our traditional allies.
Just as we have all ready become a partner with Nato for pacific defence reasons, and just as we have recently told China we will make out own decisions in regards to Pillar two of Aukus wether that makes them unhappy or not.

What needs to be understood, is china has some trouble getting out of the south china sea. Any conflict will not be pacific wide, but in that confined area from the phillipines to the top of japan.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Hey, I got a solution! All NZ has to do is open its ports to US ships, and the stupid dispute can be settled.

All they have to do, is do what YOU say?

L.M.A.O.

And I need to get over myself?

You're a riot...


.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:



The threat now is not from the Japanese, but from the Chinese. Your governments actions is to the delight of and benefit of China.

The problem is not with you. You clearly call the policy to exclude, US nuclear powered submarines as a “bad policy.” It is not your fault. It is not the fault of all those who made the works more tolerable, if only for a little while, in WWII.

It is the fault of those in power who have forgot old alliances that made the works more stable as new threats are pushing forward.

It is typical of the U.S. to forget such slights when needed. I pray the need does not come, but this action by your government makes it that much more likely the U.S. will be needed on a scale we do not want to see.

What happens to NZ when China started blocking all that coal importation in some straight or international water China decides to claim as theirs?

Im going to try to give a relatively long reply from our countries perspective too the modern day issues you raise. To make it clear again. Im not supporting our nations Nuclear free policy. Even though I may not agree with all you say.
What happens to NZ when china blocks indonesian coal imports too out nation? it would be hard to do and I anticipate that Indonesia might well be at war with china for that to occur. But if it did and it was a national emergency we'd use all our own coal, which we have plenty of, that our stupid lefties wont let us currently exhume and burn ourselves. Higher quality, cleaner burning coal as well... Go figure.

without claiming first fault or laying blame, one action from Nz too the threats of trade sanctions and the reasonably harsh trading situation the US did place us under, was to seek out greater trade with China. That is still our biggest risk. One we recognise and are slowly mitigating.
Our geographical position means we are of little use to the American Navy, or any of your armed forces and our stance is of no benefit too China militarily. Its solely about perception.

Re this piece.

quote:

It is typical of the U.S. to forget such slights when needed. I pray the need does not come, but this action by your government makes it that much more likely the U.S. will be needed on a scale we do not want to see.

Its BS! The US will not get in a nuclear conflict with China. Just as its proving it wont with Russia. The example is there. And again we are in the wrong direction for the conflict that will/may arrive. Im also not sure a future isolationist trump lead govt would offer to help. Ban or no ban. We have nothing to offer him either way.
What i do think is that if war with China comes, we will most likely drop the Nuke ban, not because we feel any direct risk of invasion, but because we will choose to support our traditional allies.
Just as we have all ready become a partner with Nato for pacific defence reasons, and just as we have recently told China we will make out own decisions in regards to Pillar two of Aukus wether that makes them unhappy or not.

What needs to be understood, is china has some trouble getting out of the south china sea. Any conflict will not be pacific wide, but in that confined area from the phillipines to the top of japan.

It does not have to be nuclear. All they have to do is try to claim enough international water or steam for Taiwan.

All they have to do to knock you out is stop coal shipments from getting to NZ.

Read again man. Ill summarise. We have plenty of coal.
We are not in the right area to offer logistical support via ports for a war around Taiwan.

I read. You clearly state you are importing coal.

How long do you think you can keep up if the anaconda wraps around your shipping?

When you needs, if you do, more than likely we will come running. We always have.

The risk of not intervening will be too high versus the idiocy of your government’s current position. Idiocy you recognized from the beginning.

Gone fishing now.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I read. You clearly state you are importing coal.

How long do you think you can keep up if the anaconda wraps around your shipping?

When you needs, if you do, more than likely we will come running. We always have.

The risk of not intervening will be too high versus the idiocy of your government’s current position. Idiocy you recognized from the beginning.

Gone fishing now.

You will only come if it suits your foreign policy. The US is not altruistic. Any effect on our shipping will be affecting international shipping. That will engage US foreign policy.

Im shaking my head at these examples. You are making out some intrinsic threat to NZ alone from an aggressor. You havnt laid out why we would be attacked alone.

What conceivable, believable reason do you have for a unilateral attack on NZ? Given we have never been attacked at home, outside of a few german raiders as part of ww2. Its a stupid argument.
Are you saying the only value you have as a country too us is if we are attacked alone?

Now understand the coal issue. We have partially shut down our coal generation electric plants. They only get fired up for extreme shortages of electricity. This is one of those years. we import coal currently to use in them because its a cheaper coal than we produce and our coal is exported because of its high quality. If coal imports are stopped we have massive reserves we can dip into. But right now the lefties dont want us using our coal. Or any coal. that would obviously and quite clearly change if our electrical security was so severely affected.
We are having some issues with electricity shortage right now because of this policy. if we get enough of them the countrys mood will change.
The lefties policy is counter intuitive and stupid. We also have cleaner burning gas reserves they have put a halt to exploiting too. But its there waiting should we change our minds.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Hey, I got a solution! All NZ has to do is open its ports to US ships, and the stupid dispute can be settled.

All they have to do, is do what YOU say?

L.M.A.O.

And I need to get over myself?

You're a riot...


.

Let me try to spell it out, and I'll use no more than three-syllable words so you can follow.

NZ started the dispute by banning US ships from its ports. (Talk about dumb; I wonder how much business NZ loses from sailors on leave.)

The US responded by excluding NZ from war exercise and consulting. There has been talk of trade sanctions, but none seem to have been used.

The one event was caused by the other. Furthermore, NZ has all the power to end the dispute by rescinding its hostile stance. They hold the keys to unlock the door; the US does not.

Think about it. One party has the power to end the dispute, while the other does not. Who is at fault for allowing the stupid dispute to continue?

NZ is the party at fault for the dispute because the US has no power to open NZ's ports. (Unless we do as Admiral Perry did to Japan.) While NZ does have the power to restore joint exercises.

NZ, in contrast, has the power to allow US ships to return. Only pride and nuclear paranoia support your stance.

Like a couple of our Republican friends here, you're trying to peddle a false equivalence. Both sides aren't equally at fault here. Sorry that offends your national pride, shankspony.

I suspect that the NZ "ban" on nuclear ships is both contradicted in other agreements they have made, and something that as soon as an issue arises they will drop.

Its a sop to certain elements of their electorate... and we never do that?

I suspect if one of our nuclear submarines had a casualty event that involved the risk of loss of life, the NZ government would cheerfully offer their port as a place to tow the ship to help people if it made sense.

Yes, both countries are making statements based on their own politics, but we are a lot closer as allies than anyone is saying here.

Part of the point of a nuclear powered vessel is that it doesn't need to refuel, and as such would not often need to stop at a base, so other than depriving our sailors as a port of call for recreation, the "loss" of NZ ports is kind of a military nonissue. If push comes to shove, and the port is needed, things will be worked out for both countries.

Shanks, I doubt that if in a military sense imports of coal are stopped to NZ, you will even be capable of mining the coal yourselves. The lead time and the equipment needed to do so are made by heavy industry with long lead times, so its a strategic foolishness that your leadership foisted off on your people. Your argument that we just would have to start mining our own wouldn't work in a timeframe to do you much of any good; most likely the folks needing the electricity to heat etc. would be dead by the time you could get on line in the case of a major war.

The whole antinuclear thing is a sorry artifact of democratic politics. In your case, there is a sizable group of people who felt something "needed doing" and did it without regards to the consequences. We have done a lot of the same here, so no one is without their bad behavior.

From a historical perspective, if the battle of the Coral Sea had gone a bit differently, odds are you would have become an actual active front in the pacific war.

Given that NZ was very much part of the British Empire in the 40's, the numbers of US personnel killed in the whole war can be tallied as killed helping NZ if you want to play numbers games.

I for one am grateful as to how good of allies NZ has been to my nation over the years... and I am sure it has been a mutually beneficial situation- that's what a good alliance is about.

The folks here who are threatening NZ with abandonment make me just shake my head in wonder. We can argue about what is a more appropriate level of contribution (on both sides), but both are doing good for the other.

RolandtheHeadless, you seem hung up on one moment in time.

While, "your" government has moved along, without you & your hard-on for New Zealand.

You might start here, if you're able even, with a list from the U.S. Department of State, which describes in detail U.S. relations with New Zealand.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-new-zealand/

It starts with a four-syllable word, bi-lat-er-al

And ends without once hoisting the adjective "hostile", with which you seem so enamored.

I think Shankspony sums you up precisely, petulant, although, I might add saber-rattling.

...and predictably, you missed the mark with your fractious "Republican" slight as well,
for your edification, I am not a registered Republican.


.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I suspect that the NZ "ban" on nuclear ships is both contradicted in other agreements they have made, and something that as soon as an issue arises they will drop.

Its a sop to certain elements of their electorate... and we never do that?

I suspect if one of our nuclear submarines had a casualty event that involved the risk of loss of life, the NZ government would cheerfully offer their port as a place to tow the ship to help people if it made sense.

Yes, both countries are making statements based on their own politics, but we are a lot closer as allies than anyone is saying here.

Part of the point of a nuclear powered vessel is that it doesn't need to refuel, and as such would not often need to stop at a base, so other than depriving our sailors as a port of call for recreation, the "loss" of NZ ports is kind of a military nonissue. If push comes to shove, and the port is needed, things will be worked out for both countries.

Shanks, I doubt that if in a military sense imports of coal are stopped to NZ, you will even be capable of mining the coal yourselves. The lead time and the equipment needed to do so are made by heavy industry with long lead times, so its a strategic foolishness that your leadership foisted off on your people. Your argument that we just would have to start mining our own wouldn't work in a timeframe to do you much of any good; most likely the folks needing the electricity to heat etc. would be dead by the time you could get on line in the case of a major war.

The whole antinuclear thing is a sorry artifact of democratic politics. In your case, there is a sizable group of people who felt something "needed doing" and did it without regards to the consequences. We have done a lot of the same here, so no one is without their bad behavior.

From a historical perspective, if the battle of the Coral Sea had gone a bit differently, odds are you would have become an actual active front in the pacific war.

Given that NZ was very much part of the British Empire in the 40's, the numbers of US personnel killed in the whole war can be tallied as killed helping NZ if you want to play numbers games.

I for one am grateful as to how good of allies NZ has been to my nation over the years... and I am sure it has been a mutually beneficial situation- that's what a good alliance is about.

The folks here who are threatening NZ with abandonment make me just shake my head in wonder. We can argue about what is a more appropriate level of contribution (on both sides), but both are doing good for the other.

Pretty much.

edit to add- because I wanted to think about it-

quote:

Given that NZ was very much part of the British Empire in the 40's, the numbers of US personnel killed in the whole war can be tallied as killed helping NZ if you want to play numbers games.

Would it surprise you to know on a numbers game basis, that per capita we lost more men than any other commonwealth country, and approx twice the number of the US? We were all helping each other. Pre atomic bomb, the US considered it needed allied support to beat Japan, which was the essence of why it entered the war. Thats why it put so much effort into the european theatre. To get that over with so we could all finish japan.
From a NZ perspective, after that war so many men were effected, that is a large reason we became more pacifist. It effected every single family, and quite frankly we were sick and tired of fighting the norths wars. What really hurt us and something its taken us a long time to forgive, is that after so many of our people died freeing France, that the french govt would commit a terrorist attack in our country.
That more than anything is probably why we are still Nuclear free. Not a reaction to the US, but a more prescient reaction too France. It was very bad timing.

The only confusing bit is the issue around coal. And its confusing because its so stupid- green logic-

I live near a coal mine. The rail link too it crosses my farm. We are mining it full tilt. 7-8 trains of 30 wagons of 65,000 lbs each cross the farm each day. There are 14 such operating mines In NZ currently.
The coal Is mostly premium bituminous coal. Cleaner burning high output. We also have sub bituminous and lignite available. Its mostly exported... China... Japan and Australia.
We have a grand total of One operating coal fired power station that is only fired up when other electricity supply sources are not producing enough. Like now.
Because its sporadic, we dont have orders for NZ coal, and so import lower quality cheaper coal to run that plant when needed. Its sporadic because the left do not want us using it at all, yet there policy of shutting down not only coal fired plants, but also the better option gas plants sees us import coal. We have an abundance of gas too which is a better option. We just have not been allowed to use it.
Why do we currently risk blackouts? Because most of our generation is hydro and the coal and gas has been replaced with wind turbines.
Its just not very windy right now and we had a drier than normal summer. The greenies also dont want us building new hydro electric. Too them its all bad. They are a very confused mob. They are pushing us to shift everything to electric, but will not increase generation capacity unless its wind power. which has no storage options.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Hey, I got a solution! All NZ has to do is open its ports to US ships, and the stupid dispute can be settled.

All they have to do, is do what YOU say?

L.M.A.O.

And I need to get over myself?

You're a riot...


.

NZ started the dispute by banning US ships from its ports. (Talk about dumb; I wonder how much business NZ loses from sailors on leave.)

Our hookers were most upset.

AHOY All Hands, to yourselves!


.

quote:

Our hookers were most upset.

Local boys can't satisfy them, eh? I've heard that about NZ women generally. lol

Until "Ty" felt it necessary to intervene, I thought we were having a vigorous but civil debate (despite occasional zingers like "petulant").

I don't hate NZ, but I didn't know about the port restriction until this thread. I was kind of shocked that a supposed ally would do this. Since NZ is a democracy, I assume this policy represent the will of the people.

I suspect that Dr. Butler is right: in the event of a crisis, both sides would forget the dispute. I'm sure if it came to defense of NZ, they would allow our ships there.

You're a good debater, Shankspony. I hope there are no hard feelings.

No hard feelings for sure. If i dint enjoy this I wouldn't be here.

Other info for context. The original intent was for a joint ban on nuclear with Australia as well. The left wing Australian Govt got cold feet and abandoned it at the last minute. We were the only ones silly enough to go through with it. It came out of a time when the country was very sick and tired of a very old fashioned and archaic right wing govt, with a leader who's alcohol problem was becoming apparent. Also the good times were over and the country was going broke from over expenditure.
The issue would most likely have died away, But the US govt, intent of proving a point, sent a Nuclear powered and armed warship, The Texas, in the final days of the right wing govt. It was a dick move! which was seen as provocative by our population so close too the election and had the reverse effect of what was intended. Stupid silly stuff. Then rather than leave things alone, they pushed for the new left wing govt to accept a visit from the USS Buchanan within 6 months. A ship probably not carrying Nuclear weapons, but capable of. To be honest it put the govt in a no win situation. The thought had been to allow the situation to cool, and then explain to NZ why making some allowances a year or two down the track was worthwhile. This boat and the rhetoric and threats around it added fuel too the fire.
Its worth asking yourself - prior too that, how many ships a year did the US send to visit us- for context


Approx a year later, the French blew up the rainbow warrior in our port and then the nuclear issue became an overwhelming FU too all big nations that wished to push us around. Remember the pacific nuclear testing was having real environmental and human health effects in our region, and so it was probably much more on our minds, than on the average Americans.