Libertarianz Defence Policy Release Reposting
Peter Cresswell
Libertarianz Media
Coordinator
PART 1/3
POLICY RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Does New Zealand Need a Defence Force?
"Libertarianz holds that the provision of a defence
organisation to protect
against the use of military force
against New Zealand is part of the proper
function of
government," says their Defence Spokesman Robert
Winefield
today. "That is, that the government exists to
prevent the use of force
against individuals within that
nation, and the protection against foreign
invasion is
one important aspect of that."
Note that the proposed
Libertarianz constitution, available on our web
site,
bans the use of conscription and stops the military
from operating against
NZ citizens.
Does New Zealand Need a Defence Force?
History has shown that the most
militarily aggressive nations are those with
totalitarian
or authoritarian governments. Examining an Atlas, we find
that
New Zealand is an island nation with its Southern,
Northern, and Eastern
flanks protected by Antarctica and
the vast South Pacific Ocean. In these
directions there
are no such nations, and our Western flank is protected
by
a benevolent Australia. It is because of this that
many New Zealanders
believe that we do not need a defence
force at all. After all, any invading
army must come by
sea and it must be big enough to occupy a territory
almost
as large as the British Isles. The only overtly
militaristic nations with
amphibious forces large enough
for the task are Indonesia, China, Russia and
possibly
India. All of which would have to come through or round
Australia
first to threaten us directly.
Unfortunately,
this is a view almost Napoleonic in its outlook. Two
lessons
from history serve to demonstrate this
point:
On the 8th of December, 1941, New Zealand felt
safe from harm. On that day
in Singapore and across the
International Dateline at Pearl Harbour,
Japanese
pre-emptive military strikes began a campaign which
brought
Australia within a hair's breadth of becoming a
battleground. Had that
happened, New Zealand, too, would
have been directly attacked, as Darwin
was. It took six
months, more or less, for a modern military force
to
advance across a hemisphere of the globe. Since then,
innovations in
military technology have continued apace
until in 1991, the fourth largest
army in the world was
vaporised before a prime time TV audience in about
100
hours.
Military campaigns have been increasing
exponentially in ferocity and
velocity throughout the
20th Century and show every indication of continuing
to
do so in the 21st. But military forces which took part in
The Gulf War
of1991 took much longer to train; this is
why we need a standing defence
force: It takes longer to
train a competent defence force than it does for
a
(previously "impossible") crisis to arise.
PART
2/3
POLICY RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
What Sort of Defence Policy Do We Need?
Defence Policy, Main Points:
1) Renegotiate all existing defence treaties.
2)
Negotiate complete withdrawal from any current UN Peace
Keeping Missions.
Introduce legislation preventing NZ
Defence Forces from serving in future UN
Peace Keeping
Missions.
3) Enter into mutual defence treaties only with
Free Societies.
Such defence treaties will only permit
the committing of military forces if
the rightful
territories of ourselves or our treaty partners come
under
unprovoked attack or verified threat of imminent
military action by a third
nation. Said treaties will
specifically include the right to use pre-emptive
force
should a third party be shown to be preparing to
attack.
4) Realign defence spending.
We recognise four
key areas in the Defence Forces: the
Intelligence
Services, the Air Force, the Navy and the
Army. Because the threat to New
Zealand is low at
present, a largely part-time military built around a
small
cadre of professionals is all that is required. In
fact, there is little
wrong with the current size of New
Zealand's military forces - they just
need to be properly
equipped.
5) Restructure Intelligence Services
We
believe that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. This means
having a
credible intelligence service with the specific
role of monitoring foreign
military activities.
Libertarianz would review the Military Intelligence
arm
of the NZ Defence Forces (NZDF) with a view to
improving the capability to
monitor the movements and
strength of likely foreign aggressors in our
region. Such
funding would include the Listening Stations currently based
in
our country and re-establishing links with previous
allies.
Individuals worried about government
eavesdropping on internal
communications should note that
Libertarianz would not prevent private
ownership of the
latest and best encryption technology as the United
States
and other countries do.
We will not set up our
intelligence forces like the secret private
armies
depicted in cinematic portrayals of the CIA, MI-5,
et al. The simple
objective is to reduce the likelihood
of a surprise attack, similar in
effect to Pearl
Harbour.
6) Remove all legal obstacles which would
otherwise impede individual
citizens from fighting as
mercenaries in foreign territories in support of
foreign
causes.
PART 3/3
POLICY RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
What Sort of Defence Force Do We Need?
It is
apparent from a study of an Atlas and a review of military
logistics
that there are three main types of overt
military action that could be waged
against New
Zealand:
1) some form of aerial or naval interdiction;
2) aerial bombardment; or
3) amphibious invasion.
Thus the combat component of the Defence Forces
will be arranged to respond
to these three forms of
attack.
History has shown that it is always easier to
defeat an army while embarked
at sea than when deployed
on land. Combine this with the fact that aircraft
were
the decisive weapons in all the major naval battles after
World War I
and it is obvious that the best defence
against amphibious invasion is a
well-equipped Air Force.
Thus, the Air Force should assume the role as the
premier
arm of the Defence Forces. We would replace the Skyhawks
with an
effective, modern multi-role combat aircraft
which could carry out airborne
interception, ground
support and maritime strike.
Remember:
(1) that a modern
jet fighter can carry a payload similar in size to
that
carried by four engined bombers in WWII. A F/A-18 E
or F model fighter
bomber can carry four Harpoon Anti
ship missiles, equivalent to that carried
on the Perry
Class Frigates the Navy is considering as alternatives to
the
ANZACs.
(2) That most militaries buy equipment in
15-20 year cycles, so the newer
the equipment the longer
its physical and military effectiveness will last.
(3)
The training and salaries given to personal are probably the
biggest
expenditure in the defence budget, mainly because
of the short service
time -the military is almost
continually training recruits. An airforce of 2
squadrons
of fighter aircraft compares favourably to trying to equip
a
battalion of infantry and maintain it at full strength
with trained troops.
(4) It is Libertarianz' intention to
keep service troops on a volunteer
basis to ensure that
any NZ government seeking to deploy our troops
overseas
for long periods of time would need to mobilise
the volunteer service
troops, providing yet another
impediment to an expansionist government.
Remember that
Clinton should not have been able to go to war with
Bosnia
without getting approval from the Senate and
Congress as the constitution
stipulates, but he easily
subverted that problem. However the percentage
of
volunteer service troops allowed in each service will
be lowest in the
airforce fighter squadrons because they
are the first line of defence]
(5) The Navy's most
effective role is maritime escort, oceanic patrol
and
anti-submarine warfare. None of these roles can
effectively be carried out
around the clock by land-based
air units, and so helicopter-equipped
frigates will
continue to be favoured for this role. This is actually
the
only reason the "Frigate" class of warships exist, to
carry helicopters and
destroy submarines. Every other
nation uses heavier, more costly, more
populated
destroyers and cruisers for surface/anti-air warfare. To
this end,
we would buy a third and fourth frigate to
replace our ageing Leander Class
fleet. We believe that
the ANZAC/Meko class frigates are perfect for this
role.
Chief among their assets are the fact they are capable of
rapid
modification, should the need arise. We believe
that the frigates need only
be prepared to receive
weapons such as long-range SAMs and ASMs while the
threat
of naval warfare is so low.
(6) The Army should have the
lowest procurement priority and thus it would
be the last
service modernised. This is simply because the withdrawal
from
UN operations and our determination to defeat an
enemy before they reach our
shores leaves the Army with a
minor role in defence for the moment. Thus, in
the
short-term, only urgently needed equipment would be
purchased. In the
longer term, dependent on the terms of
our mutual defence treaties, the Army
will be reorganised
and re-equipped so that its infantry battalions
and
artillery regiments are at full strength and equipped
to levels found in
European/American light infantry
battalions. It should be emphasised here
that the Army
shall contain the largest proportion of part-time personnel
to
lower the cost of mobilising a large defence force. We
would also seriously
investigate reorganising a portion
of the Army to create a credible
mechanised force based
on a model similar to the US Army's Armoured
Cavalry
Regiment. This is due to the overwhelming
evidence from history that shows
mechanised forces can
defeat larger armies quickly and with a minimum
of
casualties.
(7) It is possible then that the army
may have its personnel numbers
reduced, but their
firepower and mobility drastically increased.
Coupled
with the fact that private gun ownership will not
be suppressed, this would
provide a land defence
capability far superior to our current arrangement,
where
the NZ army is basically designed to do UN peace keeping
missions.