Comments on: Sign us up for cheap, compact subs too! http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:48:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Michael http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384143 Michael Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:32:29 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384143 Ralph, Kiwis and Canucks may not face threats from other states in the forseeable future, but maintaining a cheap defence force against UNforseen threats still makes sense. If nothing else, having the ability to make attackers suffer increases the likelihood that attackers will look for other ways of getting what they want. Ralph, Kiwis and Canucks may not face threats from other states in the forseeable future, but maintaining a cheap defence force against UNforseen threats still makes sense. If nothing else, having the ability to make attackers suffer increases the likelihood that attackers will look for other ways of getting what they want.

]]> By: Ralph Hitchens http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384141 Ralph Hitchens Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:32:19 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384141 "...now vulnerable to a range of threats" ... what, exactly, is this range of threats? Expansionist Aussies? Rogue New Caledonians? What is the threat to New Zealand's sea lanes? What might a couple of subs materially add to the protection of Canada's sea lanes provided by the US Navy? I'm seeing a world where the big problems include failing states and global terrorism, against which submarines in small navies count for less than nothing. What am I missing here? “...now vulnerable to a range of threats” ... what, exactly, is this range of threats? Expansionist Aussies? Rogue New Caledonians? What is the threat to New Zealand’s sea lanes? What might a couple of subs materially add to the protection of Canada’s sea lanes provided by the US Navy? I’m seeing a world where the big problems include failing states and global terrorism, against which submarines in small navies count for less than nothing. What am I missing here?

]]> By: Kotare http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384137 Kotare Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:32:39 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384137 Ramjet's point is precisely what I've been arguing in a series of posts at my blog, one of which YH kindly linked to. Ralph, the thing is that we Kiwis have been turning our swords, such as they are, into plowshares for the last 30 years or so, and focusing our defence force, in particular the army on peacekeeping and humanitarian roles. The result is that our country and its sovereignty are now vulnerable to a range of threats. Ramjet’s point is precisely what I’ve been arguing in a series of posts at my blog, one of which YH kindly linked to. Ralph, the thing is that we Kiwis have been turning our swords, such as they are, into plowshares for the last 30 years or so, and focusing our defence force, in particular the army on peacekeeping and humanitarian roles. The result is that our country and its sovereignty are now vulnerable to a range of threats.

]]> By: ramjet http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384126 ramjet Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:35:26 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384126 The matter is not to deny sea lanes but to protect your own and deny others to interdict them. To do this subs are the most effective way. Nations that can't afford to have a big surface fleet, due to the sublte nature of submarine vessels, could deter an enemy and help to exert sovereignty over their waters. I don't think that protect your economic interests is a cold war affair. Expecially now that Canada and NZ underwater areas of interest are going to extend. The matter is not to deny sea lanes but to protect your own and deny others to interdict them.
To do this subs are the most effective way. Nations that can’t afford to have a big surface fleet, due to the sublte nature of submarine vessels, could deter an enemy and help to exert sovereignty over their waters.
I don’t think that protect your economic interests is a cold war affair. Expecially now that Canada and NZ underwater areas of interest are going to extend.

]]> By: Ralph Hitchens http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384124 Ralph Hitchens Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:33:52 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/10/sign-us-up-for-cheap-compact-subs-too/#comment-384124 Gotta ask, why submarines, you Kiwis? You Canucks? Whose sea lanes are you going to interdict in the foreseeable future? Why not invest instead in, say, amphibs that could be useful in peacekeeping & humanitarian operations? To be fair, it's wrong to pick on you low-budget Commonwealth nations -- there's a lot of high-end military hardware being procured in the US that was justifiable during the Cold War but not so much these days. Swords into plowshares, guys! Gotta ask, why submarines, you Kiwis? You Canucks? Whose sea lanes are you going to interdict in the foreseeable future? Why not invest instead in, say, amphibs that could be useful in peacekeeping & humanitarian operations?

To be fair, it’s wrong to pick on you low-budget Commonwealth nations—there’s a lot of high-end military hardware being procured in the US that was justifiable during the Cold War but not so much these days. Swords into plowshares, guys!

]]>