Loomio

Anti-War Bill

SD
Suzie Dawson Public Seen by 460

Perhaps after the anti-spy bill we need an anti-war bill.

Waihopai is involved in targeting operations like this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/23/drone-strike-victim-barack-obama

MI

Mathew Innes Sat 12 Aug 2017

I support this idea with every essence of my being.

Perhaps Make War illegal too.

Even Make gun bunkers in each town controlled by someone/people that gives the owners guns within it; out only for valid reasons(hunting-pest control/target shooting) when needed. (just a thought)

CE

Colin England Sat 12 Aug 2017

Technically, it's already illegal but they're fairly weak and no one ever enforces them against the biggest aggressor.

SD

Suzie Dawson Sun 13 Aug 2017

Might be timely opportunity to update the anti-nuclear legislation to include DU

IA

idiom axiom Mon 14 Aug 2017

War was made illegal by the League of Nations in 1926 and there hasn't been a war since.

EW

Eden Wynyard Wed 16 Aug 2017

War has been around since the dawn of man (when Cain first killed his brother Able) and world war 3 will begin within the next few years, whether we make it illegal or not??

Can anybody please confirm if the Internet Party has any other candidates besides Suzi and was the 11th of August the absolute last day to put your name forward??

BB

Blake Bedford-Palmer Wed 16 Aug 2017

We have to send the list in to the electoral commission next week, (There will be more than just Suzie) if you would like to be considered please send your CV and 3 minute video to candidates@internet.org.nz ASAP

SD

Suzie Dawson Wed 16 Aug 2017

Hi Eden - we are reviewing candidates tomorrow and submitting list next Monday so if you are wanting to apply you have about 23 hours maximum to get your application in. Need to send your CV and a 3 minute video of yourself to candidates@internet.org.nz

TH

Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017

To quote Ammon Hennacy,"Oh judge! Your damn laws! The good people don't need them, and the bad people don't obey them." which is pretty much the way I feel about wars.

You need a military because it only takes one bad egg to spoil the pot.

From an NZ perspective, maybe a good first step would be to specialise in disaster relief and medicine. We could keep our alliances that way, better protect the pacific from non military threats and ourselves in case of emergency at home.

SD

Suzie Dawson Wed 16 Aug 2017

Is the solution to this to have a policy to declare New Zealand neutral? Like Belgium, Netherlands etc? And/or to demilitarise?

TH

Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017

No, but we would be M.A.S.H., Red Cross, Reconstruction, Earthquake relief, Fire Service, Ebola outbreak team, all wrapped up together.

For instance in Afghanistan we would be running a hospital right now and sending teams to pick wounded instead of massacring villages.

IA

idiom axiom Wed 16 Aug 2017

Declaring Neutrality doesn't work unless you have an army strong enough to make it not worth disagreeing with you.

Switzerland is armed to the eyeballs.

CE

Colin England Wed 16 Aug 2017

Is the solution to this to have a policy to declare New Zealand neutral?

We should be declaring ourselves neutral but, as idiot axiom says, then arming ourselves so that we can defend ourselves.

There has always been war in this world. Most of it done by the US lately. To think that we're immune from this expansionist war would simply be asking for trouble.

TH

Tane Harre Thu 17 Aug 2017

I don't think we should declare ourselves neutral. Just specialise (and be more efficient) in an area. This would fulfil both our international treaty obligations and national morality.

CE

Colin England Thu 17 Aug 2017

Just specialise (and be more efficient) in an area.

People may specialise, societies don't. We've been trying to specialise as a farm for the last couple of centuries but there's no way with our present productivity that we can have everyone employed on farms or as support for farms as we used to do.

Those other people, some 90% of the work force, need something else to do and if they can't do it here then they'll simply leave and do it elsewhere. Which explains the million NZers living outside NZ.

We actually do need to develop our economy and that means diversification. tech labs, aero and space development, bio-tech etcetera, etcetera.

TH

Tane Harre Fri 18 Aug 2017

I wasn't referring to the economy. Just the military.

CE

Colin England Fri 18 Aug 2017

That doesn't work either as it leaves us weak and dependent upon the good will of others. Even without declaring neutrality I think we should be building up our defences.

TH

Tane Harre Fri 18 Aug 2017

To quote the defence force,"New Zealanders can remain confident that the country does not face a direct military threat in the foreseeable future." so we aren't going to be attacked in the foreseeable future.

Currently we spend a little over $3.261B on the defence force every year. Which is minuscule. 1.1% of GDP. Our nearest direct threat is probably Fiji who spends $0.054B each year. We could handle Fiji but if anyone else in the world attacked us such as Indonesia (probably our next closest possible threat) we would lose. They spend $11.03B a year. So we are weak and dependant....well, that isn't true. We are strong and co-dependant. We are dependant on the goodwill of others and that is a good thing.

The problem as I see it is that we are trying to do everything so we end up being crap at all of it. We can't afford air-force strike craft so we have ageing planes and helicopters. Our navy isn't made for warfare. Our ground forces can't afford tanks (We do have a combat tractor though :)).

In combat operations overseas we only use the SAS because that is all we can afford to equip. Everywhere else we are used for training or peacekeeping (with do not engage orders).

Now if you look at the actual threats to NZ and the world they are much more likely to come from natural disaster, pandemic, and global warming.

I am saying that since we are essentially useless to our allies in the first place why don't we specialise and fulfill our obligations by helping people. We can't go into combat with our ground troops but we could provide engineering and medical services. Our navy can't go into battle but they they can provide relief. Our aircraft can't attack but they can carry troops and supplies.

Let's do what we do already but do it better because we aren't trying to pretend we are an attack force so we don't have to throw all that money away to look good.

Let's be the good guys. The people who help people. Let's actively try to make the world a better place. We are probably the only country in the world that is fairly much totally militarily safe. How about being what a country should be when it isn't threatened.

CE

Colin England Fri 18 Aug 2017

We are strong and co-dependant. We are dependant on the goodwill of others and that is a good thing.

We're not strong and co-dependant we're simply weak. And what happens if those others become the threat? Which is possible. The US was friends with Iraq, even helped install Saddam Hussein - until they weren't.

The problem as I see it is that we are trying to do everything so we end up being crap at all of it.

Actually, we're not. The last Labour led government changed it so that the focus of the Defence Forces was as you suggest. The result is that we're bad at everything because we've let other necessary aspects of defence decline. Basically, each part reinforces the other.

We can't afford air-force strike craft so we have ageing planes and helicopters. Our navy isn't made for warfare. Our ground forces can't afford tanks

We could afford them - if we increased spending to the necessary 5% of GDP - five times more than we do now and produced the equipment we need here in NZ.

I am saying that since we are essentially useless to our allies in the first place why don't we specialise and fulfill our obligations by helping people.

We're already doing that.

Now if you look at the actual threats to NZ and the world they are much more likely to come from natural disaster, pandemic, and global warming.

Are you watching what China's doing lately in the South China Sea and Antarctica?
Defence force reports from around the world tell us that they're expecting increases in major conflict because of global warming.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is running out of easily available resources - and we actually quite a lot of them. If we want to keep them for ourselves then we're going to need to be able to defend them else they will be taken from us.

We are probably the only country in the world that is fairly much totally militarily safe.

Except for the fact that we're not. Capitalism drives expansion because of the need for ever more resources.

TH

Tane Harre Sat 19 Aug 2017

Colin, you want us to prepare for a war that doesn't exist and and our own defence forces say isn't a threat to us. To do so you want to spend 5% of GDP to upgrade the defence force for a war that doesn't exist and that if it did we couldn't win. Nobody is going to have a fight in Antartica. To win one all you have to do is hit the base and then everybody dies in the cold.

Now if you took your 3.9% of extra spending and used it in something like my climate change idea New Zealand could stand as a world leader and an inspiration instead of throwing 3.9% extra money to the weapons manufacturers.

SD

Suzie Dawson Sat 19 Aug 2017

The military got an increase of $20 billion last year. That's enough to pay for every social program we have lost and many we need. They do NOT need any more money. Especially when they waste it on obsolete ancient aircraft hand-me-downs from the US. Total farce.

DG

Daymond Goulder-Horobin Sun 20 Aug 2017

A lot of wars have been illegal. So long as we don't need to start wars we should be fine. The Situation between North Korea and the rest of the world is worrying, but we should be out of the line of fire at the least from the beginning. Perhaps if war does start we should scale up our military but I don't think the $20 billion increase was necessary and should be withdrawn.

Also, if war does break out between the U.S and NK, are we obliged to provide assistance?

M

Martyn Sun 20 Aug 2017

Usually i disagree with Colin but with this i actually agree with him. We should be increasing our defence budget and investing in developing more military tech in NZ.

I dont think we need more personnell but we do need the capacity to keep up with overseas developments in the miltech arena and if necessary the ability to ralidly expand our military to meet unforseen events.

As an example it only took ISIL about 800 people to take the city of mosul which had a population of 3 million.

DG

Daymond Goulder-Horobin Sun 20 Aug 2017

Certainly in the R&D Department so we have the capabilities to produce at a moments notice.

CS

Colin Smith Sun 20 Aug 2017

I remember an old Auckland joke “I have just had two air force Iroquois helicopters fly over my house. I wonder who is protecting the South Island.”

We need to keep this in perspective: More people live in Sydney, Australia than lives in the whole of New Zealand. We could not even defend ourselves against Australia.

With what equipment we do have Wiki - List of active aircraft and we still struggle to keep foreign fishing boats out of our waters, what chance do we have of stopping an invading force.

What are we spending on? Military training might be an option but we need to understand the type of threat we will be facing in the 21st century. (Drones, surface to air missiles, nuclear.)

I believe that we will continue to be invaded by stealth. One thing to watch for is with our own space program. They will declare that a military target and then allow the American military to set up around the location to protect the American interests that own the site.

Just consider, how accessible is that site to a Rainbow Warrior type intrusion/attack. That launch facility as it is - is just begging to be used for a "Red Flag" operation.

Maybe "We" should pre-empt with a policy that specifically singles the site for increased surveillance and protection.

TH

Tane Harre Sun 20 Aug 2017

Yes, we are. We have a treaty. You can pull out but breaking them when they come into play isn't nice.

CE

Colin England Sun 20 Aug 2017

The military got an increase of $20 billion last year.

No they didn't:

Up to $20 billion will be spent on New Zealand's Defence Force over the next 15 years, the Government revealed today, including a scaling-up of operations in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica and a greater focus on defending against cyber attacks.

The long-awaited Defence White Paper, released at Parliament this morning, earmarked funding equivalent to 1 per cent of New Zealand's GDP for defence - around half the amount spent by Australia and the United Kingdom.

Supperanuation alone is around 5% of GDP. Five times what we spend, even with that announced $20b, on defence.

CE

Colin England Sun 20 Aug 2017

Colin, you want us to prepare for a war that doesn't exist and and our own defence forces say isn't a threat to us.

The idea is to be prepared for the worst. The old:

Expect the best, prepare for the worst or:

If you want peace, prepare for war.

If you act as if there's no threat at all then the chances are you'll be surprised.

To do so you want to spend 5% of GDP to upgrade the defence force for a war that doesn't exist and that if it did we couldn't win.

With the correct force level we could stop the first invasion. May have difficulty after that but, then, a nation that loses an entire invasion fleet probably isn't about to try again.

Now if you took your 3.9% of extra spending and used it in something like my climate change idea New Zealand could stand as a world leader and an inspiration instead of throwing 3.9% extra money to the weapons manufacturers.

  1. It's not one or the other but both. We'd lose unessential services rather than essential ones
  2. We make the gear ourselves and not buy it from anyone else. IMO, profiting from war should be illegal
IA

idiom axiom Mon 21 Aug 2017

The military spending is welfare spending. If you cut the army you would have to up welfare by the same amount.

The armaments could be sourced from New Zealand except people get icky about making weapons.

Our best defenses against being invaded are huge bollocking allies and an armed technically competent citizenry that is to ornery to pacify.

Nobody even invades for conquest any more.

SD

Suzie Dawson Thu 24 Aug 2017

I've literally never met a single person in New Zealand (including National voters) who thought the NZ military should be bigger or have more money or weapons.

In fact, the NZ military has been the butt of constant and timeless jokes as its so blatantly obvious that no matter how much money we give them, our islands are indefensible by NZ military alone.

Time to pull the plug, convert the forces into something useful (i.e. international disaster recovery, civil defence etc) and give up on this dream of being a mini-me in the image of US imperialist Big Brother

M

Martyn Thu 24 Aug 2017

I would argue that military spending isn't a form of welfare seeing as that only physically and mentally able people can actually be selected for military service. If anything it's discriminatory.

I agree that huge allies are a necessity but I don't think an armed populace is a good idea. There are a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a butter knife let alone a firearm. Pus if we look at the US we can see what the result of having an armed populace is. Lots of mental people settling scores, real or imagined, and a militarised police force.

M

Martyn Thu 24 Aug 2017

Then you probably haven't met the right kind of people! :) Yes the NZ military is joked about but that's because they aren't funded or supported nearly enough to be effective. We don't need to expand the personel levels much more but we do need to invest in training and equipping our Defence forces so they are capable of actually doing the job they are facing.

Plus we also have to be aware that the nature of the threats we are facing are expanding, from the traditional threats of other nation states, to non state groups that are now able to militarily threaten actual countries. Groups like the SDF, ISIL, Hezbollah etc are in my opinion just a taste of things to come.

Then of course we have to consider how new technologies are being leveraged to create new threats, from drone swarms to cyber weapons targeting infrastructure to automated military vehicles to custom made viruses. It is now possible to almost entirely print a firearm from 3D components which means that eventually people will be able to grab a 3D printer and print out firearms or other weapons in the privacy and comfort of their homes.

With that said we don't need to freak out but we do need a considered and measured response now so we aren't caught out in the future.

IA

idiom axiom Fri 25 Aug 2017

Setting limits on welfare rules out pretty much any form of welfare except UBI. Mentally and physically able people oft need welfare too. Don't pick on them.

The biggest flaw is that a huge chunk of the budget leaves the country as equipment isn't sourced locally.