Written By:
- Date published:
9:28 pm, September 14th, 2026 - No comments
Categories: China, Chris Penk, climate change, defence, disaster, Iran, nuclear war, nuclear-free, Pacific, Peace, polls, Ron Mark, us politics, war -
Tags:
The NZ Initiative, who gave us neoliberalism, says we need to buy four to keep one at sea. Just Defence says there are a lot better uses for the money. I’m with them.
The Initiative’s report is compiled by a retired Army Major-General, and is appropriately titled “Adrift.” Just Defence’s title is “Charting a new Course.” Every bit of evidence from the recent exercise of so-called “sea power” in the Near East where the once-mighty US Navy is running for cover from missiles suggests that a new approach is imperative.
Frigates are not cheap. So what purpose do they serve? In the end, both the NZ Initiative and Just Defence come to the same conclusion; their main purpose is to play a minor support role for greater powers.
Just Defence says:
“The key design and equipment specifications for the frigates have been determined by their role as warships operating within an aircraft carrier strike group helping to protect the strike group from aerial (plane, drone and missile) and submarine threats.”
The Major-General reaches for the cliches and invokes the interests of the lanyard class:
“New Zealand’s access to the global commons is not guaranteed. It has been maintained for the past eight decades, by the maritime power of the United States and its allies. That maintenance requires contribution.
A New Zealand that cannot deploy a combat-capable surface combatant is a New Zealand that free-rides on an order it is unwilling to help defend, and one that, in the long run, cannot expect to continue benefiting from it.”
The flaw in this unguent is the fact that the United States is increasingly less able as well as less willing to provide any guarantees on anything, and is in fact demanding that its “allies and partners” play and pay a proxy role in its coming war against China. China is our major trading partner, not our enemy, and we should have nothing to do with other peoples’ wars. Even more so with a serial loser such as the United States.
Even Ron Mark, who is keen to be the next Defence Minister, and who considers we are already in WW3, thinks that frigates are obsolete. We may also be glad that former Navy officer Chris Penk, the inventor of the boomerang torpedo, is no longer in the role. Before his fortunate self-immolation, he was keen to open up a discussion with the US about nuclear-propelled warships in our harbours.
Just Defence spells out the alternatives, as well as all the opportunities if the money is more wisely allocated.
“The most compelling arguments against the frigates are the enormous, inter-generational lost opportunities for us, Aotearoa New Zealand’s people, in favour of preparing for, and deploying to entirely avoidable wars alongside the US.
New frigates will create a massive financial burden, estimated to be a staggering commitment of at least $22 billion over three decades. This is equivalent to $700 million per year. This is money that could—and should—be used to address genuine. security threats including climate change, inequality, and collapsing access to health care and education.”
The NZ Initiative is clearly aware that the US is increasingly seen by New Zealanders as a greater threat to our security than China. And climate change is the biggest threat of them all. Popguns in the Pacific are not much help in combating that.
