If we want to be independent – we need to lift Military, Aid and Diplomacy spending to 5% GDP

47 Comments

1. Sounds like a way forward .We need to move away from the constant need to please someone else as they pretend they care for us but in reality we are merley a pawn in their game .We can no longer pimp ourselves to the highest bidder .We have built planes in NZ for years so ramping up to build drones would not be an issue and could start asap .We would soon have a large fleet spread around NZ which could be launched quickly when needed .We could have used those Chinese ships for target practice last week .The last thing we need is to be part of Aukus which hopefully our weak government will realize after the fucken clown show at the white house .
   We need to be NZ in the Pacific not NZ the 51st state of USA .

2. Dont forget we have rocket lab so we could buy a few nuclear war heads over the next couple of years and that would be defence taken care of .

   1. Rocket Lab is an American company, it has no relationship to New Zealand besides using us as a launch base. Peter Beck is an even bigger retard than Elon Musk.

   2. You wouldn’t be able to respond quick enough. The U.S. for the example is capable of detecting launch vehicles in its trajectory phase and protect its neighbours against limited ICBMs. They can assess the damage before ordering a second strike. This kind of nuclear diplomacy is eye wateringly expensive. You’d need a minimum population of 25 million. Don’t even try for a first strike capability you’ll be dead the moment you put pen to paper.

3. Increase ‘military aid’ to 5%…it seems that we Lefties have learnt how to speak neoconese! Help to bring ‘freedom and democracy’ to the world, here we come. Unfortunately, the right wording works so we can expect to make Donald Trump very, very happy in the not too distant future, given that he was the one pushing his (European) allies to increase their “aid” spending during his first term, and he’s still pushing them to do so today. Guess, we’re just a little forward thinking here in Leftie NZ. Otherwise, since we are a part of the tight five, independence is not a quality our political class cares to champion, for ourselves.

   1. We’ve been independent since the 80’s. Just not very well funded.

      1. Independent since the 80’s, well that’s interesting. What brought this change on then?

         1. A number of things.

         2. Fark me, why can’t I remember this change…I remember the neoliberal outbreak like it was yesterday after all, granted neoliberislm is central policy today.

4. And how will we lift our defence spending to 5% of GDP? Under a neoliberal Government (National/ Labour/ACT/NZF) they will make more cuts to services to achieve this…Great idea!!!This will only be achievable if there is a radical change in economic model with a priority for taxing wealth – not just tinkering- but significant taxes that correct the severe imbalance we currently have. Forget the distractions of woke, we need to focus on taxing the wealthy until it gets into the consciousness of all voters, and we need to articulate this using evidence, and which is easy to understand.

   1. The National Party will have to pass a defence funding bill with at least a 75% parliamentary vote. The diplomatic military and scientific core of the government got John Key’d. There’s nothing there. We have absolutely zero idea what’s going on. Even if we ordered the most fantastic military imaginable our politicians just won’t get the type of quality advice required nuclear and / or diplomatic diplomacy.

      So in order to raise military spending the advice given will have to be restored first.the workforce is aging out. As much as I dislike Hellen Clark for radically altering New Zealands defence posture – there is literally no one else in New Zealand that I would on her own, be trusted to raise military spending.

      The rest of them just lack experience. This whole military spending debate started because The National Party has zero state craft in its veins. Again Luxon radically altered New Zealands defence posture by sending a fucking supply vessel to give the CCP the finger. I mean that is all we have. Meaningless gestures against two of the most powerful nations on the planet it’s insane!

      1. The biggest update to our defence in recent time came from Ron Mark. National talked about upgrading the planes but that’s all it ever was, and Labour weren’t interested, so he had to push it through

         1. Of course Ron Marks would be my Defence Minister but that ship has sailed. The workforce truly is aging out.

5. Then we need to tax the rich. Simple as that. If the rich don’t want to pay for more butter, then they should at least want to pay for more guns.

   1. Butter? Guns?

6. The USA had a 95% tax rate in the 1950’s to pay for defence spending.

   1. And what a disaster.

   2. How successful was that?

7. New Zealand stands at a crossroads. As global tensions rise and external pressures grow, we must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to safeguard our sovereignty and maintain an independent course in foreign relations. A proposed increase in military spending to 5% of GDP is not about militarisation or blind allegiance to foreign powers—it is about ensuring that we can look after ourselves and determine our own future, rather than being a mere vassal of others.

   However, let’s be clear: the vast majority of this funding will not be spent on flashy new aircraft, ships, tanks, or battalions of elite soldiers. Instead, it must go first toward reversing decades of neglect in our military infrastructure, which has been left to crumble through successive governments’ apathy and short-term thinking.

   This investment should focus on:

   Rebuilding the foundations: Upgrading bases, housing, logistics networks, and critical support systems that have been allowed to decay.

   Retaining and attracting personnel: Creating stable, well-paying, and meaningful careers in the military, ensuring that service is a desirable option for young New Zealanders.

   Developing domestic capability: Strengthening local industries that support defence, so we are not reliant on expensive foreign suppliers for everything from maintenance to ammunition.

   None of these aren’t really glamourous but real.

   This is not about preparing for war; it is about ensuring resilience. A well-maintained and properly staffed defence force provides flexibility in responding to crises—whether they be security-related, environmental, or humanitarian.

   Is New Zealand truly prepared for such a shift? The current surge in interest is clearly reactionary, spurred by increased Chinese activity in the Tasman and the Pacific and seems to me to be a tad manufactured. As history has shown, such concerns tend to fade with the next publicised crisis, and political will may not outlast the news cycle. If we are serious about this, then it cannot be a knee-jerk response—it must be a long-term commitment to national strength, stability, and self-reliance. I can already hear the howls of indignation as the price tags for some of the possible projects become known. Can you imagine the image of a new fighter next to one of the slop they are giving to our scho kids?

   The choice is ours: continue drifting on the cheap, or be prepared for the sacrifices needed to take meaningful steps to secure our future on our own terms.

   1. The first part of the New Zealand specific defence spending debate and this is generalised even I’m guilty of it is to say that we give a weaker man who may be better at subterfuge or public speaking or courier/taxi driving those types of weaker things and we say to him go and tell other men, stronger men to play nice and do anything we want.

      Well it’s no shock to me when China sails down to the Tasman and tells us all to fuck off. There’s zero shock value in peacekeeping. It’s not preventive, it’s not “defensive.” We have to wait until something terrible happens before we can activate peacekeepers.

      I agree that men can be manipulated or plied with fancy buildings and shiney toys but if your decision making is poor, funding is whimsical. If all the weaknesses of The New Zealand Defence force is true it still doesn’t change the fact that human rights itself and the rules based order are enforced by men. It makes it paradoxical to say that we can have egalitarianism with women which is the crux position of The New Zealand Defence force to begin with.

      Some of the fundamental flaws in the power dynamics debate is “I don’t understand them.” People say to me you just think it’s raw power or that they think it’s to expensive and no I don’t think the New Zealand Defence Force spending debate is a financial or capability argument I just think that when it comes down to it the enforcement arm of whatever it is that lures those to power is going to be “force.”

      It has to necessarily be force that laws are enforced by force and a nations will has to be enforced by force. If your machinations and special calculations and manipulations don’t work and then you have to bank on the law/rules based order then you have to use force. There is no way around it.

      Another flaw in the defence spending debate is the idea that the rules based order can keep everyone safe and it’s like no. The rules based order is just a collection of “law makers.” They don’t actually enforce the rules.

      The question is how do we have a rules based order and human rights if we don’t have an enforcement arm? The answer is there are no sane answers. There is no argument for it. The real issue with the defence spending debate is that kiwis just hate men because the New Zealand Defence Force can’t be anything else other than force.

      If I am wrong then the enforcement mechanisms can be anything. If true then it would logically follow that men inside the military are not required.

      Even if you gave women nukes, tanks, fighter jets the most wonderful military imaginable men would still have to build it. Prime Ministers weild power. The enforcers actually have the power.

      What if the men say or recruitment arm of NZDF say no bitch, you can go fuck yourself we are not launching these nukes. How would a Prime Minister say to other men, you go tell these men to launch the nukes.

      Unless there is an argument that says force can be anything and that you’ve found a way to manipulate men into launching nukes or stand upto a nuclear armed state then nobody has anything to debate me on.

      Even if we want to bring up Xi or Trump I can remind people that they are revolutionaries who are gathering men to oppose power. Now we have to whip up a whole bunch of men, to join other men in this great power game.

      So what is that says The New Zealands Defence Force can be “anything else,” but “force?”

      It’s like how can we have human rights and a rules based order if the only enforcement mechanism is a peacekeeping force? You can’t will that into existence. That’s not going to turn recruitment around. What I mean to say is men are the only ones who can “will force” into existence.

      The fundamental thing here is power is not equal. We can have who ever we want in parliament makes up all of the rules but they will always appeal to men for the granting or the maintenance of human rights and a rules based order.

      So first of all we have to secure New Zealands borders and access to our resources. Second is we have to be able to project power, not for some regime change war but to maintain the rules based order. You’d be surprised how much dumb stupid men love reading up on laws and rules.

      Mass communication has advanced enough we can divert around live fire exercises pretty well we just need something that says this can not go on long term.

      I deliberately kept away from writing a defence force wish list of this or that numbers of frigates and fighter jets because we are talking about something with vast complexity but when we talk about the fall of the Rules Based Order from The Garden of Eden but it’s not just the failure of men but it’s our failure, the failure of Adem and Eve to exercise the power and will of God. But the devil can reject gods will and we have the power to reject China or America or increased military spending. But what we can’t reject is power, other than the power that is willed to Xi or Trump or whoever.

      Ultimately the great paradox here is Adam and Eve never had to eat the fruit because they had to do it. It’s not like Eve could have told the devil no I’m not eating it the Devil could have shoved the fruit in there faces and made them eat it.

      The point is that men decide that New Zealand for whatever reason doesn’t deserve a rules based order and human rights then you can’t have it. This whole defence spending debate has been your typical low tier redit debate style where people won’t actually address what the argument is I don’t think any of us really do know what the argument is. I don’t think any of us understand what egalitarianism is pr equality for woman is. I don’t think any of us know what human rights are or what the rules based order is. I think we are making broader points about capability shortfalls and recruitment targets. I think the capability short fall is being whipped up with broader points of human rights and a rules based order.

      My point was and many philosophers have beaten Niche over the head with this and I’ll be one today is and this is the giant paradox which is what if someone comes along and says you have influence but we no longer adhere to your influence. The paradox is woman can’t do that. Only men can do that. While we can cope with the situation I never really hear a good argument for why we need X number of frigates or Y number of personal. I can’t even say that X number of patrol boats is the exactly correct number required and sadly neither do I think the Navy is in a good position to make the call.

      In the definiendum it says influence is a position of power. I’m saying if your influence (as in this or that number of surface combatants or whatever) mechanisms doesn’t work when we give them to peacekeepers then did we even have an egalitarian and human rights framework to begin with.

      It doesn’t matter what mechanisms we appeal to frigates, fighter jets whatever if men say no we don’t want to man it we don’t want to build it then there is no influence outside of force. So let’s not be under the illusion that because we raise defence spending that our human rights will increase and the rules based order strengthened.

      Defence Forces are none of that. An egalitarian society can influence strong men and great deal makers that’s true but paradoxically but if men say no then paradoxically we are fucked and our recruitment falls way short then there is nothing woman can do they can only appeal to men. So we can have egalitarianism but only if men build it.

      Paradoxically and this is why I keep coming back to it if we are an egalitarian society then are men and women equal and the answer has to be no. I think we have to look at this really deeply to understand how we influence increased defence spending because we aren’t just enforcing our EEZ and protecting resources we are also enforcing our morality.

      The issue for me is swarm assualts. Whether it be masses of fishing vessels. Small boats saving the British army at Dunkirk during WW2 or swarm drones and of course AI or Ganghis Khan’s mogol hords. This is the final frontier where we solve the resource argument and this is where the baseline is because our morality comes down to who the fuck can enforce it.

      Now The Chief of the Defence Force can come up with a defence structure capable of defending New Zealands EEZ within a 3% budget increase but can he enforce our morals. Now we can preach about restraint and limiting offensive capability because we want to be more “moral.”

      Paradoxically whether or not we are moral or immoral the point is regardless of that we are being forced into the machinations of outside influence especially the NZDF are being forced into the outside machinations of moral egalitarian society and well it’s not a very good guarantee of human rights and a rules based order.

      Forget about this or that platform or whos cock is largest the first thing we need to do is raise current defence salaries right across the board not at but near private sector salaries and significantly upgrade defence housing medical, insurance and retirement. That’s gotta be done like yesterday. Then we go after the geriatric capability fall. Once we do that broadly speaking we will have a better understanding about what capabilities we want and capabilities we want to get rid of but most importantly where to put everything like Devonport private rental market is way to expensive it’s gotta move or you’ll need some sort of defence housing or something. Our P8s can only operate fully loaded from civilian airfields our defence airfields are to short. Our patrol vessels have to have increased size and range because we don’t have any Navy basses in the South Island.

      Ultimately we need a Prime Minister who believes in The New Zealand Defence Force and is going to honour The New Zealand Defence Force and give them the training and equipment that they need.

      1. Alas New Zealand should no longer rely on our old protectors to guarantee our security.

         Britain is a shadow of its former self, with it’s own military in a sorry state and has it’s own massive problems at this stage. Plus it’s literally half way across the earth.

         The US is increasingly unpredictable and isn’t looking at improving for some time. It can only be expected to act first in its own interests and these will not coincide with ours for most of the time.
         We can’t rely on such allies and the big blue Pacific to protect us anymore unless we wish to become even more of a vassal state and unable and unwilling to be acting in its own interests first and foremost.
         If we want to remain sovereign, we need to start taking our own defense seriously—without going cap in hand to the likes of Trump or Vance in our times of need. But that means building a real military capability, not just secondary roles such as peacekeeping forces, and disaster relief, coast guard and search and rescue missions for fishermen.
         And while securing our borders in other ways is a discussion for another day, it’s clear that being under-prepared cheapskates and panic buyers of questionable stuff to satisfy the minimum standards of cynical allies is no longer an option.
         If authority is indeed wielded by big men with big guns we need to have some of our own who can act in our interests.

8. Money spent on defence is money down the drain that could be spent on education, infrastructure, health etc – useful things.
   The only practical and positive thing military spending can achieve is to appease certain bully allies as they use economic standover tactics over us. So much for our independence.

   1. 100% agree

   2. Yes Richard well said. Cancelling failed Charter schools would be another savings.

      1. We’ve been cutting defence spending for 40 years yet I haven’t seen that peace dividend materialise in you health and education budgets. Infact those have been down scaled as well.

   3. That’s nonsense.

   4. Nice Richard… tautoko that!!

9. ‘Independent’- where ‘independent’ means ‘an aggressive terrier on Ammurrica’s leash barking at China’s heels’.

   What a joke.

10. “If we want to be independent – we need to lift Military, Aid and Diplomacy spending to 5% GDP”
    But what if “we” don’t want to be independent?
    Do “we” still “lift Military, Aid and Diplomacy spending to 5% GDP”?
    Yes, “we” do.
    Particularly because “we” do NOT want to be independent.

11. There’s a great deal of misunderstanding what independence means in the context of international relations.
    It certainly does not mean being friends with everyone as one naive commentator believes. In fact it is almost the exact opposite. It also differs from neutrality, although the two can be closely intertwined.
    What it does mean is that you need the ability to fend for yourself. We have some geographical advantage here, but even 5% of GDP is not going to cut the mustard against even moderate threats.
    Unlike Switzerland, we do not have a strong military, and our populace is not heavily armed and well trained in the art of defence. When asked about the threat of attack during WWII by an army twice the size, the Swiss responded “well we’ll have to shoot twice then”.
    To be truly neutral and independent, you need an unwavering commitment to promoting international piece, while ironically being well armed and have a serious commitment to defend your nation. You need to stand aside from all ideologies, be united in the cause, be dispassionate towards other countries, be removed from external pressures and influences and respect the international rule of law. It pays to have a strong history of doing this s if some country did decide to invade the whole world would rise in support.
    In short, NZ has no chance of ever approaching anything like independence without some massive paradigm shift in the way we see the world and our place in it.

    1. I hope you find inner peace Rangi

       1. yes. Not hard to be a bit antsy when you can see what is needed to be independent, but you can also see how far we actually are, from achieving this.

       2. That’s kind of you Stevie Boy, I’ll be fine.
          I hope you find your greased milk bottle to see you through the night.

12. What’s the lead time for the stuff New Zealand would be having to buy if military spending were to go up?

    1. For just one capability and when a say capability I mean a collection of different men and materials it’s about ten years from the initial request for information to full operating capability is about ten years so this stick about making defence spending all about what happened in the Tasman last week is a bit slidey doorey.

       Defence spending is like an asshole. If you just run shit and garbage junk food through the results are going to be disastrous. Like reacting to knee jerk response to some bullshit response for sailing with the Aussies in the south China Sea that is insane.

       But if defence force personnel eat right, sleep right, have a bit of entertainment and are respected again for being warriors. Then the resulting increase in defence spending will be…, not shit I guess.

       1. Sorry Sam. Don’t want “warriors” – want a professional military. Warriors lose almost every time

13. Cmon peeps,
    Drones instead of more traditional military stuff…… if we must.
    Stake a claim we’re neutral and let the fkers fight it out.
    We can’t afford, pyshologically, physically or financially to freak out and follow the crowd.
    Up the diplomacy effort, yes, but with confidence, humility and grace.
    We’re far enough removed to show there is another way.

14. “stake a claim we’re neutral”.
    Are you completely mad Joycie.
    You think the world in its EOL is going to say let’s just bypass NZ cus they are jellyfish and we love those.
    Or perhaps they say that’s where all the enemy is hiding buried beneath the Southern Alps so let’s nuke the fuckers.
    They aren’t nuking the jellyfish Stephen, I can assure you.

15. Military Industrial Complex

    It’s a thing. And New Zealand has one.

    It will need to be dismantled, restructured and repurposed.
    It’s a tall order.
    Expect resistance.

    The MIC in this country, like the MIC in all countries, has its own interests.

    Our MIC, raison d’être and its personal are all deeply embedded in the Western military alliance headed by the US.
    For our military and intelligence officers, career advancement is gained serving this Western aligned MIC.
    Our military and intelligence community may be having some second thoughts due to Trump’s naked hyper-imperialism – but to overcome decades of tradition, would not be a pain free experience for them. And they know it.
    Expect Resistance

    The I part of our MIC, owe their commercial success to this Western alliance.
    As the saying goes; You will never succeed in getting someone to understand something, if their livelyhood depends on them not understanding it.
    Expect resistance.

    Resistance!

    From RNZ:

    Activists scale Christchurch building in protest of weapons company establishing in NZ
    7:56 pm on 3 March 2025 [yesterday]
    Kate Green , Reporter
    kate.green@rnz.co.nz

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/543547/activists-scale-christchurch-building-in-protest-of-weapons-company-establishing-in-nz

    Police have arrested two protesters who scaled the building of international weapons company NIOA in Rolleston, south of Christchurch.
    The protesters, from the group Peace Action Ōtautahi, climbed onto the roof of the company’s NZ headquarters this morning, hanging large banners across the outside of the building.
    A police spokesperson said the situation had been safely resolved following the arrest of two people who will appear in court charged with burglary.
    Police say the remaining protestors left the scene voluntarily.
    In late December, the group hung a banner across the Bridge of Remembrance in a similar protest.
    In 2023, the global munitions company acquired Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, an Australian owned, America-based manufacturer of firearms and ammunition operating out of Tennessee.
    According to the company’s website, its products are “used by civilian sport shooters, law enforcement agencies, the United States military and more than 80 State Department approved countries across the world”.
    In a press release, Peace Action Ōtautahi said the aim was to highlight the alleged killing of innocent civilians with weapons supplied by NIOA……

    NIOA has been approached for comment.

Comments are closed.