The central question in this series of articles is what form New Zealand defence forces will ultimately need to take.  The answer is  not confined to the sort of conflict that New Zealand could be involved in.  It, crucially, includes the question of whether New Zealand would fight on its own or whether it needs allies/s and who it would seek to have as an ally.

In previous articles, it was argued that the only potential foe that could be identified was China. It was also argued that while the exact nature of any conflict cannot be nailed down the most likely type of risk will arise in a maritime theatre. One serious possibility is of such a conflict arising at sea thousands of kilometres from New Zealand’s shores.  The risk of a land battle is more remote. 

But as was pointed out in part three, New Zealand’s chances on its own  of combating such a maritime challenge that could arise at a remote distance from right from New Zealand are very low. Competing  in such a conflict would require heavyweight resources such as a naval battle group.  At most, New Zealand could hope to form an alliance with powers with powers that can field such a weighty  assemblage with New Zealand possibly contributing in some secondary capacity.  Any suggestion that New Zealand could mount serious opposition by dispatching two or possibly three medium-sized warships that were not subject to separate anti-submarine and anti-warfare anti air screens (the latter to deal with UAVs cruise missiles, aircraft fired missiles et cetera) cannot be regarded seriously.  In contrast, the typical naval battle group will include the whole spectrum of those additional elements to deal with the main conceivable threats.

The offensive power of those naval groupings in the US navy is usually enhanced by the presence of submarines and strike aircraft to be  flown off nuclear powered aircraft carriers along with carrier borne intelligence/command and control planes.  Chinese Carrier Strike Groups are just as powerful being of a similar composition.  This is all before consideration is given to the advantages that China would derive from its space platforms. 

Assuming China was the foe,  another problem, a non-maritime one,  for New Zealand could take the form of China employing the strategy of “aerial collapse warfare” referred to in the article in Part 3  to deter New Zealand from contesting a Chinese maritime initiative.  As previously observed, it is difficult to see how New Zealand on its own could come up with an air defence system to protect it from such a threat.

The features of likely possible attacks lead into the issue of whether New Zealand on its own could defend itself against such an attack.

 Can and should New Zealand go it alone?

A key problem that New Zealanders have to grapple with is that because of its small size, New Zealand lacks the critical mass needed for it to create a viable standalone defence system; while it  could certainly create  some of the components of a military system, it could not build a complete military system. 

A  number of people ask whether size issues can be got round by harnessing technology, say by using autonomous platforms, with the reason being that drones are a cheap and reasonably and available solution and can be pitted against more sophisticated and sizable traditional militaries with success, as has been demonstrated in the Ukraine.  This is this type of technology is often provided as an example of how a small country can engage a larger one in so-called asynchronous warfare.

But technology is not a silver bullet that overcomes the problems inherent in a small country with a modest economy attempting to resist the military power of a large nation with a vast industrial base like China. 

While autonomous platforms have their undeniable uses, they  have a limited range of capabilities. If New Zealand is preparing for maritime conflict (which is not clear) in that type of warfare, for example, maritime UAV’s might be able to detect the presence of submarines but do they have the ability of conventional larger scale naval surface vessels or aircraft possess to  deploy anti-submarine weapons to destroy them?

Further UAV’s[1] have limited range – with perhaps the longest range being 2000km judging by current Ukraine experience. They cannot therefore operate at the vast distances involved in the potential specific ocean conflicts that New Zealand could be drawn into.  Other platforms would be required to bring the drones into proximity of the point from which they would be launched. One way to do this would be with traditional warships.   Where does that leave New Zealand if it has no naval ships with the means of defending themselves or defending other surface vessels that might be  dispatched as drone carrying carrier motherships?

It is probably  for these reasons that no  other nation  has re-directed its armament policies towards  relying on tech in preference to traditional military components  such as guided missiles, ships, combat aircraft, aircraft carriers and submarines.  Typically, what they are doing is supplementing their traditional military resources with UAV’s and building technology[2] and AI into their command and control and other systems.  They do not view technology-based defences as a substitute for the type of traditional platforms.

But it is equally clear that New Zealand does not belong in the league which can acquire traditional-type forces of the kind above.  It could never field even a modest maritime naval force to challenge a major power.  This is the primary ground supporting the argument that New Zealand must have military allies if it is to have any chance of defending itself. 

In an earlier article reference  was made to “urban collapse” warfare. In that article, it was noted that New Zealand had no air defence and the only country that could help it in that area was the United States.    It could do that by deterring a country like China from deploying missiles against New Zealand’s infrastructure and civilians, by communicating to the enemy that there was a credible risk that an attack on New Zealand,  would attract a counter strike from its ally.  It is also a potential source of air defence systems tht possibly could successfully counter this type of attack. 

UAV’s wld be unlikely to offer anything by way of defence against this type of threat.

The  more fundamental problem is that it is not possible to even start to consider what advantages technology offers without framing the type of warfare that it will be required for. The New Zealand Minister  of Defence, it is reported, has had meetings with defence contractors with a view to obtaining assistance from the tech sector for New Zealand’s defines. While there was some discussion in the media about some of the technologies that were discussed, such as Israel’s “Iron Dome” technology for air defence and Amazon Webb Services Kuiper KY P project (which supports the US defence global satellite network), the million-dollar question, “what type of warfare are we preparing for?” was not touched upon-at least not in media reports[3].

New Zealanders who know even a little of the history of their country’s involvement in major wars would just assume that New Zealand would only go to war with their allies. They would regard it as common sense that that should be so and would be surprised at any suggestion otherwise.  If the issue is explained to them in those terms, they are likely to appreciate how important a defence alliance is.

The answer to the question, “can and should New Zealand go it alone?”  is that it is inconceivable that New Zealand on its own could prevail against China, having regard to the disproportionate size of the two countries defence structures.  The    scale of the problems New Zealand will encounter in defending itself strongly indicate the need for allies to fight with;  that the only viable defence for New Zealand would be one that is built around having allies.

Opposition to an alliance with the US

Those who would oppose New Zealand joining an alliance do not, apparently, do so on the grounds that  they believe New Zealand is well placed to defend itself.  Instead, (and this, admittedly is an as they begin from a different starting point, namely, that there is no need for an alliance because  New Zealand is not at any risk.  That position would seem to reflect a belief  that because of  geographical distance from China plus the fact that there has been peace in this region for 80 years, there is no need to rearm; that China is essentially peaceful and is no risk to this part of the Pacific. 

 It is argued here that if this competing view  prevailed,  then any chance of New Zealand’s defending  itself would  be extinguished by inaction so that New Zealand would  by default end up having to be neutral.  Would neutrality  be an acceptable  outcome for New Zealand?

Such a strategy  must rest on an assumption that hostile powers would respect New Zealand’s neutrality and refrain from using force against it.  New Zealanders will judge for themselves how realistic that expectation is.  They may come to a different view in the light of China’s past actions against its neighbours  in the South China Sea

Those  opposing a defence alliance with the United States may also justify their position  on how America has mismanaged  its foreign policy in recent history, pointing to its military misadventures in countries such as Iraq as exhibit one.

It is accepted that criticism of the US in that area is fair. But those who argue for the need of an alliance with the United States can do so without necessarily assuming that America in the past has been without fault or that this time it will be different.  They  have  to accept that choosing a defence alliance with the US  would never be an ideal outcome.  They could respond that the real world does not usually  present us with choices between an imperfect and a perfect outcome and that the  choice will invariably come down to balancing two not completely satisfactory outcomes in order to identify which is the less unsatisfactory. 

To put it bluntly, New Zealand has a choice between neutrality or fighting to defend itself as part of an alliance.  New Zealand adopting neutrality would spell the end of any chance that New Zealand would ever receive military assistance from a Western alliance and would ever be able to defend itself.

Future articles will discuss the current state of New Zealand relations with the US and Australia in regard to their role in pushing back against Chinese expansion,  what chance New Zealand has of being accepted as a member of the umbrella of a western military alliance and what steps it needs to take in order to  improve its strategic position.

---

[1] Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles

[2] Such as Kuiper referred to above

[3] As reported by RNZ, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/535018/government-turns-to-tech-firms-to-boost-nzdf