AUKUS Treaty NEWS ONLY

Amusing and seen before - leaving here for now so people can be amused but let's not continue with follow up commentary. It should be obvious to people that things are not that simplistic in the real world.
 
www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Joint Australia-US defence work ramps up - Australian Manufacturing Forum

By Peter Roberts Deepening technological involvement between the three AUKUS partner nations is a key aim of the AUKUS pact with joint work between Australia and the United States escalating over summer. Work is underway between the two nations on at least three areas – submarine development...
www.aumanufacturing.com.au www.aumanufacturing.com.au
 
New Zealand defence minister is meeting her Australian counterpart on Thursday and reports are New Zealand will formally request to join Pillar 2 of AUKUS.
 
WatcherZero said:
New Zealand defence minister is meeting her Australian counterpart on Thursday and reports are New Zealand will formally request to join Pillar 2 of AUKUS.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how NZ would be allowed to join an alliance when NZ won't allow the warships of other members of said alliance to dock.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I still don't see how NZ would be allowed to join an alliance when NZ won't allow the warships of other members of said alliance to dock.
Click to expand...

Technically NZ only will not let USN ships dock. And also, they really don't bring anything to the table in that capacity compared to Australia anyway. My guess is if they are allowed in, it is because they still have a Five Eyes role and also just so the US can point to how deep its bench is. Their military and their facilities have nothing of value.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I still don't see how NZ would be allowed to join an alliance when NZ won't allow the warships of other members of said alliance to dock.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
Technically NZ only will not let USN ships dock. And also, they really don't bring anything to the table in that capacity compared to Australia anyway. My guess is if they are allowed in, it is because they still have a Five Eyes role and also just so the US can point to how deep its bench is. Their military and their facilities have nothing of value.
Click to expand...
Folks, under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 the following apply:
  • The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.
  • "Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power is prohibited."
It is not exclusively applied to USN ships!

It also does not prevent the warships of other members of said alliance to dock.

New Zealand is looking at Joining Pillar 2 only and their legislation would not affect that. To say that they have nothing to offer in this regard is an assumption not necessarily supported by facts when one considers that this pillar covers the following:
  • Undersea capabilities.
  • Quantum technologies.
  • Artificial intelligence and autonomy.
  • Advanced Cyber.
  • Hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.
  • Electronic warfare.
  • Innovation.
  • Information sharing.
 
Last edited:
I believe the U.S. is unique in its policy of not declaring explicitly whether or not any given ship does or does not have nuclear weapons, so I think functionally the ban only applies to USN ships (unless the RN has a similar policy?). Since Australia has no nuclear weapons I presume this is a non issue for them.
 
Josh_TN said:
I believe the U.S. is unique in its policy of not declaring explicitly whether or not any given ship does or does not have nuclear weapons, so I think functionally the ban only applies to USN ships (unless the RN has a similar policy?). Since Australia has no nuclear weapons I presume this is a non issue for them.
Click to expand...
That is the US's decision though, it is not the NZ legislation. Do not confuse the two.
 
Josh_TN said:
I believe the U.S. is unique in its policy of not declaring explicitly whether or not any given ship does or does not have nuclear weapons, so I think functionally the ban only applies to USN ships (unless the RN has a similar policy?). Since Australia has no nuclear weapons I presume this is a non issue for them.
Click to expand...
NZ has made it clear their policy extends to nuclear-powered vessels, so it would exclude nuke subs from any nation. That said, it's a small inconvenience the USN is generally willing to live with in exchange for the benefits of expanding partnership with Kiwiland.
 
I suggest people read the actual legislation provided at my earlier post. It is extremely easy and clear to read and should provide no confusion.

And to clarify, USN ship should mainly be barred from entry under the clause "The Prime Minister may only grant approval for the entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by foreign warships if the Prime Minister is satisfied that the warships will not be carrying any nuclear explosive device upon their entry into the internal waters of New Zealand.". Because US policy would be to not clarify whether said ship had/did not have nuclear weapons on board, the NZ PM could not be permitted to allow said vessels in.

Similarly, any nuclear powered vessel (such as SSNs), be that USN, RN, future RAN etc, would not be permitted entry under the "Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power is prohibited." clause.

However a USN ship that was neither nuclear powered and did not have nuclear weapons on board would be permitted.
 
The USN policy is a little outdated in that it is well known that none of its surface combatants carry special weapons for decades now. But also I think docking in NZ just isn’t a priority for them.
 
A quick search shows New Zealand has some strength in information technology which ties into the space sector. Anyone with more knowledge can formulate how partner countries can benefit from this deal with NZ?
 
GTX said:
However a USN ship that was neither nuclear powered and did not have nuclear weapons on board would be permitted.
Click to expand...
The USN has a policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard its ships. This proved to be a sticking point as they would only be allowed to dock after stating that there were no nuclear weapons on board, breaking that policy. The solution was for the USN ships to go to Australia, so yes, as GTX says, it's a USN decision, not a ban on American vessels. We certainly haven't blocked Australian vessels at all.

Anti-nuclear sentiment in NZ has been very strong since French nuclear testing began in the Pacific and is tied with national identity post-Empire (there's a lot to cover there which I won't go into). The anti-nuclear legislation came out of this and became a major issue of national pride with the centre-left Labour government of 1984 being seen as ushering a dramatic change from the old cultural focus. It's hard and pointless to disentangle the cultural movement from the legislation enacted. You can probably even throw in the formation of the EEC leading to NZ having to find new export markets away from Britain as a factor in the evolution of NZ's post-Empire identity.

These days we talk a lot about the 'national brand' and its importance to trade, tourism, and diplomacy and how it's based on not being seen to be subservient to any major power.

We're doing a complicated dance with China too, which has been doing its best to gain influence in Pacific Island states - with which NZ has very strong ties (the largest Samoan population is in Auckland, not Apia). The leading member of the new centre-right coalition government, the National Party, is very pro-business and sees trade with China as an opportunity (certain MPs and ministers have interests too). Its partners, the more Libertarian ACT takes the same line but the other partner, a social conservative, populist party called New Zealand First has long campaigned on anti-Chinese sentiment. There will be some tension...

A bit of context:

en.wikipedia.org

ANZUS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Anzac spirit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Re: the latter link. It's part of the fundamental national mythology and you'll see politicians from both sides of the ditch (the Tasman Sea) bringing it up. It may be 'just' mythology but that determines national sentiment, voting patterns, and political rhetoric. The new government will be very keen to see AUKUS proceed and will probably be pulling this card out at every opportunity and will 'come to an arrangement.'
 
donnage99 said:
A quick search shows New Zealand has some strength in information technology which ties into the space sector. Anyone with more knowledge can formulate how partner countries can benefit from this deal with NZ?
Click to expand...
Rocketlab launches from here. Lately they've been pursuing US military and intelligence contracts (which has led to some local opposition as they initially promised that they wouldn't be doing that).

Peter Thiel and a number of other oligarchs have their boltholes here too :) Thiel was able by mysterious means to leverage NZ citizenship despite having spent less than two weeks in the country at the time. It apparently had something to do with his company Palantir and US-NZ intelligence ties. The government at the time was National-led and they're in power again. All three parties in the coalition are certain to support continuing and expanding ties.
 
Josh_TN said:
The USN policy is a little outdated in that it is well known that none of its surface combatants carry special weapons for decades now. But also I think docking in NZ just isn’t a priority for them.
Click to expand...
Given that it is US law that "The United States Navy will neither confirm, nor deny, the presence or absence of nuclear weapons onboard any ship", no USN ship has stopped in NZ since the No Nukes policy was declared in 1984.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Given that it is US law that "The United States Navy will neither confirm, nor deny, the presence or absence of nuclear weapons onboard any ship", no USN ship has stopped in NZ since the No Nukes policy was declared in 1984.
Click to expand...

My impression was that this was a DoD policy and not a US law. Is this something Congress specifically mandated?
 
Josh_TN said:
My impression was that this was a DoD policy and not a US law. Is this something Congress specifically mandated?
Click to expand...
Was explained to me as law, though that could be UCMJ "law" and not Congress.

It may also be part of the general nuclear weapons classification rules, I've never tried to dig into those on the grounds that my brain cells won't survive reading the legalese.
 
GTX said:
Errr...not quite:

Click to expand...
Wonder how that worked, because I'm under the impression that NZ law requires someone to ask if the ship is carrying nuclear weapons and the USN will only say "can neither confirm nor deny" when asked.

Again, the NZ law bans both nuclear powered ships and anything armed with nuclear weapons.
 
I am not sure what the problem is, the USN was instructed to remove all nuclear warheads back in, what, 1990, by President Bush, except for SLBMs. Therefore there is only nuclear powered ships to worry about and the USN is not an all-nuclear navy. Just have them send non-nuclear powered ships to Kiwiland. Problem solved.
 
Rickshaw said:
I am not sure what the problem is, the USN was instructed to remove all nuclear warheads back in, what, 1990, by President Bush, except for SLBMs. Therefore there is only nuclear powered ships to worry about and the USN is not an all-nuclear navy. Just have them send non-nuclear powered ships to Kiwiland. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
NZ still asks if the ships are carrying nuclear weapons, and the only allowed answer to that question is "can neither confirm nor deny"
 
Scott Kenny said:
NZ still asks if the ships are carrying nuclear weapons, and the only allowed answer to that question is "can neither confirm nor deny"
Click to expand...

There is a waiver to policy allowed. USS Sampson visited Auckland in 2016 and a USCG icebreaker heading home from Antarctica visited Lyttelton in 2017. On the latter case, the logi was that the Antarctic treaty already for ids nuclear weapons, so the icebreaker had to be nuke-free anyway. In the case of Sampson, there may have been some "don't ask, don't tell." At least the USN refrained from the usual NCND language. It is a bit of a farce, since as noted, there are no nuclear weapons in service suitable for use from small combatants anymore.
 
Enough with the NZ Nuclear Ban legislation speculation/discussion - it is off topic. As already stated above, the legislation is quite clear and easy to read. It is off topic for the AUKUS Treaty thread though as even if NX does join, they are only reportedly looking at Pillar 2 which has nothing to do with nuclear weapons/power.
 
My concern, as a New Zealander, would be the military's ability to contribute. Not by way of skill or knowledge but because of the new government's mandate that every department must cut 6.5% (7.5% in some cases but 6.5 for NZDF), on top of already compounding retention issues.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
My concern, as a New Zealander, would be the military's ability to contribute. Not by way of skill or knowledge but because of the new government's mandate that every department must cut 6.5% (7.5% in some cases but 6.5 for NZDF), on top of already compounding retention issues.
Click to expand...
My response as head of NZDF would be:
1) "okay, what's the budget for all the public-facing things we do? Is that 6.5% of the total? Announce that we're going to cut all that." Await massive public outcry over things like SAR and all the other stuff the public loves seeing.
2) After public outcry forces retraction of plan 1, announce that the pay for all servicemembers will be cut to get the required 6.5% savings. That's probably a 20% pay cut, placing most of the NZDF on public assistance.
3) After further public outcry forces retraction of plan 2, find the next big high-profile item to threaten to cut.
4) repeat until the government suffers an outbreak of common sense and tells the NZDF that they don't have to make any cuts.
 
MrPhantomMan said:
My concern, as a New Zealander, would be the military's ability to contribute. Not by way of skill or knowledge but because of the new government's mandate that every department must cut 6.5% (7.5% in some cases but 6.5 for NZDF), on top of already compounding retention issues.
Click to expand...

AUKUS pillar 2 isnt really a military structure but a tech sharing one, they can contribute academically through university participation or through companies participating. Beyond Hypersonics and Electronic Warfare there are also more mundane elements like Cyber Warfare, Quantum tech, AI and undersea exploration technology which will have heavy civilian application.

For example New Zealand has companies that develop underwater drones.
 
WatcherZero said:
AUKUS pillar 2 isnt really a military structure but a tech sharing one, they can contribute academically through university participation or through companies participating. Beyond Hypersonics and Electronic Warfare there are also more mundane elements like Cyber Warfare, Quantum tech, AI and undersea exploration technology which will have heavy civilian application.

For example New Zealand has companies that develop underwater drones.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Scott Kenny said:
NZ still asks if the ships are carrying nuclear weapons, and the only allowed answer to that question is "can neither confirm nor deny"
Click to expand...

Why? US Navy surface ships are known not to carry nukes so what is the point in denying their existence.
 
Rickshaw said:
Why? US Navy surface ships are known not to carry nukes so what is the point in denying their existence.
Click to expand...
Because that's the instructions given to every Sailor if asked that question. You WILL answer that question as "can neither confirm nor deny", or your ass will go to Leavenworth for espionage.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom