Come on guys, the U.S military struggles against the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan. National security demands that we can't allow the New Zealand navy anywhere near our ports.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
NZ ships banned from Pearl Harbour
- Thread starter otago
- Start date
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
So you lied in your question, and already knew the answer? How nice.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Actually, I misread rugby's statement (I missed the first sentence). I was in the purpose of clarifying my response when you posted. For convenience, here it is again:
I stand by the question you quoted above.
I stand by the question you quoted above.
kramerfan86
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,572
While I understand the fear of nuclear power, I think its a bit hypocritical to accept the protection of a nuclear powered navy's sphere of influence but promptly not want it near you. Not letting them dock in return though is pretty petty IMO.
wilycoyote
King
So your solution is that the US should just lie? Even though everyone knows that at least certain types of vessels are nuclear powered? Of course, the assumption that I am making is that the US doesn't really employ important non-nuclear vessels.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It isn't due to "fear" of nuclear power. It is merely their wish to not be associated with it in any form whatsoever. Who can really blame them?
And exactly what dire enemy is the US Navy protecting New Zealand from?
Most US naval vessels do not have any nuclear weapons aboard, much less are nuclear powered.
wilycoyote
King
First, the fact that the US doesn't confirm anything makes your statement hard to support. Second, I tried to emphasize "important" in my statement. I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that aircraft carriers and submarines have some sort of nuclear material on board.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The only nuclear-powered ships in the US Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. There used to be some cruisers but they have all apparently been decommissioned. This is indeed "common knowledge".
The issue with the US Navy is regarding nuclear weapons. They don't want to admit which vessels have nuclear weapons on board and which don't. But in the case of visiting New Zealand, Vancouver, Canada, or Kobe, Japan, all they would have to do is simply dock. Nobody is going to inspect them.
The issue with the US Navy is regarding nuclear weapons. They don't want to admit which vessels have nuclear weapons on board and which don't. But in the case of visiting New Zealand, Vancouver, Canada, or Kobe, Japan, all they would have to do is simply dock. Nobody is going to inspect them.
wilycoyote
King
Which is incredibly consistent with my previous post (even if that is true).
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
No, my solution is that the US should either accept NZ's choice, and not dock it's ships there, or declare which ones are nuclear free. My point about the lack of inspections is simply to avert a whole 'loss of sovereignty' slippery slope type argument. That, and stop acting like children, and inviting the Kiwi's to a camping trip, but then saying have to camp two sites over.
I mean, realistically, anyone going up against the US navy knows which ships are nuclear powered. And if the US declares USS Whatsitsname a nuclear free vessel, that doesn't mean it can't carry nuclear weapons; it merely means it isn't carrying nuclear weapons. For all we know, those were offloaded onto USS Someothership at the 13 mile line, and will be restored just as soon as the port call is done. This is just the US over-reacting.
Mise
isle of lucy
Well that one was a play on words, whereas the rest were just "lol New Zealand probably has a worthless military because it is so small hahahahaha AMERICA IS WINNAR!!!"
Nobody
Gangster
I hear the tug boats they sent to bring in the frigates were bigger than the frigates.
Also on board our frigate was the entire New Zealand air force combat wing.
No body cares about this... New Zealands navy being kept out of pearl harbour is about as important as the lower hutt rugby finals, or a tiny 2 minute earth quake we had last night.
Also on board our frigate was the entire New Zealand air force combat wing.
No body cares about this... New Zealands navy being kept out of pearl harbour is about as important as the lower hutt rugby finals, or a tiny 2 minute earth quake we had last night.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
As someone pointed out already the US simply didn't let the NZ ship dock at the naval base. They are perfectly capable and allowed to dock at any civilian facility that can support them. Docking at civilian facilities instead of military ones is normal, nearly every international port visit I have participated in was at a civilian site even if there was a military facility within sight. Easier/better liberty and better to show the flag.
Contrast that with New Zealand who bans all ships from their territorial waters period and it is clearly NZ being more restrictive. Their right of course.
Contrast that with New Zealand who bans all ships from their territorial waters period and it is clearly NZ being more restrictive. Their right of course.
warpus
In pork I trust
I support NZ in this
Not all ships.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Other nations dont force us to make that declaration. In that regard, isnt it the Kiwis being childish?
warpus
In pork I trust
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
"Well, you can't come play at my house either!" seems a bit more childish to me
Except thats not the case. As Pat said, they can (and did) dock at civilian facilities. We dont even get that option at NZ.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
Except they don't.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
They both seem to be a bit childish. Why not just let each other dock at each other's ports like good allies?
