N.Z. and Disarmament

Last week some Admiral or other (we lose count of them), accused the people of New Zealand of being apathetic, complacent and altogether unrealistic about the question of Defence. The country, he said, is not making the sacrifices necessary to bear its fair share of the burden of the defence of "Western civilisation." But, in view of the perilous economic position of N.Z., nothing could be more realistic than the Admiral's solution; the purchase of half a dozen more Whitby-class frigate at £3 million each!

Defence is a grim problem for every nation. Solutions must be determined by practical considerations, but the problem itself it worth examining. Firstly, the cost is crippling. New Zealand spent £19 million in the financial year 1959-60; but as the Admiral said, we are not paying our fair share; and this money maintained armed forces of only 12,771 men. The cost for Britain and the U.S. runs into thousands of millions a year, and the equivalent in the U.S.S.R. and China must be just about the same. Yet what benefit are they getting? The negative one of peace, the positive ones of blackmail (bargaining power if you like), self-confidence, strength. These things they can't afford to lose, but they can't afford to keep them either. Economists have been suggesting for years that the great powers, Britain in particular, are liable to run themselves into exhaustion and bankruptcy in the effort to maintain their "strength".

So much of the effort is wasted. The U.K.'s Black Knight and Blue Streak programmes have turned out to utterly useless; after costing hundreds of millions. The expensive Thor batteries in Britain have just been declared obsolete. Dozens of rocket and aircraft programmes have been cancelled at every stage, and even the products of the successful ones will become obsolete without ever having been used in anger (we hope).

Secondly, New Zealand just Can't defend itself. No effort we could possibly make could stop a determined attack. So we depend on, ultimately, the U.S. and its nuclear deterrent. No declaration of our refusal to be defended by nuclear weapons can alter this fact. We can take part In a small affair like the Malayan action, but that's all.

Until we have some confidence in international disarmament, it is necessary at least to keep the training machinery for the three services in existence. The more cheaply this can be done, the better. The present Malayan and selective Service programmes serve no other purpose, and should be cut down. No increase in our Armed Forces could make any substantial difference to our military minuteness, so why kill ourselves trying?

—J. C. R.