“Force multiplier” has nothing to do with strongholds or fortresses and everything to do with structuring NZ’s armed services so as to complement our likely allies, principally Australia. An example might be arming our navy with anti submarine weapons while Australia’s looks after air defence. Little and Luxon have identified NZ’s national interests and the government now needs to fund and structure our armed forces accordingly.
I understand you read the defence policy documents where the concept of "force multiplier" appeared. Unfortunately, the use of the concept in the documents is problematic. As a military concept, force multipliers are fortresses, machine gun nest, buildings (e.g. the Atlantic Wall during WW II.) where the human resource can fight with forces multiple in size. In the middle age fortresses, the proportion of defenders to offenders could be 1 to 10, still, the positions might be manintained.
“In military science, force multiplication or a force multiplier is a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it.” For NZ it is developing a specialism to support Australia, rather than trying to be all things to all men.
Okay, so by definition, Luxon is right. However, the use of this concept is still euphemism at the least, and glorifying. Sounds odd. (Australia would be still stronger by simply adding NZ forces, especially when the resources are optimised.)
“Force multiplier” has nothing to do with strongholds or fortresses and everything to do with structuring NZ’s armed services so as to complement our likely allies, principally Australia. An example might be arming our navy with anti submarine weapons while Australia’s looks after air defence. Little and Luxon have identified NZ’s national interests and the government now needs to fund and structure our armed forces accordingly.
Thanks!
I understand you read the defence policy documents where the concept of "force multiplier" appeared. Unfortunately, the use of the concept in the documents is problematic. As a military concept, force multipliers are fortresses, machine gun nest, buildings (e.g. the Atlantic Wall during WW II.) where the human resource can fight with forces multiple in size. In the middle age fortresses, the proportion of defenders to offenders could be 1 to 10, still, the positions might be manintained.
“In military science, force multiplication or a force multiplier is a factor or a combination of factors that gives personnel or weapons (or other hardware) the ability to accomplish greater feats than without it.” For NZ it is developing a specialism to support Australia, rather than trying to be all things to all men.
Okay, so by definition, Luxon is right. However, the use of this concept is still euphemism at the least, and glorifying. Sounds odd. (Australia would be still stronger by simply adding NZ forces, especially when the resources are optimised.)