admin (PRO)Our Defence Force
New Zealand's defense capabilities are the stuff of mockery and satire.
Our army has over a hundred LAVs. They cost $750 million to buy, and it cost us $700,000 to deploy just 3 of them overseas, where they proved really costly to run. The only reason we did deploy them is that our previous models were so crappy, two people died as a direct result. Still, a small bomb or anti-tank missile easily rips an LAV of this class to shreds. They can't even cross a small river. Despite this, the army is currently procuring almost 200 new MHOV transporters (we still don't have the aircraft to actually move them anywhere, nor any use for them really). We have about 320 other small cars, 6 "combat tractors" that we also can't deploy, and that's it! Even our standard assault rifle is being replaced currently because it's too useless (Project IWRP).
Our airforce has a few helicopters, the NH90s. They have proven to be completely unusable for any of the purposes for which they were purchased. These cost a lot of money and we can't deploy them. Our defence minister has personally asserted that they're really hard to use - indeed, nobody can figure it out. We're currently in the process of replacing our aircraft with the new A400M, which is super expensive, and frankly, already appears to be unsafe. It's the latest in a long line of wasteful spending. The only other thing we have is a single transport aircraft. Since 2001 we've had no air combat capability at all, nor do we ever plan it.
Our navy has two combat ships (Mana and Kaha), both of which have seen practically no service and which are both currently undergoing an expensive "midlife refurbishment" project. They cost $1.5 million per day at sea to run, and have never done anything useful. We have a multi-role ship (Canterbury) which we purchased for a lot of money, and which from the get-go was full of deficiencies. The project to get her mostly working again (Project Protector Remediation) is still ongoing. Other than that we have a tanker, and two offshore patrol vessels that are apparently significantly less capable than the Sea Shepherd Greenpeace volunteer ships. Just last January, three run down old fishing boats easily outlasted these vessels. The fleet also occasionally has helicopters, the Seasprites, which are also currently being replaced by a newer model.
New Zealand military equipment - looks cool, isn't practical
It's always the same old story: we buy some semi-expensive kit thinking that will make us look cool, when in fact it only makes us look stupid. The shameful thing is, by 2020, everything (except maybe the ship Mana) needs replacement anyway due to depreciation.
In short, our defence capabilities are practically zero. We have thrown a lot of money around on trophies, but they're useless.
Our Defence Needs
This is New Zealand:
As you can see, our hemisphere contains Australia, Indonesia, and a few pacific islands. It stands to reason to question, then, who exactly we're defending ourselves against. Nations maintain militaries primarily because they expect to be attacked, but New Zealand's government - by their own admission - don't. None of the nations that can attack us are hostile.
Even supposing, say, that the United States suddenly decided they hate our guts and want to invade us. Actually doing so would be rather difficult. The terrain is hardly conducive to the movement of equipment for one thing. Just getting here past all that ocean would be a mission in itself. Australia would be an obvious base of operations if they could be convinced, but even then, the costs of the mission would be enormous. If the US thought the terrain was difficult in Vietnam, NZ is about a thousand times worse. Nor does the US stand to gain anything in either political terms, or in resources, in this hypothetical scenario. I'll come back to why wars happen later.
New Zealand does, on the other hand, have a vast number of extremely important and underfunded defence requirements that fall outside of the scope of conventional warfare:
- Being so isolated, New Zealand has a unique biodiversity that needs to be protected against invasive species. Biological attack on our environment is our #1 threat.
- In particular, our fisheries are frequently invaded by foreign boats that come here to nick our fish.
- Our land is quite prone to natural disasters, such as volcanoes, floods, cyclones and earthquakes.
- Cybersecurity is in urgent need of a review.
- Our environment is also prone to man-made attacks requiring relief, such as fires and oil spills.
Christchurch earthquake, MV Rena wreck, Tangiwai disaster, Whanganui floods
These all share a number of important characteristics:
- They are largely accidental
- They are dangerous
- International cooperation is high
- They are environment-dependant, and
- They are not in any way helped by our defence force
The recent Christchurch earthquake was a case study in this last point, where the defence force felt the need to help out, only to get in the way of relief efforts, leaving people trapped inside buildings for longer rather than doing anything useful. We spend millions and millions of dollars on this force, and this is the only domestic security it has been involved with in some decades. Indeed, never in New Zealand's storied history has the New Zealand Defence Force actually been successful in defending New Zealand.
To defend against these threats, we don't need guns and tanks. We need an effective civil defence. The problem is we don't have one. The government hasn't spent a cent on civil defence for over a decade. Meanwhile we quietly spend over $3 billion every year on the defence forces. You read that right. Three. Billion. Dollars. That's more than our ministry of education and all the roads in the country put together get. For literally no benefit to our nation whatsoever, that's a huge waste. We've got to ask ourselves - do we get 3 billion dollars in value from the NZDF?
What is the real justification for the NZDF?
The main reason why we have a military still isn't because we actually need one. It's because everyone else is doing it.
Recently our (conservative) government announced we're spending far too little on defence forces, and unveiled a budget to drastically increase defence spending. The (liberal) opposition's response was... that this budget doesn't go far enough and that we need to increase defence spending even more. But when it actually comes to deploying this military, pretty much everyone's opposed. The recent deployment to Iraq, for instance, was opposed outright by the opposition and only supported by the government due to an apparent threat by the five eyes intelligence network, the Prime Minister initially being outright opposed, then suddenly labelling the limited deployment as being "the price of the club". In fact, despite there being numerous conflicts around the world, the New Zealand army stays out of almost all of them. When it does send people, it usually sends hardly any, and they're almost always in non-combat roles.
It's not that we want to fight. The sole reason we're spending billions on the NZDF and nothing on civil defence is that we want to show the world how much we're spending, not because we have the will to actually use it. We don't intend to go to war, we don't have to go to war, and we certainly do not need to go to war. My model is simple: scrap the defence force. Get a working civil defence instead. We'd probably have more than enough money left over for economic development, better education, conservation, better health services, and a lot more. To a tiny nation such as New Zealand, three billion is a LOT of money.
Why do wars even happen?
When people make decisions about stuff, they look to two things: the cost, and the benefit. A war is generally waged when a cost outweighs the benefit. Invading New Zealand is high cost, low benefit. There's simply no government that would launch a direct assault on New Zealand.
The way a war would MOST likely happen in New Zealand is not by an invasion, but by sabotage to bring the country down from the inside. The NZDF doesn't deal with this at all - the police do. Unlike foreign invasion (if you don't count British colonization which was largely accepted by the peoples living here already), New Zealand does have first-hand experience with state sabotage. It seems to happen every 50 years or so, most recently in the 80s when we were attacked by the French.
Examples of ships sunk by sabotage by a foreign government operating in New Zealand
This is a useful method for attack, because the cost is relatively low and the chance of a payoff is higher. But again, our police is radically underfunded. So far as the public knows, state sabotage has never been successfully prevented in New Zealand through government action. Instead we spend our money on trophies like fancy ships that don't actually work. Most recently, cyber warfare has become the preferred state sabotage vector, and no LAV will stop a cyber attack. Biological attack, disaster relief - the NZDF is well suited to none of these roles.
Internationally, the benefits to war are decreasing. Human development is improving. As it does, the incentives to attack New Zealand only decrease. If fighting is to attain a benefit, and people have already attained that benefit, then there is no longer an incentive to fight. Just as wealth solves violence, however, so does violence create poverty. The cycle between violence and poverty is now globally the main reason for poverty's continued existence. Every gun and tank thus contributes to keeping violence alive in the world. But still, it is an issue more easily solved than ever before.
Our future is, as such, actually very bright. Why then are we wasting billions of dollars every year on a military we don't need and can't afford, and not spending that money where it can best be used?
The resolution is affirmed.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-26 22:50:17
| Speak Round
Blackflag (CON)Let's Get Started...
I intend to defend the establishment of the New Zealand Defense Force by proving several things
- Prove that there are problems facing the world that a New Zealand military could help solve
- Prove that a New Zealand Defense Force is positive for New Zealand's foreign relations
- Prove that a New Zealand Defense Force is vital for maintaining employment
- Presenting a plan that will create 24,000 new jobs in the New Zealand Defense Force without increasing the budget at all.
I wish to include further clarification in my first round on the current arsenal of New Zealand.
The Fighting "Kiwi" Infantryman
The New Zealand Infantryman is equipped with a Steyr Aug Bullpup Assault Rifle, licensed from Austria. The New Zealand Infantryman is equipped with a ballistic vest, a P226 standard issue service pistol, and a modern telecommunications set. According to the average military anaylist, the Kiwi's are exceptionally well trained and effective. The average New Zealand soldier is organized the same way the US organizes its elite marine force. A week of fighting and *bam*, New Zealand is para-trooping its forces out of the sky to assist in the fighting. Military confidence in Kiwi infantryman is high, which is why officers value their deployment and send them on some of the more specialized and tactical operations.
New Zealand Special Forces: NZSAS
There is one thing about the New Zealand Military that any experienced officer will agree with. They have one hell of a special forces division. Can I even go as far as saying that New Zealand has the best special forces south of the equator? Equipped with the latest ballistic technologies, and the devastating MP5 machine gun, the New Zealand Special Air Service are so reknowned that they can make a Spetznaz SFS soldier think twice before engaging them. The NZSAS are absolutely beloved by Allied commanders, and their participation in conflicts not only saves a boatload of allied lives, but it is also a great PR boost for the New Zealand armed forces.
New Zealand Tank: The Scorpion 90
The Scorpion 90 series, otherwise known as the Scorpion II, is one of the most revolutionary tank designs ever produced. The Scorpion II is considered a light reconnaissance tank. It is outfitted with 12.7mm thick armor, but its strength comes with its extremely fast mobility, incredibly cheap and fast production (the fastest production time in the world), and its infamous 90mm cannon. The Scorpion II is capable of navigating through the densest combat zones with pace, whether it be a forest or a crowded urban center. The 90mm cannon is incredibly powerful. A Scorpion II can eliminate any lightly armored vehicle with one shot from its main gun. Likewise, a squad of Scorpion II's can concentrate fire on some of the heaviest tanks in the world and destroy them instantly. Its main weakness is the fact that it has virtually no armor, meaning that when it comes toe to toe with a MBT, it will almost certainly be destroyed before it can fire a second shot. This is outweighed tactically, because if an MBT comes in contact with two Scorpion 90 series, it will be obliterated. It truly is the T-34 of its time.
The good things New Zealand Forces have done in the past
Stormed the beaches of Galliopi winning major victories for the allies, and contributing to the end of several centuries of Ottoman imperialism, while also redirecting forces away from slaughtering Armenians in the Armenian Genocide.
Fought fascism and hate in the unforgiving trenches of Italy during WW2
Protected the sovereignty of Malaysia and its citizens against a Politburo payed for government during the Malayan Emergency
Protected the citizens of Korea against a tyrannous fascist government by serving in auxiliary MP roles when its allies were called to the front lines
Gave Kuwait citizens a second chance at living under a democracy during the Gulf War
Defeated an infamous dictator in Iraq responsible for the genocide of over 80,000 Kurdish non-combatants
Protected Afghani Citizens and ISAF reconstruction crews from radicals who refuse to let the Pashtun people prosper
Allowed Timor-Leste to live free of usurpers who threaten international stability
A Threat to International Security: Piracy
Piracy is a major threat to international security today, and in order to stop traders from being robbed and fisherman from being killed, we need the help and participation of every nation and every army. We must work together to end illegal attacks on shipping. New Zealand actually even commanded NATO operations in the Gulf of Aden for a short period of time, despite not being a member of NATO. Despite Lars claim that New Zealand's combat ships never see action, an ANZAC class ship, one of New Zealands two combat ships, returned from action in the Gulf of Aden. That one ship potentially saved traders millions in products. For every combat ship patrolling the Gulf of Aden is one less poor fisherman getting raided by pirates. Good work New Zealand!
A Threat to International Security: Illegal Whaling
For some reason Japan doesn't like whales. That is why the government continues to defy the international community by instigating in environmentally dangerous whaling practices. Sooner or later, the international community is going to need to stand for what is right and put a stop to whaling boats. One problem...
Two words: Oh Shit! Somebodies going to have to put a stop to Japan, but who? 90% of Japanese whaling occurs in the South Artic Pacific, and guess which country is closest to the action?
That's right, New Zealand experiences the most illegal whaling right outside its international waters. New Zealand, as a leading member of the International Whaling Commission, has a moral and environmental respectability to protect this endangered species. The question is how? We can't just ask politely for the Japanese to leave. It didn't work the first dozen times we asked and it wont work again, even after every major world organization has condemned Japan for its crimes against whalemanity. We need someone who is strong, firm, and in a position to make a difference. That has to be New Zealand. We need a firm but fair New Zealand navy to sail up to the Japanese warships and politely ask them to "Leave or be annihilated!" That is the Kiwi way after all!
Threat to International Security: Terrorism
Terrorists have one goal. That goal is to terrorize. To kill, to rape, to plunder, to pillage. That is their purpose, and regardless of their motivations, that is what they will continue to do. It cannot be more clear cut then that. This is an enemy which is hard to reason with and is hard to tolerate, therefore it is an enemy we must fight to the last breath. It is better that 2 soldiers die protecting 2000 citizens from a terrorist attack, then to have 2000 citizens die to protect 2 soldiers from having to fight voluntarily.
If anything, New Zeal and owes it to them. If it weren't for them, it would of been some other nation, and if terrorists had their way, it would happen in every nation.
Threat to International Security: China (and other aggressive nations)
China is a pretty cool place with some cool people. Unfortunately China is ruled by a lot of bad people who want to make a lot of good places, well, worse. Here is a map of all the nations which China has made military transgressions on since 1950.
China has military challenged every nation on this map since its creation. Another fun fact. There used to be three nations that used to be on that map but are no longer there. Why? China gobbled them up of course. China, as I said earlier, is a great place, but the fact that they are targeting nations one after another for more land and resources is a serious threat to international security. It seems like they had attracted enough heat annexing Xinjiang and Tibet, but no, now they have three claims on India, one claim on Pakistan/Afghanistan, a claim on Vietnamese international waters, a claim on all of Taiwan, and even a claim on some Filipino and Japanese islands.
Here is a quote from WW2.
"First it was the communists, and nobody stood up for the communists.Then it was the Jews, and nobody stood up for the Jews. After that came the Catholics, and nobody stood up for the Catholics. Finally they came for me, and nobody was left to stand up for me."
That quote speaks a lot. Right now China is taking out its neighbors one by one. In Europe, another nation, Russia, has made several serious transgressions against its neighbors, Norway, Ukraine, and Latvia, which have seriously threatened their sovereignty. Africa is on the verge of a serious and devastating war between the forces of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Yemen is being bombed daily as Saudi and Iranian forces prepare to plunge the Middle East into financial and humanitarian ruin. Kashmir has become the most volatile location on earth, as both India and Pakistan have readied nuclear weapons as the rest of the world scrambles to prevent DEFCON 1.
Here is a quote from 2015.
"First it was Eastern Europe, and nobody stood up for Eastern Europe. Then it was East Asia, and nobody stood up for East Asia. After that came the West, and nobody stood up for the West. Finally they came for New Zealand, and nobody was left to stand up to New Zealand."
I do not believe New Zealand is under any serious threat of invasion, but history has dictated that the strong will always pick on the weak. We can never forget the lessons of...
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-06-29 17:19:24
| Speak Roundadmin (PRO)Breaking the cycle of poverty
In the previous round, I established that war was the main cause of global poverty. There are other reasons for poverty's continuation - the structure of global trade disadvantaging the third world - but these are becoming increasingly more minor. The main reason is and remains war. In this round, I want to expand on that substantive narrative.
The problem is that this is cyclical. War causes poverty, but poverty also causes war. The less stuff people already have compared to others, the greater the potential gains of launching an attack, making war seem more attractive. This is not the case in our world. We are becoming richer, and this model for why war happens correlates with empirical data. We know that more peaceful countries have higher economic growth. As resources become less scarce, we lose our incentive to fight. The truth is the world is not becoming more violent, despite what the media would have us believe. The world is safer than ever. The past decade was literally the most peaceful decade in human history.
That decade was no anomaly. It is indicative of a long-term trend.
What's happening to war?
As Stephen Pinker points out:
In a historically unprecedented development, the number of interstate wars has plummeted since 1945, and the most destructive kind of war, in which great powers or developed states fight each other, has vanished altogether. (The last one was the Korean War).
Of course, this doesn't mean violence has always declined. The long-term trend, however, is one towards peace. This is particularly true of interstate conflict, with almost all wars happening today being civil wars. The Institute for Economics and Peace, who produces the Global Peace Index report, has found two key factors that are true of conflict today, and becoming more and more true as time goes on:
- Armies and Governments Are No Longer Our Biggest Threats to Peace "Breakdowns in peacefulness are becoming more decentralized, and peacefulness relies more heavily on social structures and non-state actors as opposed to exclusively governments and formal militaries... In short, the nature of peace is changing... the trend of declining militarization and international war implies that we have made progress in solving 20th-century problems."
- Non-Violent Methods Are More Effective (and More Peaceful) Than Violent Ones "non-violent movements are twice as effective in achieving their political goals as violent movements... internal conflict, in all its forms, demonstrates that people are unsatisfied with their governments, economies, and social structures... it’s encouraging to know that peace is profitable—and possible."
These findings make sense in the context of the economic analysis I brought you earlier, especially in the previous round. The reason the world is becoming more peaceful is because the haves are rising, and the have-nots are declining. Further, because war is a deadweight loss, it is considerably less effective. Where it is waged, it is no longer a matter of nationstates fighting with tanks and ships, but civil unrest such as the Arab Spring.
What they didn't identify but should be abundantly clear is that not only does none of this apply to New Zealand, since we are reasonably prosperous and are mates with all nations around us, but also:
- New Zealand's military cooperation with a foreign power would do little to nothing to aid or remedy this situation - cyclical reasons for violence and poverty would remain forever in such regions because of the military presence. Our military intervention would be ineffective.
- New Zealand's need for a military will decrease no matter what we do, according to long-term trends and sound economic theory.
Russian-made statue of some guy turning swords to ploughshares, a classical symbol of the ultimate triumph of human development over war.
Rebuttal Overview
In the previous round, I explained how fancy brand names for weapons aside, our military capital essentially consists of nothing more than overpriced trophies/junk. Given my opponent's willingness to present a plan/counter-model (which, actually, he didn't do because he ran out of room) 24,000 new jobs, we can generally see that despite his name-dropping, we can both agree that the New Zealand military (at the very least) has plenty of room for improvement in this respect. It's not underfunded, it's just poorly set up to meet New Zealand's defence needs. I told you what those are, and explained that they're not being met because of the New Zealand Defence Force. By scrapping the defence force, we defend New Zealand.
My opponent's answer to this was unexpected. Rather than focus on defending New Zealand, he says, we should be defending almost everywhere except New Zealand. This is what I call the "world police mentality". In this view, the role of the government is to protect all other governments in whatever way your government sees fit.
Puppets with a world police mentality
There's three main problems with this.
First, on a very pragmatic level, New Zealand can't afford to contribute to any world police. New Zealand doesn't want to send soldiers abroad, we don't have the money, and frankly we don't have any means of sending the vast majority of our military overseas anyway because the people doing our procurement are useless. Even if we did have the resources, this is not the most efficient use of those resources, and the opportunity cost of defending New Zealand against very real and dangerous threats is high.
Second, we very much doubt that this model works in the long term. Once Britain attempted to bring civilization to the world, and the British Empire mostly fell apart. The United States today is attempting to police the world, launching more foreign strikes than almost any other nation. Since World War 2, the USA has launched major invasions against Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of those, only Kuwait was a clear outright military victory, despite a vast US military superiority.
Third, we generally assert a moral problem with policing the world: it forces us to pick sides. New Zealand was primarily responsible for the breakup of the ANZUS military alliance, precisely because we no longer wanted a close military relationship with the United States (who, to be fair, were bringing nuclear ships into our nuclear-free country). New Zealand has always been quite neutral in conflict compared to most nations, a distinguishment that sees us routinely ranked as one of the most peaceful nations in the world.
Arsenal
The NZ Army currently has roughly 25 people deployed overseas, almost all of them on UN peacekeeping missions, and none of them in roles that require any fighting, merely observance. The last time we got involved in any actual conflict was in Afghanistan, and that was pretty much only our tiny SAS force. The fact is, our soldiers are poor fighters who just want to go home.
In effect, 99% of what our soldiers do is police work, like these soldiers who have a basic checkpoint setup in the Sinai
My opponent used the following counterexamples:
- Gallipoli: one of the biggest military defeats for the allies in WW1. The New Zealand forces were annihilated and forced into a swift retreat with heavy casualties. The Ottoman Empire didn't suffer one bit - it didn't even work as a diversion. New Zealanders were simply massacred by their thousands.
- Italy: New Zealand attacked Italy after it had already surrendered. It followed the invasion of Sicily that New Zealand did not participate in, where the Axis forces were completely destroyed. Given the fact that New Zealand's forces had plenty of support, against an army that had already been destroyed in a nation that had already surrendered, New Zealand took a ton of casualties. The true saviors of Italy were the ones who made it surrender in the first place.
- Malaysia: We never deployed more than 150 people at a time. New Zealand was a small part of what was essentially a British force.
- Korea: While not as awful Gallipoli, the Korea war was also a military disaster. Tensions still remain across the Korean peninsula.
- Kuwait: We sent medics, humanitarian aid, and offered to fly some troops around. We did not deploy.
- Iraq: Saved from one dictator, handed over to ISIS. New Zealand opposed this invasion, and only went because of a secret deal to bolster our dairy industry. It's now generally understood that New Zealand really contributed basically nothing.
- Afghanistan: We deployed our SAS there at one stage. We since pulled out because 5 of our people died there. This is too much for us to handle. We were happy to accept defeat and go home.
- Timor: A peacekeeping mission we conducted together with numerous other nations, and commanded by Australia. New Zealand's temporary withdrawal led to the 2006 crisis, a basic strategic mistake that killed hundreds.
- Gulf of Aden: We went there, and didn't stop one pirate.
Even in the conflicts we've been involved in, our record is very mixed at best, not some glorious champion fighting force as my opponent wanted to paint us.
The reason why is ultimately because we don't want to defend other nations. It's in our national anthem:
Peace not war shall be our boast
But should foes assail our coast
Make us then a mighty host
God defend New Zealand
Responding to other threats
New Zealand's own experience to state terrorism proves we cannot deal with terrorism.
New Zealand's experience with illegal fishing proves we cannot deal with illegal whaling.
New Zealand's inability to stop pirates - despite numerous attempts - speaks for itself.
Our defence force is a total failure.
Even if China, Russia, Japan etc were evil hostile nations, our defence force cannot defend them. Nor should they have to, because my opponent has shown no reason why any of them should attack New Zealand. In a world of scarce resources, it's better to focus on the threats we know, not appeal to far-fetched scenarios.
The resolution is affirmed.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-07-01 19:11:33
| Speak RoundBlackflag (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-07-04 19:12:01
| Speak Round
Oh shit, this is a nightmare for me. I swear I really didn't want to forfeit this debate. Posted 2015-07-04 19:50:57
Really @Stag ? Really? A forfeit?Posted 2015-07-04 19:29:53
This comment stream probably isn't the best place to discuss it precisely, but even by that count you didn't have 700 characters left. If the cutoff point was 100 characters off it would be a little concerning but not too much. Regardless I'd need to look at it ... the forum would probably be the appropriate place, or a message to me.Posted 2015-07-01 00:21:02
I did a character count and there are 9900 characters in this argument. Posted 2015-06-30 19:28:31
My head imploded. I must be losing my senses...Posted 2015-06-30 02:13:22
I swear it did. Literally, I double checked by logging in as you, so I could see exactly what you see, and it was right there. I cross-counted manually on the draft in an external program (Word) just to triple check, and it was exactly that many over the limit as well.Posted 2015-06-29 22:46:51
I swear that it did not say 750 characters to much. I am 99% sure, and those are good odds. Posted 2015-06-29 22:44:04
Seriously though, some of these arguments are really well written. I was mauling this over several times trying to find weak spots I could attack, but everything is pretty well written. I don't think your arguments are stronger then the ones I am going to make, but they are more coherent and I don't know how to make my own equally coherent without ranting. Posted 2015-06-28 22:54:24
Ok cool
Yeah, you've only brought it up several times. Most of which were not casual. I'm getting to it, relax. This was a REALLY strong first round, and I am not lying when I say I am impressed. I have to try extra hard to make my round just as strong, and that might take me to the deadline. Don't worry about it. Posted 2015-06-28 22:50:26
Don't forget this debate... casual reminder...Posted 2015-06-28 21:22:33