Nuclear weapons

Press, 7 November 1978, Page 18

Nuclear weapons

Sir, — The first World Disarmament Week passed quietly with the overseas announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize winners while locally the Hauraki Gulf became a graveyard for a Fill. These planes can be nuclear-capable, the result of miniaturisation in missile development. Finally, Dr Overholt stated that the United States Naw could not specify which are nucle-ar-capable ships. That would spoil the game of military intelligence and might create civilian unrest, as per the United States Congressional Report 94-366, July, 1975, by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, which states: “The United States Government security policyregarding nuclear weapons locations is that it will neither confirm or deny the existence or location of United States nuclear weapons located anywhere. In part this is at the request of the nations where the weapons are deployed, since in most nations the existence of United States nuclear weapons within their borders is a difficult internal political issue.” — Yours, MIA TAY. November 3, 1978.

Sir, — The recently-pub-lished “Economist” article on the neutron bomb as a tactical nuclear weapon ignores conclusions in “Scientific American” that proponents of the neutron bomb are, to say the least, muddleheaded in predicting Russian tank strategy. The net result of one, or threatened use, of the neutron bomb would turn Europe into a nuclear

graveyard. Proponents of the nuclear “deterrent” ignore the fact that bath sides of the present electronic prenuclear conflict have a total disregard for the only sensible answer to the nuclear arms race, that is. nuclear disarmament. It would be one small but vital step if New Zealand and Australia together denied the American military (as we do Russia’s) access to land bases and satellite-tracking sta» tions in this part of the Pacific. — Yours, etc., J. V. PETERSEN. November 4. 1978.