Nuclear weapons

Press, 13 June 1979, Page 18

Nuclear weapons

Sir, — Mr Muldoon has apparently denied inviting United States nuclear warships to New Zealand in spite of a United States Navy claim (“The Press,” June 8). Nevertheless, he still welcomes them — why? ANZUS and New Zealand security. But this “security” is diminished by several harmful prospects: accidents, targets, and cost. As we have seen, major unforeseen accidents can, do, and probably will happen (viz New York threat and Harrisburg debacle). These vessels and their ports of call are potential nuclear targets (though Auckland could be put on rails and moved at random to reduce the risk). Each new sub costs each American about $5; would any of your readers pay $5 for the security of owning a share? Mr Muldoon is an accounttant, yet surely this balance is not favourable. — Yours, J. D. MUMFORD. June 9, 1979.

Sir, — In response to J. V. Petersen (June 11), I would suggest he send his advice to Brezhnev not to me. As he gazes eastward, he will have the surprise of his life at the explosion behind his back. In reply to E. Webster (June 11): (1) S. Westermani! had to borrow money to go to Honolulu (2) in order to have medical repair done on serious damage done by the Kiwi medical profession (sic); (3) E. Webster also ought to write Brezhnev on the number of nuclear warships in the vicinity of Australia and New Zealand. World War II proved to Americans that isolationism is no defence. I should think Neville Chamberlain proved to the correspondent that appeasement is equally futile. — Yours, etc., S. WESTERMANN. June 11, 1979.