Nuclear weapons

Press, 31 May 1982, Page 16

Nuclear weapons

Sir, — Today, two deep philosophers mock the nuclear free zone. Tomorrow, no doubt, they would join the leader in welcoming a nuclear warship — just a little one - to Lyttelton. And what, then, would their deep philosophy do to deflect the incoming warhead? — Yours, etc., KEN MCALLISTER. May 27, 1982.

Sir,—ln reply to James L. Nichol, and John Bateman on nuclear weapons (May 27), if there is a "bombardment," not only will'there be no chance to wave a flag or invoke a missile (which need not necessarily be Russian, Mr Bateman!) there will be no more New Zealand, and quite possibly no more planet Earth. If there are people unfortunate enough to survive, they will suffer terrible, cancerous diseases, in a filthy, polluted, nightmare of a land which would not produce food fit to eat. If the correspondents had taken the trouble to read the declaration, they would have seen the words, "A link in the chain of peace that seeks to bind all peoples in a common stand against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and in a shared concern for life on this planet.” Such lack of imagination as you display is, sadly, common, and the main reason for having nuclear weapon free zones. Yes, gentlemen, my home, and now, thankfully, my city, is a nuclear free zone, and will continue to be so, until the megalomaniacs who deign to control the lives of ordinary, peace-loving people take away the threat of disease and annihilation, or blow us off the face of the earth. — Yours, etc.,

EVE HOLLAND. May 28, 1982.

Sir,—ln reply to M.-Creel, I am well aware of the Soviet Union’s obligations under Yalta but a formal declaration of war against Japan would have sufficed. The war was ending. There was no need to waste Russian and Japanese lives to increase Soviet territory. I strenuously deny the Russian propaganda that the two atom bombs were dropped to intimidate the Soviet Union. They were used to end the fighting and save further casualties as I who served in Burma know would otherwise have ensued. No amount of propaganda can disguise the fact that North Korea occupied the Souths capital in three days and most of the South in two months. That war which cost three million casualties must have been planned and en“ i .n OQrod

by the North. Doubtless they were backed by the Kremlin who left the Chinese to bear the losses when North Korea’s plans went astray. - Yours, etc.,

H. F. NEWMAN May 25, 1982.