Anti-submarine missiles

Press, 1 September 1982, Page 20

Anti-submarine missiles

Sir,—it is nice to see the Labour Party sticking to its guns in being anti everything. First it was anti (nuclear) submarines and now it is anti-anti-submarine missiles.— Yours, etc., D. J. JARMAN. August 31, 1982.

Sir,—Two recent visitors to New Zealand, representatives of the World Council of Churches stated that “deterrents are no longer the right means of keeping the peace,” and that “disarmament would be the main item on the agenda of the World Council of Churches assembly next year. The survival of mankind depends upon it.” More and more people are coming to this point of view yet the New Zealand Government is considering buying at considerable expense, for New Zealand’s defence, the sophisticated United States anti-submarine Harpoon missile system. The assumption that possession of armaments constitutes a deterrent is quite erroneous if one looks at the record of wars which have occurred since World War II causing untold suffering. For example, the Shah of Iran had some of the most up to date weaponry that money could buy but it did not save him or bring peace to Iran.—Yours, etC., D. STOCKER. August 29, 1982. Sir,—Supporting creative causes such as education, hospitals and health services, housing, and social services, I object to Mr Muldoon’s proposal to buy anti-submarine missiles from the United States Lockheed armament manufacturers. If Mr Muldoon is testing New Zealand's reaction to the proposal, I am one of the objectors on humanitarian and Christian grounds.—Yours, etc., . N. BECK. August 31, 1982.