Nuclear weapons

Press, 5 September 1983, Page 16

Nuclear weapons

Sir, — At least Lindsay Smith is correct in referring to the “throngs pushing for a nuclear-free zone,” even if all other assertions are incorrect. Twelve people around the world fasting to the death for nuclear disarmament are politically motivated. The Pope, speaking against nuclear weapons, is politically motivated. Even in New Zealand, some of these throngs might be tempted to vote in an election. They may even vote for such extremist policies as those held by the’ Values Party. To connect the wishes of the throngs and the actions of politicians is surely naive. Politicians, like chameleons, adopt colorations to suit circumstances. The sort of wishy-washy nuclear-free-zone they are disagreeing about, is not the one the throngs want. Australia must be included in this and a start must be made on it, even a start expressed through dubius political motives. — Yours, etc JOHN STARK. September 1, 1983.

Sir,—As 1984 approaches, Orwellian double-talk and “sucker tucker” government are becoming all the rage. Our Minister of Defence, Mr Thomson, proclaims a commitment to the ideals of peace, but is prepared to welcome nuclear warships to our ports armed with the cruise missile, a nuclear-war fighting weapon. He talks about the deterrent value of nuclear weapons, but endorses the MX missile, a first-strike system. He warns of a Russian threat and possible invasion by enemies, yet denies we will be a nuclear target. He signs an arms supply agreement which will in reality surrender New Zealand sovereignty to the Americans in a crisis, making us a nuclear target, and still maintains we are an independent nation. He believes nuclear war would be global in scope, but encourages no civil defence for a nuclear disaster. Appropriately enough, Mr Thomson would like to be our Minister of Peace.—Yours, etc D. K. SMALL. September 1, 1983.