Nuclear war

Press, 10 November 1983, Page 20

Nuclear war

Sir,—The suppression' of a World Health Organisation report into alcohol problems in developing countries because of pressure by vested interests in major Western nations (“The Press,” October 8) is no surprise. At the World Health Assembly in March, 1983, a report by an international committee entitled “The effects of nuclear war on health and health services” was adopted. -. This concluded that “nuclear weapons constitute the greatest immediate threat to the health and welfare of mankind.” However, New Zealand, along with some other Western nations, including the United States and Britain, opposed the adoption of this report, Replying to a question in Parliament (September 2) the Minister of Health implied that this decision was based on political and not ■ medical or . humanitarian grounds. Presumably. this was because the original call for the report was from • communistaligned nations. I find it hard _to understand the moral justification for such a decision.—Yours, etc., F. M. DAVIS. ....... November 2, 1983. Sir,—The extent to which United States forces are stretched by global troubles (“The Press,” October 27), is an ominojtLJndica'ftof the likelihood that jioner or. wter, the American military will

use nuclear weapons in a “limited” war. As Richard Perle whom President Reagan appointed Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Policy puts it: ‘Tve always worried less about what would happen in an actual nuclear exchange than the effect that the nuclear balance has on our willingness to take risks in local situations.” The American people, and especially the American corporate elite, cannot maintain their standard of living without regular recourse to violence. The United States invasion of Grenada is just one more example of the American eagerness to use armed force in local situations. We should choose neutrality before it is too late.— Yours, etc., D. K. SMALL. November 8, 1983. Sir, — Rare praise to “The Press” for the sentence in today’s editorial article: “Democracy works best when all who are entitled take part... when apathy undermines democracy the damage is wide-spread.” The apathy to the danger of nuclear war is appalling — or is it despair? Because it is a disagreeable subject it is brushed under the carpet. Reliance on deterrence (Mutual Assured Destruction), not defence as I mistakenly, ’ wrote on November 5 is yimply wishful thinking and is Already obsolescent. New technology in

missile development and accuracy has made the two super-Powers more jittery and trigger-happy. Does anyone really believe that this state of affairs can continue for another 40 years without a nuclear war? — Yours, etc., . VERNON WILKINSON. . November 8, 1983.