Anti-nuclear movement seen as threat to peace

Press, 13 April 1984, Page 20

Anti-nuclear movement seen as threat to peace

By

T. J. Sprott,

an Auckland industrial chemist

and consultant.

No one can doubt the good intentions and high motives of those who are attempting to oppose and eliminate nuclear war, but their approach does not withstand logical examination. The issue which faces the world is not the elimination of nuclear war but the. elimination of war itself.

If these groups who seek to ban nuclear weapons were successful in their enterprise two events would follow as surely as night follows day. A third world war would break out, as one power would unquestionably be stronger than the other and could see a profitable end to a world conflict.

And the war, which might start on the basis of conventional weapons only, would surely escalate (or degenerate) into a nuclear war.

It is quite inconceivable that certain of the major powers would ever risk their national security by the total elimination of all nuclear weapons. Thus, despite all protestations to the contrary, a nuclear arsenal would remain and in time oe used if a major conflict started. One has only to read history to realise that strong powers who feel they can win, and have aggressive governments, will eventually take the step of aggression. Where this aggression impinges on the hardwon rights of freedom-loving people, such people will consequently fight to preserve their way of life.

The actions of those who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament unquestionably invite a third world war, which would be a conflict of unimaginable proportions — and even if bilateral nuclear disarmament were to be achieved the results would be no different.

We have only to look at the recent events where countries have been invaded and nations subjugated to appreciate the threat which would await certain areas of the world if this type of military superiority, coupled with aggressive tendencies, were again to come to ascendancy. We in New Zealand, and indeed the whole of the free world, are deeply in debt to the major nations of the Western world, and in particular New Zealand is in debt to the United States for its continuing efforts in maintaining peace and the status quo.

We do not have to look far to see what happens to a weak nation like Afghanistan. The “domino theory,” which is almost as old as time, will continue to operate unless there is a major force dedicated to the goal of peace and freedom. The only reason why the Axis Powers in Europe followed their policy of invasion was because they knew of the weakness of Britain and France, and they banked on non-intervention by the United States. If there had been the equivalent of N.A.T.O. in 1938, Hitler and his cronies would have

realised that they could not win, and thus World War II would have been forestalled. The world has enjoyed the longest period in history free from major world conflict. The answer is clear: it is the presence of the nuclear deterrent. What then will prevent war? The will to fight and the capacity to win, in the hands of an enlightened and peace-loving people whose whole policies are directed towards the maintenance of peace. To quote President Reagan recently: “Peace is not a policy, it is an objective.” Our policy must therefore be directed towards peace by maintaining our strength, determination and solidarity with our friends and allies. Pacificism has never brought peace, except to slaves. One must admire, and would perforce agree with, the views of the idealists who would imagine that we could maintain the status quo, or some acceptable politico-economic system from a position of weakness, were this view not unreal and dangerously so. Pacificism and weakness are what therefore lead to war, and war in the future would lead to nuclear war, despite any efforts to ban nuclear weapons. That is the greater risk, by far, than maintaining an invincible nuclear deterrent. It is a sad commentary on the true nature of the human animal, but it is the way of the world and is not likely to change for a long while yet.