Nuclear war report

Press, 28 August 1984, Page 12

Nuclear war report

Sir,—The publication of the report on nuclear war is welcome because it will clear the air on matters about which the public is confused. It proves that the supporters of a nuclear-free New Zealand are not all Left-wingers advocating unilateral disarmament, but practical seekers after nuclear safety. I make two comments: First, it is inconsistent to be allied to one of the two superpowers in contention as this invites direct nuclear involvement. At least non-involvement would give us a chance of avoiding the worst effects. Second, the statement that armed neutrality would be prohibitively expensive depends, of course, on the level of effective defence we need in a nuclear age. Even Bob Jones, scarcely a Left-winger, advocated spending only a trifle on defence. I hope the report covers this as it is a crucial point. — Yours, etc., VERNON WILKINSON. August 24, 1984.

Sir,—lt is ironic that Mr Doug Kidd, chairman of the Select Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control, should release his longawaited report (after more than two years of deliberation) in the same week that his electorate should declare Blenheim nuclear weapon-free. It is especially ironic because the report shows that little account has been taken of the large body of public opinion that offered advice via public submissions. Groups that offered submissions included the well-informed New Zealand Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. An interim report from the committee said that advice from 131 written and 45 oral submissions concluded that the establishment of a New Zealand nuclear weapon-free zone would be a convincing initiative in pursuit of world nuclear disarmament and that military alliances such as A.N.Z.U.S., N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact undermine progress towards disarmament. Mr Kidd’s final report concluded, with all evidence in, that nuclear war would be dangerous to New Zealand. — Yours, etc., VICKI BAKKER. August 26, 1984.