A.N.Z.U.S. alliance

Press, 7 February 1985, Page 20

A.N.Z.U.S. alliance

Sir,—Congratulations on printing “Scientist replies on A.N.Z.U.S. issue,” the most intelligent, over-all straightforward statement of a complicated issue yet. I hope that your editorial policy will be modified accordingly, that you will climb down off David Lange’s back and see some of your own previous stances as naive and uninformed. — Yours, etc., ARTHUR MAY. February 5, 1985.

Sir,—Your attack (February 4) on the Government’s nuclear weapons policy again gives the impression of muddled thinking and confused logic as you flounder in a quagmire of your own making. You castigate the anti-nuclear movement’s propaganda, but in the pro-

cess excuse the far worse pressure that America and Australia are putting on our Government to reverse its policy. If the threat of nuclear devastation has real meaning, the finer points of interpretation of A.N.Z.U.S. must be secondary to the pressing need to dissociate ourselves from any nation’s nuclear umbrella. Thus, the concern for the withdrawal of technical co-opera-tion in defence matters is misplaced in the face of an infinitely greater danger. Indeed, your admission that the possibility of a nuclear war makes it irrelevant whether New Zealand is a “specific target” surely carries the implication that A.N.Z.U.S., at least in its present form, is not crucial. — Yours, etc.,

W. R. SYKES. February 5, 1985.