Officers and A.N.Z.U.S.

Press, 12 October 1985, Page 18

Officers and A.N.Z.U.S.

Sir,—l see no need for the Prime Minister to engage in a slanging match, for the paper by the retired officers does not appear to have been addressed to him. There is great need for every New Zealand citizen to read, absorb, and heed the statement, which is presented with sincerity and the wisdom of experience. Most thinking New Zealanders must surely support' this point of view, and resent the Isolation, vulnerability and loss of face which will inevitably follow withdrawal from full association with A.N.Z.U.S. We are a small proud country. What pride can be found in being a turncoat — especially in quest of chimera? - Yours, etc., E. S. JAMIESON, Stoke, Nelson. October 9, 1985.

Sir, — Retired senior officers from the New Zealand armed services whose statement was published on October 9, oppose the Labour Government’s nuclear warship ban, seeing it as merely a symbolic gesture offering nothing for arms control. It was not because of the potential size of New Zealand’s contribution to the Vietnam War that New Zealand was invited into that conflict. It was because the United States sought approval for its actions, thereby gathering direct support in the form of military assistance. Likewise a decision by New Zealand to ban nuclear-armed warships carries a very strong message to the United States against the spiralling arms race that unless serious disarmament negotiations are undertaken, America will lose its allies and friends, one by one. — Yours, etc., K. ROSMAN. October 11, 1985.

Sir, — The retired soldiers who rail against the Government’s nuclear ship ban policy may know something about military matters; they show no appreciation of what nuclear war would do to world ecology. It is easy to argue against; their long-winded diatribe about the follies of the present policy.; Nuclear weapons are useless unless you are prepared to use them; They cannot be used without triggering mutual mass suicide of the protagonists and the demise of many innocent bystanders. Therefore they are useless as a deterrent. I direct the soldiers’ attention to the recent S.C.O.P.E. release (September, 1985) on environmental consequences of a nuclear war. “Nuclear winter” is alive and well. A.N.Z.U.S. is quite Irrelevant in relation to the wider issue of the urgent necessity to stop the arms race and ban the bomb. Our Government is enlightened in this respect and has taken the first common sense action to secure our survival. — Yours, etc., COLIN BURROWS. j October 10, 1985.

Sir, — The retired officers claim that nuclear weapons would be wasted on remote and noncritical targets such as New Zealand, ignoring the over-kill potential of nuclear arsenals. With the homeland devastated and the continental United States likewise nihilated, in what direction would Soviet commanders on board strategic weapon-carrying submarines patrolling the Pacific fix their weapons? Upon United States allies, and in particular upon airport and harbour facilities known to be open for American use, such as our own under a 1982 agreement. It has long been established that part of the American game plan is to draw fire away by positioning weapons outside of the continental United States. Earlier this year documented evidence was produced of American plans to place nuclear depth charges in secret on the land of allies.'Military planners usually take every contingency into account. In the case of the 16 retired officers; they appear to have ignored the obvious. — Yours, etc., C. HENGST. i October 19, 1985. Sir, — I for one am grateful for the statement on defence by'the 17 senior officers. They are all highlyrespected men with a good track record, unlike many of; their armchair critics. I am sure they werq motivated solely out of a sense of duty and concern for the future of our country. It is; understandable that the post-war generations do not appreciate that it was only the intervention of American armed forces in 1942 that saved New Zealand and Australia from defeat and subjugation by Japan. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the nuclear issue, we still rely heavily for our protection on the

strength of the American Navy. The;only alternative defence we have to relying on a strong and trusted ally is to go it alone, and, like i Switzerland and Israel, maintain- a very large citizen army where every young man and woman is fully trained and serves for many years. I do not think that New Zealanders would accept that, although it might have considerable social benefits. — Yours, etc., I S. B. THOMPSON. October 11, 1985.

Sir, — Your report that Mr Lange said that he did not intend to embark on a slanging match with former generals is understandable. He should certainly reserve these tactics for the furtherance of his own ambition, and. not waste them on the defence of the country of which he is Prime Minister. The title of our anthem, “God Defend New Zealand,” takes on a new urgency. — Yours, etc., ? R. L. LAURENSON. I Leeston R.D. October 10, 1985.