Anti-nuclear bill

Press, 26 December 1985, Page 12

Anti-nuclear bill

Sir,—The writer of the editorial of December 18 seems to be deliberately avoiding questions I have repeatedly posed about naming a likely aggressor, describing his strategy for invading us, the need for a substitute for deterrence, the real reason for American pressure (the domino theory) and so on. One would expect more objectivity from an editorial. There is no attempt to understand the effect of nuclear weapons and foreign policy, which makes us safer from conventional invasion than ever, or to acknowledge that since our anti-nuclear stand the United States and the world have taken more notice of us than ever they did before we began to rock their nuclear boat. If the people of other countries (including the United States) take heart from our example and demand the end of nuclear madness, as I believe is happening, something has been achieved. — Yours, etc., VERNON WILKINSON. December 20, 1985.

Sir,—l totally agree with your editorial of December 18, on the damage our Government has done to the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance, and the way it has tried to pull the wool over the eyes W the New Zealand public. I am pleased to see you

spell, the issues out so clearly. The S jestion in my mind is how long is going to take before people become' concerned enough to do something. — Yours, etc., MATTHEW J. JENKINSON. December 20, 1985. Sir,—Before the election I pushed the New Zealand Party’s neutrality stand, something a number of candidates did contrary to their personal beliefs. The “Robert Jones non-defence policy” caused considerable anguish among many of our members — myself included. To be anti-nuclear, antiAmerican, anti-military, anti-de-fence, anti-A.N.Z.U.S. reveals massive anti-common sense. Such a philosophy is weak, foolish and gutless, effectively condemning everything while supporting nothing. Curiously, the Labour Party has no defence policy other than “Have faith in David Lange,” with the emphasis on “faith” (a belief in something for which there is no evidence). Such pious, mindless moralising is dangerous for New Zealand and, understandably, indulged in by no other Western country. History clearly shows that

when it comes to national security, decisions are best made based on fact rather than fiction. — Yours, EARLE THOMPSON. Albany, December 19, 1985. Sir,—We express our wholehearted support of your policy of maintaining New Zealand as a nuclear-free zone. We understand that this is not an easy thing to do, considering the outside pressures of nations such as the United States. We compliment your courage in taking a stand which is vital to the survival of this planet. There are many people in the United States who believe in what you are doing and will support you in what ways we can. A first step that we are taking in Boulder is in promoting the purchase of “Nuclear-Free Zone” products. We believe in supporting nations and local communities who are taking sane actions in today’s rather insane world. — Yours, etc., TOM MOORE, NANCY SULLO. Boulder County, December 11, 1985.