Nuclear stance

Press, 1 July 1986, Page 12

Nuclear stance

Sir,—Should President Reagan and Mr Shultz discover that the unchallenged transportation of chemical or bacteriological weapons is also provided for in the A.N.Z.U.S. pact, will we be expected to accept in our harbours and airports canisters or ampoules of such guarantees of peace and survival as nerve gas or anthrax? A couple of months ago Mrs Margaret Thatcher was reported to prefer these benefits to nuclear weapons.—Yours, etc., W. A. SUTTON. June 28, 1986.

Sir,—Full marks to our Prime Minister for sticking resolutely to our very necessary anti-nuclear policy. With, no doubt, much pressure from the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, for New Zealand to fall into line with the American interpretation of the A.N.Z.U.S. pact, Mr Lange has held fast. In their recent Manila talks he has continued to point out the large mandate this anti-nuclear policy enjoys. He stresses that, in a true democracy such as ours, it is ultimately the will of the people that decides what policies to pursue. This is a view, he claims, that most Americans would strongly uphold. Now it seems that at last the Americans have got the message that we do not intend to compromise our anti-nuclear policy. This cannot but encourage other sympathetic countries with a similar stance to be a little more bold and determined to make a similar stand. The sooner this impending nuclear-free zone bill is enshrined in law the better for us all. We can then all feel a little more secure.—Yours, etc., N. G. WARD. June 28, 1986.

Sir, —A nuclear A.N.Z.U.S; pact, as proposed by several correspondents through this column, is clearly insane. The risk to the defenders — us — is more than that faced by the aggressors. Nuclear weapons would repel invaders but render the country useless for the successful defenders. What we must do is make this an unattractive and uneconomic place to hold. After all, who would attack us? A major power would overrun most populated areas swiftly and a long local resistance, guerrillatype campaign would have to be waged from our more remote countryside. Surely our defence men should study Afghanistan as a perfect model of what would happen here in the event of an invasion. — Yours, etc., P. H. NUTTRIDGE. , June 25, 1986.

Sir,—Some of your correspondents are still in the pre-nuclear age. A few even seem to be inviting a nuclear Armageddon in which we would all perish, especially those nasty Reds. Could your Soviet-haters spell out how they propose to cope with the Kremlin without starting us along the path to nuclear war? Does it ever occur to them that the Soviet Union might have its own point of view? It cannot be pleasant being surrounded by the forces of the most powerful nation on earth and, incidentally, the most skilled in its propaganda. Those who quote history selectively should study American and European history a little more objectively. Before they reply, I should, warn them of President Reagan’s new role — peacemaker — to save embarrassment to those who have been applauding him as a knight in shining armour.—Yours, etc.,

VERNON WILKINSON June 25, 1986.