Report on Korea

Press, 22 July 1986, Page 24

Report on Korea

Sir,—l would like to support the views expressed by June Gregg in a letter on North Korea. I visited that country four years ago, and have some knowledge of the situation existing there. North Korea is a small non-nuclear, non-aligned nation defended by conventionally armed forces. South Korea is garrisoned by United States troops and defended by over 1000 nuclear devices.. I found no evidence of any desire in the North to invade the South. Obviously it would be suicidal to do so, and a great fear of American missiles existed amongst the population. This example of super-Power overkill is very dangerous to the whole world, making nuclear war a step nearer. We should urgently press for this situation to be defused and the normalisation of relations between the North and the South regained.—Yours, etc.,

MARGARET BLACKER. July 17, 1986.

Sir,—“The Economist” article, “North Korea preparing for war?” (July 1) gave a distorted interpretation of the situation in Korea. It is a heavily militarised, volatile area, likely to explode politically: The buildup of nuclear arms in Korea makes it a nuclear tripwire — V

there are atomic weapons right on the demilitarised zone. It is because of the reliance on United States nuclear weapons to respond to any attack that South Korea can maintain conventional capability inferior to the North. The article did not even mention nuclear weapons. According to researchers from the Nautilus Pacific Centre: “In the Pacific, the most likely scenario for a ‘limited’ nuclear war is on the Korean peninsula, or at sea. .Nuclear war in Korea could ...

trigger all-out nuclear war.” The Korean situation threatens us all. It is vital that we press for the creation of a nuclear-free corridor there, and for arms control in the Pacific — which, to, date, has been excluded from arms control talks. — Yours, etc., JUNE GREGG, Timaru. July 3, 1986.