East and West

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 20

East and West

Sir,—l was disappointed to read (August 28) that the Lange Administration and the Opposition rejected bluntly the offer by Dr Mikhail Kapitsa of a possible , defence pact between New Zealand and Russia. What scares them? The infiltration of New Zealand, with the Lange Government becoming a puppet administration for communist ideals? I think that they should reconsider their paranoid stance. Besides, would New Zealand not be the richer for increased ties with Russia? Russia has, arguably, the best military force in the world, and we could learn from it. The pact might also break down lucrative trade barriers to the Soviet Unioh and our economy

badly needs export revenue. I would feel infinitely safer from becoming a nuclear target if the Soviets became our defence partners as it is they, not America, who have promised to uphold the Pacific Forum’s nuclear-free Pacific. — Yours, etc.,

KENT FUNNEL. Richmond, August 29, 1986.

Sir,—lf there is any truth in Senator Richard Lugar’s statement that “Europe has been remarkably peaceful for 40 years because of the nuclear balance, and in spite of serious imbalances in conventional forces there” (August 30), it is. because the nuclear balance was attained by the Soviet Union, after the Soviet draft convention of 1946, submitted to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, binding States to prohibit the production and use of nuclear weapons within three months of its adoption, was rejected by the United States, the then atomic bomb monopolist. United States military doctrine, proclaimed by President Reagan, that nuclear war can be limited, won and survived, has never been disavowed, but awaits the hoped for invulnerability that the strategic defence initiative may confer upon the United States to launch a nuclear first-strike against the Soviet Union. The nuclear deterrent lies in the hands of the Soviet Union. The United States is the deterred aggressor.— Yours, etc.,

M. CREEL. August 30, 1986.