Nuclear stance

Press, 11 September 1986, Page 20

Nuclear stance

Sir,—S. Wrathall’s latest ramblings (September 4) about nuclear targets apparently follow another “moment’s reflection.” The United States would not have spent billions on tactical nuclear weapons if they did not think they might be useful in a limited and prolonged nuclear battle. Escalation would almost surely follow; but immediate Armageddon is not the only nuclear scenario we face. In our part of the world a limited exchange could involve ships and submarines in a sea-lanes crisis. It is likely that Tangimoana would be involved in locating enemy surface vessels for targeting purposes. American, and possibly Australian and New Zealand, forces would then take aggressive action. Any base or facility which is a real-time participant in a nuclear exchange, including Tangimoana, would be a potential nuclear target. I agree with Mr Wrathall that other New Zealand airports in addition to Christchurch could be used by the Americans. That hardly supports his argument in trivialising the nuclear targeting issue.— Yours, etc., ROBERT L. LEONARD. September 9, 1986. Sir,—Engraved on one side of the Cenotaph in London, in letters more than a foot high, are these words: “Because you wouldn't think, we had to die.” But these words make no impact on the architects of war, for “Yesterday’s Men” are so steeped in mythology, so rapt in past ritual, that they dare not face up to the nuclear reality. They refuse to acknowledge that self-righteous armed nationalism is the root cause of war. When the first nuclear bomb was dropped over Hiroshima, Albert Einstein made the statement that “everything is changed: everything is changed except man’s thinking.” It is this statement, or rather the comprehension of it, that holds the key to survival. Will men (or enough of them) come to think supra-nationally before rampant technology spells the end of our kind? — Yours, FRlfo ROPER. ‘ '*s Howkk, September 7, 1986.