Nuclear stance

Press, 19 February 1987, Page 20

Nuclear stance

Sir,— I am astonished by the wild nature of a letter published under this heading (February 16) from a correspondent, A. R. Evans, of Pareora Gorge. In a welter of inflammatory and inaccurate generalisations, this correspondent alleges that the vast majority of anti-nuclear writers are of the post-war era, and “know nothing of war.” How wrong this absurd statement is could well be checked by simply looking at the credentials of the spokesmen for the peace movement, many of whom are retired armed forces officers of high rank. I myself have contributed 26 years in the forces (including all of World War II), and I find your correspondent’s remarks therefore quite offensive. As to the claim that New Zealanders would all be “slit-eyed” if it were not for the United States, words fail me. An attempted satire by Ray Spring on New Zealand’s nuclear stance in the same issue of your paper is both unfunny and in questionable taste when dealing with such a serious subject. — Yours, etc.,

R. L. PLUCK. February 16, 1987.

Sir,—Your response to my letter (February 13) did not answer my criticism of the editorial statement that “now New Zealand must pay the full price.” Instead, you raise other points to support a quite separate assertion that “additional costs” will arise due to the lapse of the logistics ' support agreement. There may well be additional costs if New Zealand persists in pursuing defence policies dictated by United States interests. Our armed forces are not equipped to defend this country effectively. They train for intervention in other countries and for counter-insurgency. The ongoing army exercise at Golden Bay is a case in point. Similar to the military occupation of Oxford some months ago, this exercise has received little or no publicity in Christchurch or elsewhere. Why? Because such training and the weapons to support it are irrelevant to our own defence. It is absurd to complain about additional costs when the basic expenditures themselves are largely a waste of taxpayer money. — Yours, etc.,

ROBERT L. LEONARD. February 16, 1987.

Sir,—l am dismayed that you should publish A. R. Evans’ letter (February 16) with its use of “slit-eyed” as a pejorative reference to Japanese racial characteristics. However, it serves well to demonstrate the mentality of many of those who put their faith in American militarism as the key to our national salvation. Their thinking, as he boasts, has not changed in response to new realities since

World War 11, now 42 years behind us. Our present relationship with the Japanese is complex: as a military force, they are friendly; as tourists, they are our welcome guests; in trade, they are variously our competitors, customers and suppliers; while their culture remains very different from our own. If we cannot accept the reality of such complex relations witty,. our friends, how can we ever learn to live with Russia? Such inflexibility, when used to define relations between the super-Powers, makes the whole world “sick to death.” — Yours, etc.,

HOWARD PILGRIM. February 16, 1987.