Nuclear stance Moscow’s intentions

Press, 17 March 1987, Page 14

Nuclear stance

Moscow’s intentions

Sir,—The two letters you published (March 14) under the above heading are illuminating. The first, from J, S. Pallot, shows his usual uncompromising hostility toward anything Soviet. The second, from Susan Taylor, takes

a broader view and shows a deeper understanding of the motives and methods of the two super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. The history of both, in their treatment of internal minorities and smaller subject nations, is appalling and it is frightening that the leaders of both hold the world’s future in their hands. However, the Soviet Union has a leader whose attitude seems eminently practical, thoughtful and realistic. America has as a leader a not-very-bright actor who was mentioned accurately enough in your reprinted “Observer” article (March 11) as a “glove puppet” and an “amiable amnesiac.”—Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. March 14, 1987.

Sir, —A baseless anti-Soviet tirade and a tendentious reference to “our Japanese friends” in its context, characterises J. S. Pallot’s letter (March' 9). It is a commendable contribution to harmonious, international relations to hail the Japanese, our World War II enemies, as “our friends,” but at the expense of our World War II allies, the Soviet people? Neither J. S. Pallot, nor anyone else, has any evidence of genocide by “Soviet imperialists” in Afghanistan. Nor does the Soviet Union occupy “integral parts” of China and Japan. Imperialist Japan seized the Kuriles and the southern part of Sakhalin Island from tsarist Russia in the nineteenth Century. There are no “subject peoples” in the Soviet Union. His “genuine love for the Russian people” has the hollow ring of too much protestation. Soviet naval ships have the same rights in the world’s oceans as any other navy. New Zealanders have more reason to be concerned about Tokyo’s intentions, as Japanese monopolies buy control of New Zealand industries.— Yours, etc., M. CREEL. March 12, 1987.

Sir,—l should like to reply to Mr Martin Kavanagh’s letter (March 9) regarding facing up to nuclear disaster. The 1985 Royal Society Report on the Threat of Nuclear War to New Zealand saw two alternatives for New Zealand’s civil defence: “... to prepare to survive a nuclear war by investing considerable resources in vast underground shelters as has been done in Switzerland, or to accept that the only way for society to survive is to prevent nuclear war from happening ...” They decided that the latter option was the only practical alternative for New Zealand. Mr Kavanagh does not seem to hold a similar view. As the risk of nuclear disaster is high (“50:50”) he accuses the peace movement of being “less than responsible” for failing to take “simple and inexpensive precautions.” In light of reports such as the above what "simple and inexpensive precautions” can he mean? Duck and cover? Mr Kavanagh is the one who is not facing up to the reality of disaster and being less than responsible. The peace movement is striving to avoid the holocaust, not preparing for it.— Yours, etc.,

T. K. FRASER. March 11, 1987.