Nuclear stance

Press, 28 July 1987, Page 20

Nuclear stance

Sir, — In theory Hubert Kraak (July 22) is right about nuclear power; in practice it is a long way off. After nearly a century, the motor car is still not tamed. Our moral development, has lagged behind our inventive genius. We need to accept responsibility for our own actions and give others a fair go. Our nuclear stance is unique. The same practical outlook that showed during the Warkworth foot-and-mouth pig scare is seen here. Should National, in power all but nine of the last 40 years, have the Lange-predicted flareup, we could have a figurehead prime minister with shaky nuclear views and a de facto one with his own financial policy. We know from experience that a weak Opposition does not produce a strong Government Labour does need a human face, and its arrogance reduced. National was a poor Opposition. We got better work from the two Democrats. The answer is to have more of them. — Yours, etc.,

A. M. COATES. July 22, 1987.

Sir,—lt is encouraging to see that Mr Gorbachev has finally admitted that the Americans were right these past six years and endorsed the “double zero” missile reduction proposal. The Russians certainly would not have been forced to do this if the unilateral disarmers in Europe and elsewhere had had their way. Wisely, the people of the leading Western countries elected conservative governments that would not give the Kremlin something for nothing. Slow though they are, negotiations are the only way we will see reductions. It

will hot happen because of Labour’s ridiculous ship ban policy. This policy has not reduced the number of nuclear weapons, nor will it, nor is there even any guarantee from the Government that it will, because that would mean the "export” of our policy. As the member for Mangere has often said: Our policy is not for export — Yours, etc STEPHEN WRATHALL. July 23, 1987.

Sir, — Edwin O. Reischauer, at second hand, is hardly a good' source for anti-American invective. Japan and the United States sorted out the whole nuclear business most amicably over 20 years ago, which leaves one with the unmistakable impression that the situation here is the deliber- . ate creation ©f. treasonable ele-. ments. Mr Frank Corner confirmed this when he state* that a small group .has hijacked the country. The point made by Sir Euan Jamieson was that the supposed objective of a “nuclearfree New Zealand” did not require this Labour Government to act as it has chosen to do. .The . only logical deduction is that it has- a “hidden agenda” which, presumably, Is to turn us into a “non-aligned” country, with dangerous implications. It is time for New Zealanders to wake up to the crimes being perpetrated in their name. — Yours, etc., JOHN PALLOT. July 24, 1987. Sir,—We should be grateful to Dr Kevin Clements, a member of , the Defence Review Committee, for pointing out (July 23) the inaccuracies and distortions in a recent press release by Sir Ewan Jamieson on the subject of New Zealand’s nuclear-free policies. The nationwide review conducted by the Defence Committee indicated that 92 per cent of New Zealanders (not 69 per cent as claimed by Sir Ewan) were against having nuclear weapons in this country. There is nothing to suggest that this figure has altered significantly since the survey was conducted, and it is mischievous of the former defence chief to try and promote a pro-United States role on populistic grounds where these do not, in fact, exist—Yours, etc., R. L. PLUCK. July 23, 1987.