Nuclear stance

Press, 6 August 1987, Page 16

Nuclear stance

Sir,—Some people feel that the nuclear-free policy is a defence mechanism. New Zealand cannot defend itself, except perhaps by nuclear weapons. New Zealand has to rely upon the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom to defend it. We can help. The major Pacific sea and air battles of the last war showed that, but for the action of the United States forces, both Australia and New Zealand would have been conquered and occupied by the Japanese war machine (e.g. Singapore). America, and America only, maintained our freedom for us to survive, and grow, towards 1987. We should remember this and remember, too the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. Our defence mechanism today, as before, must be to rely upon our friends, A.N.Z.U.S. and the United Kingdom. The nuclearfree policy destroys our only defence mechanism, destruction which seems to me to be treason, for which the penalty is death. — Yours, etc., HUGH LYNCH. July 31, 1987.

Sir, —It is very possible that areas of ocean close to New Zealand are almost ideal — because of gravitational, magnetic, acoustic and other anomalies — as hiding places for submarines. We may expect strategic installations in Australia to be targeted by missileequipped vessels operating in just such areas. And if the attack submarines are likely to be also are the other side’s

hunter-killers. While this deadly game of nuclear hide-and-seek may be in progress close to our shores, our anti-nuclear policy has brought it about that we are denied all detailed knowledge of what is actually going on and any voice in deciding what should be done. A glow of moral superiority may produce a snug, but totally irrational, feeling of immunity from nuclear mischance. It should not prevent us from thinking seriously about how we should react to a nuclear calamity originating very close to our shores. — Yours, etc.,

JACK BEVAN. August 2, 1987.

Sir,—l object again to Ambassador Reischauer being' misquoted at second-hand. Noone was more surprised when the gutter press in 1981 sensationalised facts well known 15 years earlier. He is a patriotic liberal American who did more than anyone else to create friendship and understanding between his country and Japan. From 1961 to 1966 he played an important role in negotiating many agreements, including those governing the use of Japanese bases. There was an incident at Iwakuni on which he felt it necessary to take action. His story, at first hand, demonstrates that American Governments do honour their agreements and that the United States is, indeed, an ally to trust. — Yours, etc., JOHN PALLOT. August 3, 1987.

Sir,—ln saying that National would return New Zealand to A.N.Z.U.S., Mr Bolger is overlooking some grave risks and discarding opportunities. As all wars have the potential for rapid escalation to use of mass-destruc-tion weapons which destroy the participants, it follows that mutual defence treaties like A.N.Z.U.S., can become suicide pacts. Rather than risk incineration “by accident, miscalculation or madness,” as warned by President Kennedy, New Zealand has the opportunity to help prevent and stop wars and aid survivors. By remaining free of nuclear and other military involvements, New Zealand could develop a range of services and become a peace-making centre of the Pacific — as the neutral nations of Europe, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Finland, have become peacemaking conference centres. There are increasing trade opportunities for New Zealand’s nuclear-free food products. Nuclear-free New Zealand’s example promotes peace and security. — Yours, etc., LARRY ROSS, Secretary, N.Z. Nuclear Free Zone Committee. August 4, 1987.