Why New Zealand Should Stay Nuclear-Free

SEP	OCT	MAY
	14
2007	2008	2010

12 captures

15 Feb 06 - 27 May 10

Close Help

Comment by Larry Ross

November 23, 2006

Press Release January 30, 2004

From NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association
P.O. Box 18541, Christchurch, NZ,

Why New Zealand Should Stay Nuclear-Free,
the Iraq War, New War Plans and Nuclear Doctrines

By Larry Ross, Secretary, January 30, 2004

New Zealand's Nuclear-Free laws are under attack as being irrelevant, and a cold war relic. It's claimed that as the cold war is over, and U.S. has disarmed nuclear warships, N.Z. should rescind its Nuclear-Free laws.

However, nuclear warships can be rearmed with nuclear weapons at any time - openly or in secret. New U.S. war doctrines of pre-emption, and for nuclear weapon use in conventional war, make nuclear rearmament much more likely. That makes nuclear war more likely and therefor our Nuclear-Free laws more relevant today.

Although the cold war may be over - superficially - the nuclear threat between the U.S. and Russia is more dangerous today. Both countries have thousands of nuclear missiles on alert status that can be quickly re-programmed to attack each other. This can happen by accident, miscalculation or calculated first strike. This is an important reason for NZ to stay nuclear-free. To remain outside the nuclear loop, means less chance of being drawn into a nuclear conflagration and greater security for N.Z.

New Zealand's long-term allies, the U.S., U.K., and Australia have shamed and endangered themselves and their populations by waging an illegal war against Iraq and threatening to use nuclear weapons. N.Z. was wise to disassociate itself from this.

The allies have proven that they are willing to unleash nuclear war, and take huge risks - possible leading to a global holocaust, on the basis of lies and false justifications. This cavalier "devil may care" attitude toward nuclear weapons and their potential to unleash global holocaust is at best, stupefyingly irresponsible and illegal, and at worst, pathologically homicidal. Rescinding our nuclear-free law to join this team and accept nuclear warships and nuclear war mongering, would suggest New Zealand has lost its marbles.

Also, President Bush plans to dominate space with both offensive and defensive weapons, withdraw from various arms control treaties, and develop new nuclear weapons. This will result in new war risks and an arms race in space. It provides more reasons for New Zealand to stay Nuclear-Free.

In addition, President Bush has lowered the barrier against using nuclear weapons.
He has said he could use them against both nuclear and non-nuclear countries if he claims such countries support or aid terrorists and for other reasons. He has named 6 countries Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, China and Russia - and three crisis situations - Korean peninsula, Middle East and China over Taiwan - where the U.S. might use nuclear weapons. The named countries have been given a motive to prepare countermeasures. These new policies make new arms races and war more likely, increase global insecurity and uncertainty, and provide a strong reason for New Zealand to maintain it's Nuclear-Free laws.

As with the Iraq war, proof of guilt is not required. The claim and suspicion is sufficient for the U.S. to justify massive invasion and bombing. The U.S. claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had links to Al Qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. None of this was true. The U.S. mass media have spread Bush's false claims, thereby making it possible for Bush to take the country to war with public support. Giving in to U.S. pressures to rescind New Zealand Nuclear-Free laws would mean New Zealand participates in U.S. war lies and new nuclear risks.

So far our allies have not been punished for their criminal actions, although there is a movement to accuse these people of war crimes before the International Court.
N.Z. should not appear to be condoning international war crimes, even by our allies.

Nelson Mandela and others have called President Bush the most dangerous man of our age. Certainly Dr. Helen Caldicott is right when she says the danger of a nuclear war has never been greater. New Zealand Nuclear-free law was designed to help the cause of nuclear disarmament, and keep New Zealand out of nuclear war. We should not reverse that, by capitulating to U.S. pressures to rescind our nuclear-free law.

This allied "Mad Max" attitude toward using nuclear weapons and throwing off international treaty constraints is a major reason why New Zealand should retain its Nuclear-Free laws and its opposition to nuclear arms and nuclear warships. New Zealand's taxpayer-funded politicians, military and bureaucrats, owe their allegiance to safeguarding New Zealand security - not to satisfying the irrational, war-crazed demands of other nations.

Rescinding the Nuclear-Free law would be seen as a vote of support for illegal and dangerous U.S. actions and for their new nuclear doctrines of usage against any accused country. It would mean that New Zealand would harbour nuclear warships. That would make NZ a nuclear base, accepting all risks, and giving support to U.S. wars, even nuclear wars, for any reason, however false or unjustified it may be.

This immoral, and potentially suicidal capitulation to U.S. pressure is strongly supported by the ACT party and is being considered by the National Party. If they were better informed about illegal U.S. wars, potential U.S nuclear wars, and the new nuclear threats, they would certainly not wish to give up our Nuclear-Free status.

New Zealanders worked hard to achieve our nuclear-free laws. The world admires and appreciates New Zealand's actions. We are seen as a beacon of hope in a nuclear-mad world. Our nuclear-free, clean, green image attracts people to New Zealand and helps sell our products.
These are some of the major reasons to retain and strengthen New Zealand's nuclear-free laws.

email: nuclearfreenz@lynx.co.nz web site: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz

Replies to Press Release

From KEN SHIRLEY and to KEN SHIRLEY from LARRY ROSS.

From KEN SHIRLEY

Dear Ken,
It's good to hear from you, and thanks for your criticisms of my release.
The following points are my reply to your criticisms:

(1) While the NZ Nuclear Free Act could be strengthened, it is not a fraud. I know it bans nuclear warships and nuclear weapons from New Zealand.

(2) The real world does "admire and respect our nuclear stance" and New Zealand as a small nation taking a significent arms control step. It is appreciated by people and nations all over the world. Many individuals, groups, eminent visiting lecturers on nuclear issues and politicians have expressed appreciation for New Zealand's stand. It does show that a small nation, exercising its sovereigty, can have an influence and set an example - even against the wishes of a super power. I assure you that this is true.

(3) Many people sharing your view are members of the military and civilian strategists and PR employees mainly in the Pentagon. They have broken "the last resort" doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons and developed new strategies to use nuclear weapons against any chosen enemy, who may be nuclear or non-nuclear, under conditions which the U.S. alone will specify. Whereas your Act Party, at the moment, seems in favour of joining in this new U.S. strategy by accepting their warships, most New Zealanders say "no". New Zealanders want to stay close friends with the U.S. but keep their nuclear free policies in place. They don't think that accepting nuclear warships and weapons should be imposed on us as a condition to keep that
friendship.

(4) I can assure you, that it is mainly nuclear militarists, neo-conservatives, nuclear-allied politicians, American public relations and pyschological warfare employees, and the uninformed or misinformed, who would describe New Zealand's nuclear free policy as "quaint and foolish". While these people are very powerful it does not mean they are right. They do not take into account that their pre-emptive war, existing and new nuclear weapon and war policies could condemn themselves and the population of the world to an agonizing death.

(5) We have always been in favour of many nuclear technologies, especially in medicine and industry. The nuclear free policy does not interfere with these.

(6) The Somers Report of 1992 was limited in its scope to nuclear powered vessels. Even then, many thought it was a whitewash. It did not take into account the structural instability and dangerous absurdity of the "nuclear
balance of terror" or the important questions of: (A) the dangers of nuclear weapons being introduced to New Zealand (B) Becoming part of the U.S. nuclear war infrastructure (an inevitable consequence of harbouring nuclear warships)

(C) If we provided port facilities to US nuclear warships, there would be a much higher risk of becoming a target in a nuclear war. They may or may not be nuclear armed. It would make no difference to an enemy who would identify New Zealand as part of the nuclear war infrastructure.

(D) The Somers Report was also very limited in its examination of actual and potential accidents, and the consequences to NZ should various types of accidents occur aboard a ship in an NZ port.

(E) If NZ provided nuclear warship ports, we would also be much more limited in what we could do in the field of nuclear disarmament. Our credibility as an independant nation would be greatly reduced. We would share and be partly responsible for whatever nuclear doctrines, strategies or wars the U.S. chose to adopt and implement. For example: Like Britain and Australia, we might have been swept into the illegal and unjustified Iraq war .

(F) There is the larger questions of human survival and nuclear disarmament, not considered in the Somers Report. For human and planetary survival we must get rid of nuclear weapons before they are triggered by accident or intent into a holocaust that destroys the world.. As President Kennedy said to the U. N.:
"The nuclear sword of Damocles hangs by a slender thread over all of us" The Somers Report did not consider such questions, but smoothed the way for New Zealand to become part of that nuclear sword of Damocles.

(6) I do not think that Auckland Hospital's nuclear radiation into the environment is very related to the possible disasters, and many implications, of nuclear warship visits to New Zealand.

(7) The Treaty of Raratonga does not ban nuclear warships, whereas New Zealand's Nuclear Free Zone and Disarament Act does ban nuclear warships and weapons.

(8) The 1987 Nuclear Free Act is not a sham. The nuclear free policy has been an established fact of life for 20 years, and the Act for 17 years. Rather than "defies reasoning" as you claim, the Act is based on careful and thorough reasoning - taking all the facts and nuclear threats into account.

Ken, I hope my answers to your criticisms can be considered by yourself and other Act members, and that you will reconsider your policies. One new fact you might consider is that at the time Mr Prebble introduced your pro-nuclear ship visits policy, he may not have known that the US radically changed their nuclear doctrines on the useage of nuclear weapons (see 3 above). This could change your assessment of risks and dangers to New
Zealand of providing port facilities to visiting nuclear warships.

Sincerely,
Larry Ross, Secretary,
NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking

Comment by Larry Ross

November 23, 2006

	Nuclear power, inherently, is catastrophically dangerous	By Bill Smirnow	March 17, 2004
	...look into the massive, ongoing cover up of 3 Mile Island and the signed, notorized statements made by Jane Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Hyman Rickover and Dr. Rosalie Bertell as well as the statement made by Paul Blanch, former nuclear engineer of the year regarding the cover up...

	Nuclear power, inherently, is catastrophically dangerous	By Bill Smirnow	March 17, 2004
	...look into the massive, ongoing cover up of 3 Mile Island and the signed, notorized statements made by Jane Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Hyman Rickover and Dr. Rosalie Bertell as well as the statement made by Paul Blanch, former nuclear engineer of the year regarding the cover up...

	Nuclear Power For New Zealand?	Comment by Larry Ross	November 23, 2006
	....Usually, advocates of nuclear power do not take into account all the costs, and risks - both short term and long term. Nor do they considering the cost of decommissioning the nuclear plant, replacement, and storage of nuclear waste that they can't dispose of.