|
Reasons
Not to Have Nuclear Power or
If they do re-arm warships with nuclear weapons, it means they are much closer to actually using such weapons against an enemy they accuse of being a nuclear threat. The new US nuclear policies allow the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, if the US claims reasons why it was necessary. This can happen even though a chosen US 'enemy' has no nuclear weapons and does not intend to attack the US. This may sound very unlikely, and I invite those who doubt to examine the policies on our website: http://www.nuclearfree.org.nz. Or do your own research, as the policies are easily available on Yahoo, Google and other search engines. Both the US and UK accused Saddam Hussein of having, and threatening to use nuclear weapons or WMD "Saddam's missiles are ready to be launched in 45 minutes" Tony Blair, with a strait face, informed his colleagues and the UK public. These accusations, were proven to be false, as were claims that the war was legal, and claims that Saddam had links with al-Qaeda and with the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. All false. Both the US and UK threatened to use nuclear weapons in their war against Iraq. They continue their occupation and aggressive war, inspite of the fact that their accusations have proven to be false. So far they have killed over 100,000 people in their totally unjustified war. In considering alliances, particularly nuclear weapon-based alliances such as ANZUS with the US and UK, potential allies should expect to be deceived in the same manner they were deceived to justify the Iraq war. But the consequences may be far more serious. They are unlikely to inform their chosen 'enemy of the day' that they have rearmed warships with nuclear weapons as that would alert an enemy. Also, the US might be planning a secret pre-emptive nuclear strike - also part of George Bush's new nuclear doctrines. That means they will certainly not inform allied nations to which they may send their nuclear warships, as they would not want the truth to get out to the enemy. Also, they would not wish to alarm the population of the country hosting their warships, who would object to becoming a nuclear target.. US entry to foreign nuclear ports that agree, can also involve radioactive leakage in the port. It has in the past. Neither the hosting government, nor the US is likely to inform the public about such an occurrence. Entry during a nuclear crisis, is likely to be automatic, and pre-agreed (perhaps in a secret access agreement). New Zealanders won't know about this until too late. The reason for this secrecy, is that once nuclear weapons begin to be used, more of the other 8 existing nuclear weapon states are likely to be drawn into the war. That means the US mainland and all US bases, including ports hosting US and possibly UK nuclear warships, will become potential targets. Once NZ again becomes a nuclear warship host nation, as National wants, we also become a potential target. National wants the nuclear warship ban lifted, so allied warships may again visit us and we can help our allies - the US and UK - in their illegal wars such as the Iraq war. A general nuclear war can destroy involved nations and some others; perhaps all others eventually; in an afternoon according to all the expert studies I have seen during the last 50 years. It can happen due to intention, accident or miscalculation. The US and Russia maintain thousands of their intercontinental missiles 'on alert' status, ready to 'launch-on-warning'. They have refused to lower nuclear war risks by taking these missiles off alert status, in spite of expert advice on the extent of the risks, and detailed proposals on how to safely lower these risks without sacrificing their so-called 'nuclear deterrent'. The Australian Canberra Commission of 1996 is a good example of the weight of expertise and professionalism devoted to these problems. It made no difference to US-UK nuclear doctrines. TV and radio ignored the Canberra report. Newspapers generally suppressed it, or relegated it to small print buried deep inside their papers. The powers that shape public opinion decided to treat it as a non-event and that is the way the media handled it. So there are a number of potential, and unstoppable consequences, and probablymore variables that can evolve out of seemingly innocuous nuclear power, or nuclear warships, in New Zealand. In this paper I haven't mentioned nuclear power's hidden costs; the problem of nuclear waste disposal; the cost of decommissioning; nuclear accidents and potential accidents such as Chernobyl and near misses such as 3 Mile Island. In a future paper I will describe these hidden costs in greater detail. If NZ does become a nuclear target, the damage could range from destroying all life in NZ, to destroying port cities in NZ which host US nuclear warships and variables in between. Once New Zealand decided on new nuclear policies which made it a potential nuclear target, these policies can't be reversed in a crisis situation. The US would never allow a committed ally to change it's mind in the build up to a crisis - even if the ally did not agree with US actions and intentions and thought the US may have precipitated the war crisis, as it did in Iraq. At the least, if our Nuclear Free law is scrapped, or made inoperative, many people overseas will be very disappointed. It discouraged tourism, and forfeit New Zealand's "clean, green and nuclear-free" image which helps sell New Zealand products, particularly food, and New Zealand as a progressive, wise country. Previous governments and some of today's political opposition have used all kinds of false and one-eyed arguments when attempting to limit the debate only to nuclear power itself . They are trying to set the parameters of the debate, and prevent vital factors, such as the above, from being considered. The most famous example of this tactic was the discredited "Somers Report on the Safety of Nuclear Warships". They were very careful to keep nuclear weapons, nuclear war policies, and New Zealand becoming a nuclear target, out of the debate. The new permissive US nuclear doctrines, and US pre-emptive war doctrines would not have been considered in the Somers Report. The people deciding on this strategy knew all too well, that setting the parameters and limitations of the debate, was the only possible way they had of fooling the majority of New Zealanders into accepting nuclear powered warships, nuclear war communication and targeting bases, and the like, into New Zealand. I hope they are not allowed to set the parameters on the nuclear power debate and have unchallenged, their claim that nuclear power has nothing to do with NZ's ban on nuclear powered warships and weapons. New Zealand's Nuclear Free laws were passed into legislation in 1987. They ban nuclear warships and nuclear weapons and nuclear bases from New Zealand. In retrospect I think this will be seen as the smartest foreign and defence policy decision we have ever made. The US, since the policy was introduced in 1984, have worked tirelessly to have the policy scrapped and have New Zealand again a player in the nuclear ANZUS alliance. I hope we have the fortitude to prevent this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi I am a student at Victoria University Wellington and I have started a website called "Debate New Zealand". I was wondering if you might be able to post something on the site about New Zealand and Nuclear Power. Perhaps along the lines that New Zealand needs nuclear power generators - or not. I really like your website. Kind Regards, William ........ |
