letters

The ‘Catch 22’ of nuclear deterrence

It is a long time since I read a more biased, ill-presented set of distortions and illogical argu ments as the PIM “Opinion” for August.

Sure, Mr Lange “virtually in his first breath as prime minis ter” announced the ban on nuclear ships. It was, however, a major plank of his election strategy and can have come as no surprise to even the most casual political observer. It was the clearly expressed wish of the New Zealand people, and far from the capricious whim of political opportunism. In any case the whole deterrence argu ment of nuclear weapons is based on a paradox worthy of Joseph Heller’s Catch 22. You won’t invade because I’ve got atomic weapons, which if I use will result in my destruction as well as yours, so in fact I’ll never use them, so you can invade, but if you do I’ll use my atomic weapons which will result in my own destruction as well so you won’t invade Does PlM’s editorial writer really believe he’s going to wake up one morning with the Russian navy looming un announced out of the morning mist? And even if we suspend reality to accept such a ridicu lous assumption, would the car rier of “the major burden of everyone’s security” im mediately plunge the world into the nightmare of nuclear war?

Of course not.

Nuclear weapons are offen sive (in both meanings), not defensive, and America’s sole purpose in offering them as a defence to their allies is to spread the attack potential as widely as they can, in order to make a pre-emptive strike which will disable (and distri bute as widely as possible) a Russian counter.

It may not be possible to have the strawberries without the pips, but if the first bite is

likely to blow your head off, you’re probably better off with home-grown fruit.

Imperialism whether in Afghanistan, Lebanon or Cen tral America is rightly conde mned by all, but is certainly not restricted to any one political system, nor is it solely practised by nuclear powers on non nuclear ones. In the absence of nuclear systems in the South Pacific region it is hard to imagine any foreign power targeting their own weapons of

mass destruction on such a harmless target. Equally the maintenance of a strong and co-ordinated conventional de fence force will provide a far better guarantee of long term freedom (and life) than the nuclear alternative. As a recent arrival to the South Pacific I applaud New Zealand’s brave stance, just as I once applauded a similar Australian action in the days before their prime minister turned from a dove into a Hawke. May this the latest attempt to halt the relentless march towards mass destruc tion suffer a kinder fate.

Tim Mason

Port Vila, Vanuatu.