New Zealand's support of the US

me | September 19, 2001 | Doug Loss

[Kiwigal]

No, the previous thread was even earlier than that, and a lot better I think, having just read the one you posted, although it was about the same article. I guess you do have a lot of friends in NZ. Relatively speaking though. Most of us that have posted on this were probably relieved to find people who wouldn't rant on at us for an hour for mentioning the word "capitalism" (or, for that matter, the phrase "the US isn't as bad as you think").

[Rocky]

You're certainly making use of your new vocabulary! Did you ever conclude the surrender of the French, or are they still thinking about it?

[cajungirl]

well, they keep surrendering and unsurrendering. Today they tried to surrender to Reuters who declined, sayng they were poufters.

[Capt Phoenix]

Well, my brother has his degree in biochemistry and genetic engineering (although he then got hired by a computer software company - go figure), so I may be biased, but I do wish you luck on the GE issue. From what people have said about the NZ economy, I don't think you can afford to be left behind. I realize the Europeans have a different opinion. It's not the first time we've disagreed with them over embracing new technologies. Every time it has turned out the same: we embrace it and they wait to see what happens to us. We get our fingers burned learning to play with the new fire, and then race ahead. They struggle to catch up. You will have to make up your own minds, though; this fire is pretty hot.

As for the relevance of the Nuke free debate; I agree it's not likely to change now. It's not even very important whether it does. That was a policy based on a war that's over now. In the next war, other policies are going to be more important.
However, I think the ideas and attitudes behind the decision ARE still relevant. As you say, it seems to be echoing back in this debate over GE foods. If the attitudes and assumptions are wrong, they will continue to poison the debate over everything for decades to come. If they are right, then the way the apply to modern problems needs to be established.

Some people might see it as just rehashing old cold-war arguments. I see it as a continuing search for truth.

[Kiwigal]

There is a problem with the old attitudes. I do not have a any science degrees I'm afraid (a law one actually!) but I have managed to find out that the root of the problem with NZ's understanding with nuclear power, and hence it's long-standing disagreement with the US, is our inability to distinguish between nuclear weapons, which are designed to be destructive, and nuclear power used as, for example, propulsion for US ships. We equate all things nuclear with danger and destruction, which is wrong. Our own personal power supply theoretically doesn't suffer for this because we have access to geo-thermal as well as hydro-electric power, although anyone who has been stuck here for winter with the power crisis we've had going on might disagree. I wish me luck for the GE thing too. We're trying to boost our economy here by promoting our "knowledge economy". Not going to be too flash if it's along the lines of "we want your knowledge but you're not allowed to use it".

[New Zealander]

I wish I knew more about what was actually going on when ANZUS began to break down - I wasn't really old enough to take much of it in at the time. I too struggle to understand fully why nuclear powered ships were banned - but then, as kiwigal says, anti-nuclear policy is quite entrenched, and among other things, I'm sure if we were ever to renounce it, it would be bad press for the whole 'clean-green' thing everyone talks about, and our tourism industry would suffer for it.

Hoping to find out more about the ANZUS breakdown, I came across this, which contains both the original treaty, and the anti-nuclear act. The ANZUS treaty constantly mentions Asian threats (including Japan), and the pacific region, and also goes on to say that parties will 'meet the common danger in accordance with [their] constitutional processes'. It doesn't specifically mention any right to ship visits, and it cannot be seen to speak the language of global nuclear war - it's just too old to do that. What it does say that favours the American decision, is that parties will 'maintain...collective capacity to resist armed attack'. However, it doesn’t mention suspension of members - just that there is a requirement to give a years notice if a member wants to leave the treaty.

It seems to read as a document designed for wars in the Asian/pacific area in the wake of the second world war, and wars such as Vietnam, which me met our obligations over - despite large protests from the now standard rabble of all too idiotic and idealistic peace-obsessed halfwits (haha). The kind of people you seemed to be thinking of in an earlier post.

ANZUS wasn't designed for the kind of 'war' the US was involved in with Russia - and I think our suspension from it was more to do with making an example of someone’s anti-nuclear policy - after all, there were countries, and as you say, even cities, that were getting a little sick of the nuclear aspects of the cold war. It seems quite possible that it could have been reinstated any time since ?1994(?) when US warships stopped carrying nuclear weapons.

I’ve had a brief read of the paper at the site above, and it seems to go as far as to say that the suspension decision was based partly over ignorance of New Zealand – the kind we’ve seen so much on this thread with all those silly communist claims. The paper also mentions that over 70% of the US fleet uses non-nuclear propulsion – which rules out capital ships and submarines. Maybe there was good reason for the stranger part of the anti-nuclear act. Seems it's about time the suspension ended anyway.

[Kiwigal]

It is definitely about time the suspension ended. Ideally, NZ should let US ships, nuclear-powered or otherwise, come to NZ. No wonder we are forbidden from undertaking joint military exercises when we place such restrictions on American naval vessels. Unfortunately, to rehash my point about the failure to appreciate the distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear power, if the policy were reversed on nuclear propulsion there would almost certainly be some bad reporting and green party panic. The combination of all that would be that a story would appear somewhere overseas that NZ was in the middle of a nuclear meltdown. Uh oh, no more tourism. This would be similar to the debacle when Ruapehu erupted and even in Australia they thought the whole of the North Island was going up.

Many NZers are very insular - something we accuse Americans of! - and extremely suspicious of new technology. Not that nuclear power is new technology but hey, it's less than a hundred years old right? And besides, our worthy leader has reassured us that no-one will attack us anyway so why do we need to do joint exercises with the US. Military friendship has nothing to do with economic growth, if you are on the left in politics.

[New Zealander]

I don’t quite agree that New Zealanders have a fear of technology – we’ve embraced a lot of new things very quickly – like the Internet, or eftpos etc. – it’s just those things that meddle with humans born doubts – and I think only then if they are coupled with an ideological cause. Human born doubts are things like fear of flying – which is unfairly associated with risk – but I don’t think an undue number of New Zealanders are afraid to fly because that would be a personal fear that doesn’t compromise any belief. On the other hand you get compromising things like 1080 poison drops, cell phone towers, nuclear power and genetic engineering. Living in a clean, mostly unspoiled country with a fair health system, that’s when the shit hits the fan – ‘what ya mean you’re going to put one of those microwaves on a stick cancer towers next to a school?! You bastards – we deserve a bit of a fair go here!’ It’s a funny thing that not many of these people are really afraid of the threatening thing specifically for themselves – even if they are, it’s well hidden under a concern for others or the environment or something of that nature.

It’s a real shame to see un-pragmatic movements getting established – but the people mean well. I think the thing that pisses me off the most is the peace movement, closely followed by the anti-GE movement – these are things that go against our history. If I wanted to be a bit unfair, and a little snide, I’d say that the people who make up these movements have little knowledge of the things they protest against, aside from a predisposition to wear worn out old West German Army surplus jackets, and a tendency for extensively hybridised crops of a certain spiky leafed plant. And yet these people are 'interesting' enough to get TV news time.

It actually seems we have no need to worry about revoking our anti-nuclear status to rejoin ANZUS – at least, technically. It was 1991 when the US decided to stop carrying nukes onboard warships - which happened in 1994. The US is going to have about 30% of its navy using nuclear power - but that is strictly limited by necessity: only submarines and aircraft carriers are powered by a nuclear reactor. Everything else, from oilers to amphibious assault ships to destroyers: all have been capable - for some time now - of visiting New Zealand without breaching the anti-nuclear act.

The only reason it hasn't all been sorted out is misunderstanding and that no one in the higher levels of the US government has bothered to take the time to direct anyone to sort it out. I guess pride features a bit there too, and that there seems to be no great reason for it in the US.

It's kind of affected our interoperability a bit - we keep similar military standards with the US, because we share the common standards of Australia - so our rifles fire the same ammunition as US rifles, etc. We still have problems with the very specific requirements that the US demands - we needed to install a special networked target identification system in the frigate that went to the Gulf to police the sanctions against Iraq - it's the kind of gear that stops friendly fire incidents - luckily we had one. The little know story about this gear is that when Shipley decided to send the SAS to assist the US in attacking Iraq the second time around we had the problem of needing the special aircraft version of the same system - in a week. No worries - a team of technicians ripped the ship version out of the frigate and shoved it in the C-130 Herc - the people who make the unit are still scratching their heads about that one - it's supposed to take a couple of months to install one of those things!

[Capt Phoenix]

You're not the only ones who have to deal with the "anti-scientific" left. We have the same people, though with slightly different (but no less ignorant) agendas. I remeber a huge flap over power transmission lines. The claim was that these caused brain cancer. This was supported by "studies" that indicated a larger than normal instance of cancers in children who attended schools with high power lines overhead. They raised quite a ruckus with hollywood stars weeping before congress and everything. Unfortunately, Congress had just been embarrassed by almost giving in to the ALAR hysteria, and hesitated long enough for the facts to come out. Turns out these schools are in very poor neighborhoods; with high drug abuse, malnutrition, pollution (mostly of the "litter" type - garbage thrown in the street, etc.), and neglect (especially of basic health care - which IS available, but most drug abusers can't be bothered to take Jr to the free clinic). Rates of cancer weren't any higher than in poor neighborhoods WITHOUT high power lines.
Of course it didn't stop them. They continue to list it as one of the "big evils" of America. Along with Nuclear Power, Fossil fuel power (which pollutes, don't ya know), Hydro-electric power (dams hurt the environment, don't ya know), Geo-thermal power (You're gonna trigger a volcano, don't ya know), Tidal and thermal incline power (tide locks hurt the environment and thermal exchangers mess up the whole ocean food cycle, don't ya know), and President Bush (just on general principles, don't ya know). They will accept solar power, so long as you don't store the power for use at night (a 1K Megawatt solar plant would have to store a nuclear bombs worth of energy because the sun only shines during the day). And providing you don't build it where it could disrupt the environment (solar plants cover square miles of ground - we would essentially have to pave the state of Arizona for all of them). Wind power is OK too (as long as the towers are small, close to the ground, and there aren't very many of them).
Sigh...I'm rambling again, aren't I?
It's an occupational hazard in a country where calling someone a "smart guy" is an insult.

As far as your points on the pact: I wounldn't expect the origional document to provide for nuclear power or weapons since the latter had only just been invented and the former hadn't. I suspect such aspects were added later through side agreements. Alliance treaties usually mutate through time by the addition of side treaties, agreements, or understandings. Countries seem strangely reluctant to ever throw away old treaties. Even Mr Bush wants to amend the ABM treaty into uselessness, rather than simply scrap it. Go figure...The mysteries of politics (shrug)...
And you are right; a new treaty could be worked out, or a compromise made. Even in the U.S., nuclear vessels are only serviced at a limited number of ports. This is primarily for ease of security, because "service" just means stocked with food and water. Nuclear power plants are only refueled in a few (I'm purposely not being specific, for obvious reasons), super secure sites in the US. NZ could easily designate one base to service Nuclear powered ships (on the public claim that only it has the "specialized facilities"). In truth, most of the warships, would be serviced there - to preserve face on the US "don't ask, don't tell" policy on who's nuke and who isn't. It's not like there are gonna be THAT many ships there - penguins aren't high priority targets. NZ bases are primarily useful for extending the patrolling range of southern fleet ships. Assuming you built the base way out on South Island some where, it should be out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Let a few dozen protesters brave the cold, South Island isn't heavily populated, as I recall. I imagine the press would get real tired of covering 12 guy's freezing to death outside the gates of the base.

I gotta go. I have to drive my sweety into town to get her driver's license renewed. More later.

[Kiwigal]

I don't think you could put a base out of sight, out of mind in the South Island. It's not THAT cold, despite what everyone who lives in Auckland might say. Don't get me wrong, I am born and bred an Aucklander, nothing against them. But I went to Otago University (in Dunedin - lower South Island) and spent summer days down there baking in temperatures that often got higher than those in Auckland. And it only snowed a couple of times in the winter. People in Auckland think that if it's south of the Bombay hills (which are the southern border of the Auckland metropolitan area) it's too cold to live in. I now live in Wellington (bottom of the North Island, where people are a bit more geographically aware. But now I am rambling.

Now that America has scaled down its nuclear weapon capacity, and we have all seen how effective and safe (unless you live in Russia)nuclear power can be when used properly, the anti-nuke faction in NZ needs something else to cling to. I think the world agrees that nuclear weapons are a bad thing. If only we hadn't invented them. But we did, and I think the last thread of rationalisation supporting anti-nukes in NZ is the position that America was responsible for inventing such evil weapons therefore we will punish them by not letting them park their ships here. Of course, this fails to recognise that when the technology is there, someone else will find it (ie. Russia). It is a very unfortunate characteristic of many people that, when faced with having to admit one is wrong, one instead finds other ways of rationalising one's views. When it is to the detriment of one's country it is very unattractive.

Hopefully, something good can come out of the recent tragedies, in that by working side by side with the US again we can re-build our military relationship. It is only unfortunate that National is not still in power because that government would have been more enthusiastic about utilising such an opportunity.

Hope the drivers licence got safely renewed.

[Verbatim]

Interesting article in the Herald today which mentions that New Zealand SAS troops are already in action in Afghanistan, attached to the British, and have been since September 14.

[New Zealander]

Aye - must be a bastard of a thing living in a country that places so little value on education - where people are more willing to listen to people who dropped out of school to train as actors or athletes. It's sad shit - and there's no telling these people either.

Can't see any new ports being built in the South Island - New Zealand is a fairly mobile country - it wouldn't mean much for a couple of bus loads of protesters to come down from Northland or the Coromandel (upper North Island places, know for certain cultural activities such as cannabis cultivation). People would get pretty suspicious anyway - 'what have you got to hide?' kind of thing.

I think the easiest solution is for the US to resume training with New Zealand (which is a big problem - the US refuses to attend any international exercise New Zealand is part of - which really means we can't attend). That and resume conventional ship visits - the anti-nuclear thing can be sorted out later - maybe 5, 10 years later. No great rush. On the first conventional ship visit a few protesters will probably insist on turning up in the harbour, to which the general public will say 'what the fuck are they protesting about now?.' Probably end up undermining the cause. Well maybe anyway.

I don't know about any additions to the ANZUS treaty - but you might well be right - it'd be interesting to find out - I can't find much about it at the moment.

Anyway - you guys have yourselves a good weekend - hehe, I know I will. I'm lacing up my marching boots and probably going to be working on my appreciation of torrential rain, mud, automatic weapons and anything else they've got planned for us! Haha - fun and games!

[New Zealander]

Could be true - but I'd take it with a pinch of salt. All those dodgy British papers have been going on about the SAS in Afghanistan, when they know full well it'll sell papers, and no one is going to acknowledge that it is wrong - 'We do not comment on matters concerning the SAS'.

[Capt Phoenix]

Thanks for the clue on South Island weather. From this distance I have to rely on what people tell me. Of course, human nature being what it is, what people love to repeat are the tall tales;"Why, it was so cold our words froze as soon as they left our mouths. We gathered them in a bucket all day long, and set em by the fire at night for entertainment."
People are the same about that all over the world. On a trip to Korea, the cab driver asked,"Colorado, eh? Cold and snowy, huh?"
We average over 330 days of sunshine a year, more than southern California. It's fall now, and where I live (at 1000m above sea level), the aspen trees are all gold, and it's 21 degrees (Celsius).
Needless to say, I regailed him with stories of hunting Polar bears and burning ice to keep warm.

My point, however, was that it might have been do-able to find a compromise that would have saved face. Nether side would like it. The Navy wouldn't appreciate being secluded in the most out-of-the-way spot the NZ government can find. I can see it now:
Sailor complains,"But it's so isolated! We caan't get at your entertainment. Your booze. Your women..."
"You noticed that too, eh?", Deadpan Kiwi response.
And the PM that pulled it off would have to have a will of iron. She would have to hold the government together through the no-confidence votes (I assume you have those), and be resigned to the fact that she will lose the next election. If she could hold that time off for a couple years, though, it would be politically difficult for the next government to trash it. With tens of millions of dollars invested from both NZ and the US, and two years of construction, forcing the sailors off at gunpoint would be international political suicide. NZ would be skewered in the world court; base leases involve contracts - enforceable contracts, with penalty clauses. Not to mention the effects on trade, military cooperation, etc. It would be horribly costly to do, and few governments would be willing to pay the price.
The point being; if it were done right, it would be hard to undo, but, by that same token, there would have to be a strong NEED for it to get done in the first place. WW2 provided the fear that forged the first treaty. I don't know that there would be a strong enough imeptous to do it again. It's more likely that there will be coalitions (with a little 'c') that cooperated on limited objectives where their interests coincide. That probably precludes long term military cooperation beyond the inteligence sphere. It would be hard for me to explain to Joe Taxpayer why the troops that we're shipping over to fight with the New Zealanders in Timor are staging out of Australia because the Kiwis won't let our ships in their ports. Can you imagine Joe Taxpayer's response to a statement like that?
Of course, with luck, those limited cooperations will help to smooth hurt feelings on both sides, and mellow attitudes, to eventually allow other agreements to be made.

You want to hear something funny? As I was typing that last sentence, I was thinking about "hurt feelings", and I had an epiphany. I think I suddenly understand why there was so much passion about the whole issue. Why it's so hard to discuss, even now. It all revovles around hurt feelings and those stem from a fundamental mistake about each other's perceptions. Let me try to explain...
New Zealanders still don't understand why the US made such a big deal about what should have been a trivial issue, do they? To you, it wasn't really very important, a few minor bases in an out of the way corner of the world...Not much strategic importance, really. Especially when balance against NZ's long friendship with the US, Right? Oh, you expected us to be miffed - even perturbed, but you never expected what happened...
We went ballistic ape-sh*t on you! Insults, threats, bullyings! Economic sanctions and diplomatic denunciations. Must have shocked your shoes off, and hurt you terribly. Made you mad as a bee with a bear in it's hive too, didn't it? "Bugger off, then!", you shouted, "We aren't your lapdogs! If you can't respect our making one tiny little decision that you don't like, we don't need you." Heck, even today it's a touchy subject for Kiwis. An American who even mentions the policy is likely to get his head bitten off. I know from experience!
Have I described things accurately?

Assuming your answer is, "yes", take a moment to do something. Ask yourself if America's actions seemed rational to you? Reasonable?
Now throttle back the anger and bite off the hot retort, and think, "why not?" After all, we had been friends for decades, and the US had always seemed reasonable before that. Why the sudden attack of irrationality? It seems so...emotional...But why? It's almost as if the Americans took it as more than a geo-political decision; as if they felt personally insulted and hurt. But why?
I think I can explain, but I have to start with how American's saw the cold war.

To start; America was never in any danger of being invaded by the Soviets. Everybody knew that. Two big oceans, one of the finest Navies in the history of the world, and a plethora of Nuclear nasties, meant we had nothing to worry about from a Soviet invansion. Our freedom was safe, no matter what happened to the rest of y'all. The same was true of the Russians. Nuclear weapons have that effect. Russia could be effectively defended by one six year old girl and a potted plant...provided she was holding the plant over 'the button'. That is one of the things that gave lie to the Russian claim that the huge army they had in eastern Europe and wesern Russia was for "defence". Hmmm...Let's see... I need; one six year old girl and a rhodadendron...I have; the largest army in the history of man - one four times larger than all my enemies combined... Only a true pacifist wouldn't smell a rat in that.
I know this seems rambling; stay with me, please; it's important to understand how we saw things.
So. If the US is in no danger from the Soviets, and they are in no danger from us, why did the cold war exsist? The answer is that that army WAS a danger to everybody else. If you doubt that, ask a Hungarian, or a Rumanian, or (best yet) tell a Czech that the Soviets had no imperialistic intentions. But then jump back. Because he'll kick you so hard your cheeks will land in Australia.
But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you believe the Soviets were evil incarnate, or snuggly ticklemen. The cold war was based, like all military planning, on what they could do. To that end; the Cold War came into being. Or, I should say, WE BROUGHT it into being. The Cold War was all our baby. The Russians never wanted it and wished it would go away.
We told the Soviets, that if they invaded Germany, or France, or Japan, or Autralia...or even New Zealand, that we would launch a Nuclear attack on their country. Can you imagine what that conversation must have been like?
"Ivan. If you invade our friends, we will nuke your country."
"What?! You know we will retaliate with our weapons and destroy you!"
"I'm glad you understand, comrade. If you set one foot in West Germany, if you luanch one warship at Japan, if you so much as rub the fuzz off one Kiwi fruit, we will destroy both our countries."
"You lie, American pig! No one would commit suicide to ensure the freedom of another.."
"See the B-52s, tovarich? See the missile subs? We don't need them for us."
"But...But...."
You know the Soviets never did quite understand that. I don't blame them. It had never been done before. Oh, countries had made alliances before, and come to each other's defense. But no country had ever assurred the freedom of another with it's own existance. It had never even been concieved. That was the cold war. No wonder Kruschev pounded his shoe on the table and swore, "We will bury you!" The Soviets had the armies to win a hot war. The cold war kept them from doing that. It must have been frustrating.
And for two generations we lived with that. With the knowlege that Nuclear War lay over our heads like an executioners ax...and we had put it there. That we didn't HAVE to do this. The Soviets would have signed a pact assuring our safety in return for our neutrality in a heartbeat. And they would have honored it too. But that army remained. Not deployed to the rear for defense, but forward to the attack. With 24 hour readiness, attack plans made up (but no defence plans - our spies had found that much, the Soviets said they would "defend on the other country's soil"). Ready to attack as soon as the cold war ended. So we CHOSE the ax. We chose cold war.
I honestly don't think we ever expected to be thanked for it. MAD is too horrifing a thing to generate such emotions. It was almost too horrifing even for us.
But we never expected to be reviled for it. We never expected to have our sacrifices repaid with spit and curses. You called the cold war evil. You called us nuclear madmen. We had put our lives, the lives of our parents and spouse, the lives of our children on the line to protect your freedom. And you tolds us that our sacrifices were stupid. That our lives were evil. That WE were the threat to freedom!
And who said this? Not our enemies. It was the people who had been among the first to fight Hitler halfway around the globe. A people who, when the Aussies got scared and recalled troops to defend against the Japanese; left their troops fighting for another country's freedom. Because they understood that fighting for freedom - even another's freedom - is more important than safety! Of all the countries in the world YOU should have understood! You should have been our BROTHERS!
Instead, you rejected us. Told us to "go away" and stop "endangering" you. Blamed us for "Bringing the wrath of the Russians" down on you.
Can you imagine how hurt we must have felt? Can you imagine how betrayed?
It really doesn't matter much whether you agree with my discription of the cold war. It's what we saw. You can try to understand, or not, as pleases you. I understand now. I guess that's all I can really be sure of. I understand your anger. I understand your hurt. And I understand why.
And I've tried to share. That's all I can really do. I've sat at this terminal with my mind streching over concepts I had never thought of before, washed with conflicting emotions, as afternoon has turned into night, and I'm very tired. I feel emotionally numb. I think I'll head to bed.
Night's are very dark here, in the Colorado mountains - good for sleeping. The bulk of Pike's Peak shields us from the lights of NORAD. It would probably shield us from a nuke targeted on it too. Provided it was a ground burst, which it would have to be in order to take out the command center inside the mountain. We are even far enough from the Air Force Academy that we might survive the airburst that's targeted on it. Assuming, of course, that I have time after the flash to get my wife and I into the downstairs bathroom before the air-shockwave turns our front windows into supersonic shrapnel. But why am I talking about this morbid stuff? You probably don't even understand. You've probably never had you Father explain primary/secondary/tertiary blast radii to you. You'll probably never have to face explaining it to your children.
Maybe you made the right choice, my New Zealander friend. It would be nice to live that way. Not like us.
Not like us at all..
Goodnight Kiwigal. I'm very tired.

[Kiwigal]

Believe it or not we are on the same wavelength. I used a similar argument when I was "discussing" the terrorist issues with a quasi-communist workmate ("my parents would have disowned me if I hadn't joined a union". Too narrow-minded to learn his own politics though). He ran the usual arguments about the US interfering with everyone, and everyone actually just wants them to piss off and leave them alone. Not true, say I. Yes true, says he. I eventually leave the office saying that I hope someone bombs NZ because maybe THEN we will appreciate the US. That's the point. While we don't need them we're happy to bitch and moan about how self-absorbed, arrogant, xenophobic, patronising etc etc the US is. But that is only, it seems, because we are trying to save face in anticipation of having to go crawling to the US in times of need. NZ suffers from chronic tall-poppy syndrome. If you are successful, people are jealous. It is not cool to do well in NZ. If you are intelligent, you are a geek, who cares how much money you earn. To be a real NZer you have to be mediocre. Unless you play rugby, in which case you must be perfect and if you are not a whole lot of fat, unfit men who have never played rugby in their lives and have only a vague grasp of the rules will yell abuse at you. Hell, even I have played a game of rugby. Just the one mind, and I would NEVER do it again!

This is pretty much NZ's world view (well, the bitter NZers anyway). If you are more successful than us, and you won't let us in to bludge off the enormous amounts of welfare that such success must generate while we wallow in our mediocrity, then we hate you. Sorry.

Fortunately though, we do not all think this way. Unfortunately, the more enlightened of us tend to go overseas as part of the brain drain, never to be seen again except as, for example, a passenger on a hijacked flight that went down in Pennsylvania. That Kiwi left in 1976 and hasn't been back. Some of us are stupid enough to stay and try to change the country's attitude. Sometimes it seems we are succeeding, other times we lapse back into national mediocrity. Sigh. Ramble ramble. It's friday afternoon. Nearly time to head for the pub for a well-earned Speights (very good NZ beer that unfortunately does not get exported to the States).

[seanheron]

Hi Capt Phoenix, I just wanted to have a rant about the nuclear issue, so please indulge me if you will. There has been a real chicken and egg argument going around about the ANZUS treaty. I am a Kiwi, but since I was only 8 years old at the time the whole thing blew up, I can`t claim to to know which side of the argument is correct, so I`d best leave that one alone. I can say the following, and I should stress that this is only my opinion, and not necessarily that of my fellow Kiwis. I personally have no problem with nuclear power and nuclear propulsion. I think both are safe and it was a mistake for the Government of the time to ban nuclear powered ships from our ports. My view of nuclear weapons is very different though. I cannot see any justification for these weapons of mass destruction. I know that you can`t uninvent the wheel and that nuclear weapons are here to stay, but I would feel a lot better if they did not exist. Here is why: I assume you have read or are at least familiar with the writings of Tom Clancy? It seems that he has a talent for predicting the future. I read Debt of Honour many years ago, and although I enjoyed the book, I thought it was a bit far-fetched. I mean, come on, crashing a 747 into Capitol Hill? Yeah right. The terrible tradgedy that unfolded in NY on 9/11 has made me realise how wrong I was. This brings me to the point. Have you read or a you familiar with another Tom Clancy book, The Sum of All Fears? In this book, terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb on American soil at a football game. Do any of us now doubt that this is a serious possibility? Only a fool would write of this possibility entirely. The argument is therefore pretty simple. No nuclear weapons, therefore this is an impossible scenario. All the Aircraft Carriers, F-15s, ICBMs and missile defense systems in the world will not help you in this situation. A principle that has been shown to be true to devastating effect in NY. I also want to state why I think NMD is a bad idea. If an enemy of America has the ability to deliver a single nuclear weapon to America using a missile, exactly the kind of threat that the President is proposing NMD be aimed at, it is surely not drawing too long a bow to believe that that enemy could develop a missile capable of delivering multiple warheads, thereby rendering NMD useless. Then all you have done is inspire a new arms race. I understand the argument that having some nuclear weapons provides stability and security, but I think most people will agree that the proliferation of these weapons makes the world a very dangerous place. History has shown that every time you build stronger armour, your enemy builds a more powerful weapon. Anyway, sorry for digressing from my initial point, and I should say that this bit about NMD wasn`t aimed at you Capt Phoenix, I have no idea what your beliefs on this issue are, although I would like to hear them if you have time. Cheers.

[keepthebastardshonset]

To whom it may concern ..... With reguard to the press of today, if you read the world was going to end you would most certainly seek a second opinion before bracing yourself for the worst,wouldn't you ?. although the attacks on the United states was inhumane and a aspect of relgion is left to blame can we sit here and wait and wonder if the next world war will happen ? No hopefully peace and commensense will prevail, but for this instant and a few misinterpet facts and anger has clouded our jugdement of a country not unlike Amercia her self NEW ZEALAND ! What right to abuse a fellow nation of the United Nations when econmic and our own foreign affairs require our astute attention at home (E-Timor). New Zealand on a whole condems these attacks ,not only as a country but as a uprising voice in world affairs, was it not New Zealand who quickly and quietly came to Australia's aid in the Tampa refugee crisis by providing aid and shelter to the refugees. I can only give this observation , ignorance is bliss when people tend to follow like sheep , please try to get the big picture before condeming or even ostrisizing countries\indiviuals\groups other than yourself. when it comes to world affairs we all have a voice but to pass the buck and accept gossip or unfounded reports is to place yoursleves in same shoes as the terroists themselves and let fear and hatred take over our human qualities . with a clear head and our hand on our hearts for justice these inhumane pariscites will eventually come to order.

[Kiwigal]

Hey, I just started reading Debt of Honour last night, thanks for the advance screening of the plot-line!!

I am a little scared about the bio-terrorism thing going down. They reckon the way they'll come after NZ is with foot and mouth, which, when it spread, would decimate our economy. We would go into a recession that I don't think we would ever really get out of. And Helen Clark, while she says that we must be vigilant, doesn't seem to actually believe that anyone might bother to attack us at all...

[Capt Phoenix]

I'm not really sure how to respond to the first part of your post, Sean. However, if we are going to wish away nuclear weapons, can we wish away chemical and biological weapons too? And (on a personal note) can we wish away tyrants and people who only seem happy if they are bossing other people around?

Seriously, though, look at some comparisons:
The firebombing of Tokyo killed almost as many people as both atom bombs combined.
The death total at the "Rape of Nanking" was more than double that of the firebombing AND the atom bombs combined! And that massacre was carried out largely with bayonets. It seems to me that when we blame the evils in the human heart on our tools, we blind ourselves to the true danger. "The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Durring WW2 there was a popular saying. "I don't know what the most important weapon in the next war will be, but I know the most important weapon in the war after that...The bow and arrow." In "The war to end wars" the death toll was in the millions. In the war after that, it was in the tens of millions. Look at the state of the world at the end of WW2 - do you really doubt that the death toll in the next war would have been in the hundreds of millions? No one doubted it then. Just as no one doubted that there would be a "next war". It was enevitable, they thought. It was The Logic of Empire
For better, or for worse, the cold war ended that cycle. If we hadn't develpoed nuclear weapons in that war, we would have in the next... or the one after that. It was the enevitable result of the aforementioned "logic". And if you would force that genie back in the bottle, could you? And would you even want to?
I read how some visionaries wanted to control that genie back in the fifties, before it had spread. They advocated a "Pax Americana". We would demand an end to all war and weapons research through the would. Countries would be forced to let our inspectors in to verify. Anyone who refused, or anyone who was found building atomic bombs, would be annihilated in a Nuclear Firestorm.
In the sixties that changed to having the UN hold the reigns with orbitting "death stations" to enforce the peace at the point of nuclear armaggedon. Same idea. Less trustworthy steward.
Of course, if you have a better idea, I'll listen.

As far as the SDI idea, I think that comes from a search for ways out of the proliferation inherent in the MAD plan. You see MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), the philosophy behind the ABM treaty works well to preserve the peace - as long as there are only two players. It gets increasingly unstable as the table gets more crowed, though. Consider the math:
Two counties each have 1 arsenal (which is enough nukes to ensure the other's destruction). Total nukes in world = 2.
A third country gains nukes. Now, because that third country could side with "the other guy", each country must have 2 arsenals to ensure "Mutual Destruction". Thus total nukes in world = 6. (two for each country)
When a fourth player enters the scene, each country has to be able to destroy the other 3 for MAD to keep functioning. And total number of nukes = 12.

As you can see, the logic of MAD is the logic of ever increasing proliferation. And while that may have been the best strategy available 50 years ago (and I admit, it did preserve the peace for half a century), the situation is changing now. Two men in a room pointing guns at each other may be able to get (uneasily) along. They may even be able to agree to lower the weapons a little. But fifty guys in that room with guns pointed at each other - some of them trully unstable - are in trouble. Sooner of later, someone is gonna sneeze. And trying to get them to ALL agree to lower their weapons founders on the basic fact that some dork, somewhere, is gonna try to be clever and cheat. You ever tried to get 5 people to agree on what to put on a pizza? Now make it fifty people and make the pizza topping a "life or death" issue for them. THAT is arms control in a nutshell.

SDI is an attempt to find another stategy besides "assurred destruction" to deal with the fact that pretty soon everybody is gonna have nukes...or worse. I honestly don't know if it would work, but I would feel better knowing that a rogue element in the Pakistani army (which is deeply divided on supporting Osama) couldn't launch one missile "to start the holy war". Mutual assurred destruction doesn't seem to mean much to the guys who crashed the plane. The idea that a high officer in the Pakistani military might have sypathies to Bin Laden scares the bejeebers outa me.

I'm not actually bothered by the fact that a missile defense wouldn't stop a terrorist because I also know that all the ant-terrorist measures in the world aren't gonna stop a missile. To each threat, it's own response. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. You wouldn't send your army to sink a battleship, would you?
So, I guess my feelings are; that I am OK with researching the idea. Reseach is usually a good thing by itself. Deploying it would depend on what the research reveals. How much it costs (in both dollars and it's effects on world opinion) vs how great the threat level is projected to be when it's finished. SDI is like a bomb shelter, if your shovelling when the bombs are falling, it's too late.
Plus, I'd want to think about the strategy invovled in using it. Even the best tool isn't worth much without a plan for it's use. Right now we need to wage this war on terrorism and see what kind of international agreements we can build out of it. We need to find out who our friends and enemies are and assess the threats in the next century.
And, since I can't answer those questions clearly yet, I can't give you a clearer answer on the SDI issue. Sorry.

[New Zealander]

Hey look - damian5 dropped out of the thread a while back (his last message was on the 22/9, or as you may well prefer, 9th/22nd) - but he _is_ still around, as this private message I got from him testifies:

damian5 - 2001-09-27 23:32:56

As a rule, grey matter and fecal matter are separate enities. But, in your case you prove there are exceptions to that rule.

hahaha - charming!