Nuclear Free

[Groovin']

Okay, i was just wondering why the US continues to apply pressure to the NZ Government to change their Nuclear-Free policy, or more specifically refusing to let US (or any other country for that matter) nuclear-powered or (very unlikely) nuclear armed ships dock in our waters.

I just thought that a soverign nation is fully within their rights to do this without fear of a backlash in relations. (which is what happended, ANZUS for example).

I mean, what exactly is so bad about a nuclear free policy? Not American bashing here but why get so pissed because a little country disagrees with the giant that is the US.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It is against US policy to comment on what vessels are nuclear armed, and a superpower does not take kindly to being dictated to by a little tin-pot, South Seas Baaanana republic.
What is wrong with a nuclear free policy? It is foolish, baseless scaremongering about two of life's great beauties: nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

 

[amadeus]

If you really want to be nuclear-free, maybe we should revoke our nuclear defense policies for New Zealand.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Groovin'
I mean, what exactly is so bad about a nuclear free policy? Not American bashing here but why get so pissed because a little country disagrees with the giant that is the US.

Nothing. Its just inconvenient.

 

[BlueMonday]

Without freindly ports in nations all around the globe, the U.S. Navy would have a very serious problem projecting our billion dollar toys. For example, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier doesn't need to be refueled for it's voyage, but still reqiures hundreds of tons of food and thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel every day. Without a place to get that junk, the US navy would have to work around the problem.

 

[dannyevilcat]

I have a question: aren't nuclear powered ships designated so? For instance, nuclear carriers are CVN, etc?

I admit, I'm very anti-nuclear weapons, but nuclear-powered ships don't bother me much. I wish Canada would get a few. Those diesel subs we bought off Britain are supposed to probably the best diesel-electric subs out there, but nuclear subs rock.

 

[ainwood]

When the last nuclear-powered ship was in Wellington harbour, someone took a geiger counter down to the wharf. They then took the geiger counter to parliament. Guess which had the higher reading? (hint - parliament building are made from granite).

Not that this is the point though.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat
I have a question: aren't nuclear powered ships designated so? For instance, nuclear carriers are CVN, etc?

I admit, I'm very anti-nuclear weapons, but nuclear-powered ships don't bother me much. I wish Canada would get a few. Those diesel subs we bought off Britain are supposed to probably the best diesel-electric subs out there, but nuclear subs rock.

Yes, an "N" in the title does indicate nuclear power, such as "SSN", "CGN" or as ye said "CVN". I would like to see a "BBGN"
Nuclear powered ships are very safe, and useful, as are nuclear weapons.
Learn to stop worrying and love the bomb

 

[Padma]

Greadius had it about right: it is very inconvenient.

The US makes it a point to not confirm (or deny) that nuclear weapons exist at any particular place, be it a bomber base, a storage depot, or a ship at sea. To keep up this posture of ambiguity, it means that almost no US military ships may call at a NZ port. To do so would be to deny that that vessel carries nuclear weapons.

I guess the position of the US might be taken as confused and frustrated. We have no problem with not putting nuclear forces on your soil. You don't want 'em, we won't put 'em there. But a nuclear powered ship poses virtually no risk, and weapons on board those ships hardly pose any more. They would not be launched from port. If a situation ever arises where they are launched, I guarantee the ship will be under way out in the ocean, where it can maneuver to its best advantage.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
If you really want to be nuclear-free, maybe we should revoke our nuclear defense policies for New Zealand.

Ahhhh yes.

Common US tactic. The threat.

*que scarry music.*

 

[amadeus]

It's not just a U.S. tactic...take a look at what the EU is trying to do to Isreal.

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
It's not just a U.S. tactic...take a look at what the EU is trying to do to Isreal.

I didn't say it was only US...just common US. Sheesh...

But to be ontopic....I'm all for Nuclear Power.

 

[Groovin']

Has anyone heard the news of David Lange (the former prime minister of NZ at the centre of when this policy was introduced) announce that he was to be 'liquidated' by the vice-president of the us at the time?

hahahaha..... i agree with him about his policy at the time.... but he must have gone his rocker! he's trying to say that whats his name? oh yeah, Dan Quayle told the Australians he was to be 'liquidated'. heeheehee...

And i regarded him as a fairly intelligent person....

At the most he mighta heard a fairly badly-timed joke directed to the aussies about himself.... hahaha... i just that that bit of news was very funny.

Probably doesnt help my nuclear free argument having a nutter as a former PM

PS. Why would you go to the Australians anyway!