Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: ANZUS Keywords: ANZUS. New Zealand, nuclear, defence treaties, United States Message-ID: <12536@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Dec 89 06:03:44 GMT References: <12507@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 74 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12507@cbnews.ATT.COM> T.Stewart@massey.ac.nz writes: >[deleted stuff about background of ANZUS] >After this refusal, the U.S. government deemed ANZUS unworkable. Along >with this however, the following occurred: > >- N.Z. was banned from any joint ANZUS exercises >- Military intelligence and consultation was withdrawn >- "Discount" prices on military hardware were withdrawn >- N.Z. was downgraded from an ally to a "friendly nation"! >- Trade restrictions against N.Z. were mooted (although never came to > anything) >- The USA would not longer be a "helpful" nation when negotiating trade >deals >- Members of the NZ government were (and are continuing to be) snubbed > by the US government. Our Prime Minister can only get access to minor > officials. > [stuff deleted about how unfair these "punishments" were] I'll try to stay away from political comments. It seems that all but the last of the "punishments" imposed were directly related to the status of NZ as a defense ally. You stipulate that the NZ position about nuclear armed vessels made ANZUS unworkable. The "punishments" all reflected that change. Why are they unfair? I realize that NZ is a country trying to choose its own destiny, but the USA is also trying to choose it's own destiny. Why should a country continue to receive the benefits of an alliance that they unilaterally abrogated? As you ponted out, NZ is not an influential country. It does have an advantageous position for some US concerns. The ANZUS arrangement and the benefits froms that arrangement reflected the advantages of NZ to the US, and the close relations between the two countries. Essentially almost any USN warship has the capability of carrying nuclear weapons. Considering the consolidated nature of modern underway replenishment ships any of them can also carry nukes. Granted in peacetime there may be very few actually aboard any vessel. The policy of the USN relative to the existence of nukes on a particular ship is rational. To confirm or deny such weapons would provide feedback to any intelligence agency that was interested in tracking the position of such weapons. It's another issue altogether to discuss whether nukes have any place in future conflicts. Since the navy has been tasked with deliverying them, they have to provide policies in support of that decision. It is the policy of the US government that US armed forces may be able to use nuclear weapons. Consequently, the US armed forces have policies to support the deployment of those weapons. Any country that enters into a defense agreement with the US is aware of those policies, even though the particular defense agreement may not include the use of nuclear weapons. In the case of NZ, the primary value to the USA is as a naval facility. Now the NZ goverment establishes a policy that no nuclear armed or powered vessels can enter ports. Since any USN warship is in that category, no USN vessel can enter a NZ port. The military value of NZ as an ally just disappeared. The US simply changed its policies in reaction to the NZ decision. That doesn't appear to be "bullying". (For what it is worth, I see no military value to the use of even tactical nukes. Due to the peculiarities of naval operations they make even less sense than in land operations. Due to environmental considerations the use of an underwater burst may be more damaging to the firing vessel than the target. So I am not irrationally reacting to a "stab in the back" to my country. In the case of NZ I see one country changing national policies and another (the US) reacting to a new reality.) -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu