[Capt Phoenix]

As I say, I really can't pretend to understand your politics from clear over here. Frankly; I have enough trouble understanding ours!
All I really know is that NZ is a parlimentary democracy, though the specifics of how you implement that are a mystery to me. I know that in general parlimentary systems involve many parties (though it varies wildly from country to country) and "governments" are usually formed through building coalitions. This has the advantage of giving the voters a wide selection of parties from which to pick the philosophies and/or individuals who best reflect their views. And the overall composition of the parliment is a good reflection of the attitudes of the country. On the downside, often times the ruling coaliton is based more on deal making than truely "trying to do the will of the people". And this occasionally results in tiny minority parties having inordinate amounts of power. Advantages and disadvantages, like all forms of government. If I ever discover a perfect one, I'll be sure to let you know right away, OK? But don't hold your breath... I don't want your death by asphyxiation on my conscious. ;)
With that much complexity, I would be foolish to argue with you. Add to that the fact that socialist idealists of the time rarely called themselves such. They prefered names like "people's labour party", "social democratics", "democractic green union", etc. As juliette said, "What's in a name?" Without a score card I could never hope to keep track of the players. Then...On top of all that... Add purely local concerns. Like anger over French Nuclear testing in the Pacific, or frustration over economic issues, for example. Then libererally (?) spice with a mixture of the people in power warping and spinning issues to enhance their own agendas. Let simmer over a low flame of the general anxienty that pervaded the world at the time...And Viola! A stew utterly undigestible by any foreigner, what-so-ever!

That's why I had to confine my ruminations to the generally vague. I do know that NZ was more socialist than the US. Your descriptions of the actions of the government confirm it as they describe a country trying to emerge from socialism. I do know that such actions are rarely taken lightly, and there is always a large segment of the population that resists - that is true of any people, anywhere. That means that you must still have had plenty of socialists around (even if they had changed their names) and I will bet flaming rights that they were vocal supporters of the "Nuclear Free" movement. Am I wrong?

As for your definition of courage; I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, quite frankly, don't even understand your definition of courage. Which means you probably don't understand mine either. We may as well be speaking different languages. And I really don't know what to do about it beyond wishing you a good day. Adios!

[New Zealander]

Aye - you're a bit of a voice of reason here at the moment, but I can't quite agree with your views on the anti-nuclear side of things. Your comment that you live in one of the most targeted cities in the world adds a bit of a chilling perspective for sure.

It is true however that New Zealand was one of the nations up for the 'most thoroughly obliterated' award.

You suggest it would have been an act of courage to be prepared to ride out the nuclear firestorm. In near all cultures, it is considered a fine thing to give your individual life for your country - for the defence of its existence, culture and ideals. And of course in New Zealand many of our ancestors have made that sacrifice. It would be an act of the upmost stupidity to throw away their sacrifice in blind obedience to another county. Where as something called America would be preserved - in it's overseas military forces, in its extensive (and expensive) military bunkers, and in its interior - for us the few surviving New Zealanders would be people without a land, our culture smashed then drowned in the wider world. In the aftermath, any gratitude from America for our loss would have been empty, pointless - who would be left to thank?

The risk of nuclear war was seemingly not that great, but it was certainly a damn site more than hypothetical. We didn't really offer much to America in terms of nuclear war - a few extra ports in an out of the way corner of the Pacific. True, it's a sad thing when someone opts out of a condition on a treaty, but ANZUS was signed fifty years ago - back in the times when there were 'atoms for peace' and multiple re-entry warheads did not exist. From a conventional warfare point of view, we would have been happy to remain a part of ANZUS - which we quietly have as far as intelligence gathering goes. From the 'mutually assured destruction' point of view, ANZUS grew into being a very bad marriage - I know we promised ports, but not many people would stand by a vow of 'till death do us part' if that means being a tortured and dismembered body, in a forgotten and unmarked grave. And that for what? I don’t think American ships ever came here on vital business, and the Russians made it quite clear no US warships could be allowed to hide here. At best we would have absorbed a few warheads meant for someone else. Bloody hell - not much in it for us! :)