[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.