[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.