[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.

[Kiwigal]

I don't think you could put a base out of sight, out of mind in the South Island. It's not THAT cold, despite what everyone who lives in Auckland might say. Don't get me wrong, I am born and bred an Aucklander, nothing against them. But I went to Otago University (in Dunedin - lower South Island) and spent summer days down there baking in temperatures that often got higher than those in Auckland. And it only snowed a couple of times in the winter. People in Auckland think that if it's south of the Bombay hills (which are the southern border of the Auckland metropolitan area) it's too cold to live in. I now live in Wellington (bottom of the North Island, where people are a bit more geographically aware. But now I am rambling.

Now that America has scaled down its nuclear weapon capacity, and we have all seen how effective and safe (unless you live in Russia)nuclear power can be when used properly, the anti-nuke faction in NZ needs something else to cling to. I think the world agrees that nuclear weapons are a bad thing. If only we hadn't invented them. But we did, and I think the last thread of rationalisation supporting anti-nukes in NZ is the position that America was responsible for inventing such evil weapons therefore we will punish them by not letting them park their ships here. Of course, this fails to recognise that when the technology is there, someone else will find it (ie. Russia). It is a very unfortunate characteristic of many people that, when faced with having to admit one is wrong, one instead finds other ways of rationalising one's views. When it is to the detriment of one's country it is very unattractive.

Hopefully, something good can come out of the recent tragedies, in that by working side by side with the US again we can re-build our military relationship. It is only unfortunate that National is not still in power because that government would have been more enthusiastic about utilising such an opportunity.

Hope the drivers licence got safely renewed.

[New Zealander]

Aye - must be a bastard of a thing living in a country that places so little value on education - where people are more willing to listen to people who dropped out of school to train as actors or athletes. It's sad shit - and there's no telling these people either.

Can't see any new ports being built in the South Island - New Zealand is a fairly mobile country - it wouldn't mean much for a couple of bus loads of protesters to come down from Northland or the Coromandel (upper North Island places, know for certain cultural activities such as cannabis cultivation). People would get pretty suspicious anyway - 'what have you got to hide?' kind of thing.

I think the easiest solution is for the US to resume training with New Zealand (which is a big problem - the US refuses to attend any international exercise New Zealand is part of - which really means we can't attend). That and resume conventional ship visits - the anti-nuclear thing can be sorted out later - maybe 5, 10 years later. No great rush. On the first conventional ship visit a few protesters will probably insist on turning up in the harbour, to which the general public will say 'what the fuck are they protesting about now?.' Probably end up undermining the cause. Well maybe anyway.

I don't know about any additions to the ANZUS treaty - but you might well be right - it'd be interesting to find out - I can't find much about it at the moment.

Anyway - you guys have yourselves a good weekend - hehe, I know I will. I'm lacing up my marching boots and probably going to be working on my appreciation of torrential rain, mud, automatic weapons and anything else they've got planned for us! Haha - fun and games!