How New Zealand became Nuclear-Free
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2024
- Check out the other #ProjectMAD videos: • Project MAD
In 1987, the New Zealand parliament passed the “New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act” writing into law that New Zealand would be Nuclear-Free. This was the last act in a series of events where being anti-nuclear increasingly became part of the Kiwi identity, so how did New Zealand get to this position?
Chapters:
0:00 A MAD Introduction
1:22 Treaties and Testing
4:14 Ships and the 1984 Election
6:02 The USS Buchanan
6:48 A Debate at the Oxford Union
8:50 The Rainbow Warrior
10:37 A Patriotic Identity
Support my videos on Patreon: / soliloquy
Follow me on Twitter: soliloquy084
Like the FaceBook page: soliloquy084
Read More:
Nuclear-free New Zealand - New Zealand History - nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/nu...
“I Can Smell The Uranium On Your Breath” - Anti-Nuclear New Zealand 30 Years On - EHF - stories.ehf.org/i-can-smell-t...
Drunk, defiant Muldoon snaps, calls election - Stuff - www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...
Mutually Assured Destruction - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_...
ANZUS Treaty - US Office of the Historian - history.state.gov/milestones/...
The Oxford Debate - • Great Confrontations a...
New Zealand v. France Case Overview - ICJ - www.icj-cij.org/en/case/59
New Zealand v. France Case Report - ICJ - legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_X...
Undiplomatic: What US diplomats really thought about NZ - Stuff - www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...
#NewZealand #NuclearFree
You'd be mad not to check out the other videos in the #ProjectMAD playlist: czcams.com/play/PLjnwpaclU4wXW18I7joPDPXmfL1zepBNv.html
I think it’s kind of funny that “America” got so angry about New Zealand’s anti nuclear stance, when, speaking as American I had honestly never heard of this.
I think it really shows how it was more of a dispute between governments than the people themselves.
I also asked my parents, who lived through this time, if they had ever heard of this
In summary, today my mother learned that New Zealand is not part of Australia 😅
"America's" anger at New Zealand over this was almost entirely localised to the US Navy. There were _really_ pissed that they couldn't dock their ship in NZ.
@@korakys not just Navy though, New Zealand at the time hosted a US intelligence base that was a key link in its servalnce web
@@geraldgrenier8132 The intelligence people weren't angry though and cooperation on that front didn't stop. The base is still here, still operational, and still mainly for the benefit of the United States.
My parents visited America in the late '80s and they got shouted out of a restaurant in the middle of nowhere for being New Zealanders over this. I suspect it was probably specific circles (maybe military families?) but not completely unknown.
I know a kiwi who went to school in the US at the time. She was ridiculed for it and the American media targeted NZ. It was definitely a hot topic in the day, but the US have their fingers in every other pie on the planet, probably just drowned out of American memories
In the past my mother has talked about the fact that the first image that comes to her mind from the word "terrorist" is a frenchman in scuba-gear.
I am very tempted to use a frenchman in a scuba suit as my future symbol for terrorist.
I learned so many new things in this video. Everything involving the French terrorist was absolutely crazy, amazing content!
Thanks for watching
Yes, at this time was a real power who knew how to get respected.
In fact they put two charges so the first explosion do not sink the ship, but make everybody leave the ship, and the second explosion sink the ship… but this journalist went back inside to take some of his photo while the second explosion happen..
So, he died, but the plan was to cause 0 dead… they did not expect that someone will rush back in the ship..
@@shuaige3360 well I mean why bomb an innocent nation anyways I mean if your gonna bomb a ship full of innocent people than what do you expect.
@@ronranger29 It is not New Zelang which was attacked, it was the green peace ship name "rainbow warrior" which was disturbing french nuclear test which are vital for french national security while this same rainbow warrior or Greenpeace of course was not going to disturb Chinese nuclear test... annoy the one you think is weak and let the strong do what they want... sorry, France was not that weak and strike back.
Still, a real pity and sadness this photographer went back inside the sinking ship to get his camera rolls.., and thus died during the planned 2nd explosion.
@@shuaige3360 lol New Zealanders were on that ship. And New Zealanders took it personally seeing in that many in New Zealand we’re anti nuclear. And it wasn’t an attack on greenpeace, Greenpeace was just another interrogator. It was clearly a warning towards New Zealand that if this continued than they would do it again. Either way this was a pivotal time in our people’s history, it brought in a huge wave of patriotism and a kiwi identity. And that we as a nation couldn’t rely on our own allies when it came to respecting eachother. And our subsequent departure from the uk.(this was the decade New Zealand technically gained independence). Any supporters of the Cancun movement in New Zealand are apart of a small minority of the conservatives that live hear. And specifically it shows New Zealand that we couldn’t even depend on other members of this canzuk alliance. We’ve grown too apart from one another and we have seen that our nations have completely different issues to deal with not just with native rights for the three former colonies, but also for the uks immigrant problem. I don’t think Australia, Canada, or us kiwis would wanna deal with it. And as well Canada, Australia, and the uk have considerable higher debt than New Zealand does overall. And on top of that I don’t think New Zealand would want to end the relationships with the pacific and with China. Seeing that exporting our goods and importing goods from these other canzuk nations is basically nonexistent for New Zealand. So I don’t believe it’s a good idea overall in the long run. A huge republican movement is growing in New Zealand and somewhat as well as a Australia. Seeing as jacinda is a republican as well almost shows that the old historical relationship which basically died during ww2 and especially the 80s has amplified. It’s a bygone era that holds no relevance today.
yay, you know it is an amazing day when soliloquy posts a new video
It's become a far to rare event
In many regards the 1980s was one of the most pivotal periods in New Zealand history. Ties with Britain which had once formed the heart of New Zealand’s sense of identity were largely gone following the British entry into the EEC in the 70s, the 1984 Springbok Tour had bitterly divided the country, the Neoliberal Reforms of the 80s ended practical egalitarian that had been the dominant strand of New Zealand political thought and began the widening gulf in inequality seen today (though in spirit notions of equity have continued through such slogans as the ‘team of five million’) and the growing Maori rights movements was challenging what it meant to be a ‘New Zealander’, leading to the bicultural split that has been hotly debated to this day.
With that as the background the Nuclear Free movement and the dispute with the United States can also be seen as a rather cynical method of uniting a divided country and glossing over growing problems that further down the line would continue to impact New Zealanders. It has been turned into a national myth of little New Zealand standing against the world, which ties into notions of New Zealand progressivism that are being sold abroad today to increase New Zealand soft power and international standing (I recall the BBC article of May 2020 asking ‘Why is New Zealand so progressive?’).
As a New Zealand historian, it’s nice to see more work on New Zealand history being done on CZcams. There are so many topics that could be done, from the way the concept of ‘New Zealanders’ as a national identity built in the 1890s has been broken down into Maori and Pakeha following the Maori rights movement, to whether New Zealand is truly as progressive as it has been lauded in recent years (A topic near and dear to my own heart). I look forward to seeing what more will be done here.
Thanks for watching and commenting. It definitely was a defining period. I actually covered the UK joining the EEC quite a while ago.
czcams.com/video/XC5NeUy-Vus/video.html
I've always felt, as a Kiwi, we're just really just our own strange mixture of the issues and questions that the world has, probably best highlighted by voting for legalising euthanasia but not marajuana last year. We have so many parallels, yet so many unique differences when looking at the wider picture of the world, while the world just sees us as some progressive safe haven or something. All kinda weird to think about.
So basically, New Zealand reacted to insanity by saying "This is crazy and we're not". "So long and thanks for all the fish". For a teenager, I paid pretty close attention to news and politics and I never heard about most of this. Thanks.
Thanks. It's not surprising you never heard about this. Ultimately it was not a particularly important topic outside of New Zealand.
Wait, there was a Social Credit party in New Zealand? That'd be an interesting video
Yeah, I think Social Credit parties were present in all of the CANZUK nations. I don't know that much about it to be honest but I'll consider the topic.
They heald like 2 seats in the is 80s and that's all I remember.
They were our largest third party from the 1950s to the establishment of MMP. Even getting 20% of the vote in the 1981 election. However, because this was when we still had first past the post they only got two seats. This disparity played a big role in bringing electoral reform to the political forefront. After MMP was introduced they joined the left-wing "Alliance party. After that fell apart in 1999 they kept running as their own party to this day, whilst only getting about 0.05% of the vote each time.
Mana motuhake was another one before te Maori party
they still exist, technically, but got a minuscule amount of the vote last year
“However, it soon became apparent that any fallout from tests posed a danger to the people nearby.”
The kind of thing that you’d think would be obvious from the beginning, but to which war fervor can make you blind.
I'm very glad I found your channel. Extremely well done video with interesting visuals and a concise plot. I'm looking forward to watching your other videos and new content. :)
Thanks for watching, and welcome to the channel.
Extremely relevant video in the background of the new "Aukus" deal. Tabloids are unsurprisingly going sensationalist over Ardern's comments about not allowing Australian nuclear submarines in New Zealand waters but this gives a clear historical background to why Ardern said the things she did.
Ironic how at the time in the other side of the anglosphere, Thatcher was really into Nuclear weapons.
All this time, New Zealand has been the silent protagonist.
They weren't silent, they were just not listened to. Well, worse than not listened to, worse than betrayed by friends...
Another informative video with so much attention to detail. Thanks. ♥
Thanks for watching
Pls keep making videos. I regret not discovering you sooner
I've got some things in the works. Life has just not allowed CZcams to be a priority for the past couple of years.
You are an interesting man. You make videos about New Zealand like the good Kiwi you are, but you live in The Netherlands of all places. I’m surprised there are not more videos about your country of residence.
I guess I should start working on something related to Dutch history! In the mean time I have done a handful of Dutch topics.
"Why do Dutch cities get renamed for 3 days a year?" (czcams.com/video/Avn4gB6UqIc/video.html),
"How a Dutchman became the King of England" (czcams.com/video/sJ5jFF6M5ys/video.html),
"Why did the Dutch give up New York?" (czcams.com/video/CYxbw1gDXRo/video.html),
and "How do Tulips know when it's Spring?" (czcams.com/video/KGEUrSR551Q/video.html) has some tangential association too.
@@Soliloquy084 I saw all of those already. I just made that observation as I was watching the video, not a problem that you are focusing back home in Aotearoa. Thank you the listing, though.
Overall a great informative video, however I would like to for everyone reading this comment to seriously consider their stance on nuclear energy as an viable, safe alternative for energy consumption, and make sure to not conflate nuclear weapons with nuclear energy.
It's understandable as to why nuclear energy has such an negative connotation, it automatically invokes feelings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear testing that resulted in dead and adversely effected human beings, Chernobyl & fukoshima, the issue of nuclear waste storage, I get the criticism. However, their are new factors that I think should be considered.
For one, a lot of the technology that was behind the operation of these archaic, old plants was outdated and unsafe. Just like with any industry, innovation, research and development make it possible to develop and discover new safer ways to harness the power of nuclear fission, and do it in a way that may make it not only safer, but a method that can actually fulfill the global demand for energy. There are scientist who have tested ways to safely store nuclear waste, and also have built and funded newer, more advanced nuclear plants that utilize technological breakthroughs that can prevent nuclear meltdowns and fallout from spilling over into the environment. Nuclear plants like some of the ones still online today are a thing of the past, and there is an argument to be made that, when considering these factors, nuclear is a better, safer alternative than alot of the methods we use today, like coal, crude oil and natural gas.
In addition, with the ever growing global demand for cheaper, safer alternative energy sources, investing in new, cleaner nuclear technology may actually in the long run not only fill that demand, but at a lower cost. Technology and newer research may make it cheaper to actually utilize nuclear energy.
Not to go too far topic, as this video mainly focuses on nuclear weapons, but unfortunately banning nuclear weapons often is conflated with also banning nuclear energy, they are often considered a two for one deal when it comes to global geopolitical policy. And clean energy does still play a role in fulfilling future global demand. But we should reevaluate nuclear as a viable option.
There are some countries don't don't have many low CO2 alternatives to Nuclear generation however there are many more with untapped abundance of wind, solar, tidal & geothermal which are all less problematic than nuclear with its' associated cost & complexity to build, run, maintain & decommission.
Ya can keep ya "safe" nuclear energy, us new zealanders love being nuclear free,
NZ doesn't need either coal or nuclear power we don't really need hydro either. Solar power alone could power NZ. I allready use old kayak batteries and solar panels to produce 200 watts. Over the course of a day that's quite a bit of energy and with appliances designed for 12 volt systems it's getting easier every day to go off grid. Nuclear is better than coal but still not needed in New Zealand
Do you think more countries will become nuclear free in the future?
I do hope that many nations stand in opposition to nuclear weponds, but I also hope this isn't an urgent matter as that would imply some bad stuff were to happen to create that urgency. So I guess maybe. Other nations have become nuclear-free since New Zealand - at least in terms of weapons. If you look at only weapons there's a nuclear-weapons-free zone covering Africa for example and speaking of Africa; South Africa developed the bomb and has since come to be another nonproliferation champion, as I have covered in this video: czcams.com/video/fCWtCp_VVLA/video.html
@@Soliloquy084 Thank you for replying and sharing the link! I watched some of the opening ceremony of the Olympics this morning and it's nice seeing what the people of the world can accomplish when they work together instead of being enemies.
Jeff Bezos in the villain list where he belongs
In Bulgaria 2021 is a year of election and can you talk about the potential third election
ahh the rainbow warrior incident will be mentioned I bet
It is a key moment in this storyline.
@@Soliloquy084 neat
Nicee
I first became involved when the French were doing atmospheric tests in the late 1970's.
They experimented on Polynesian people in the most cynical manner possible.
are you going to do a nz election 2023 video? its been interesting having a look at everyones policies and nationals... attitude in them
I have heard that advanced beings from other worlds have helped to prevent a nuclear winter from happening on earth, there have been many attempts to use them that were thwarted although that was all kept quiet by the people who still want to use their nukes as a threat.
I’m curious - does New Zealand’s anti-nuclear sentiment spread to nuclear energy? They seem like a prime contender for NP, however have no reactors. Given the diminishing gas resources & dangers of coal, as well as their population - New Zealand should be a prime contender for nuclear energy to get full sustainability in the next few decades
Some people are suggesting it, and I think the public could be convinced. The laws don't prohibit it in any case. The bigger problem for nuclear power in New Zealand is the size of a plant, a single nuclear station would generate a not insignificant proportion of the nations energy, it may not be economically viable to provide sufficient redundancy if that one plant were to go down. Thus New Zealand has mainly generated its energy though hydroelectric and geothermal means, although those means have minimal scope for expansion and alternatives will need to be found as the nations energy demands grow.
Long term storage of spent nuclear fuel would be a problem. New Zealand isn't called the Shaky Isles for no reason. Other nations that have longer histories and more stable geology have struggled with this as well. The US, for example, has yet to open Yucca Mountain because of the political fallout (huh) of Nevadans not wanting a nuclear waste dump in their state. I think micro-generation would be the better solution for domestic consumption with increased installation of solar panels allowing our hydro and geothermal plants to be used during low generation periods. Tidal power or wave power would do amazingly well in New Zealand given our island nature. Unfortunately transforming the chaotic nature of waves to a regular supply of electricity as well as making sturdy enough structures to deal with the harsh environment is not going super well.
It's not illegal like nuclear weapons, but most of the public are against it
Although there is no law that I know of restricting nuclear power here most of the New Zealand public can not tell the difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants (sadly I'm not exaggerating) and are therefore _heavily_ against it. The other big factor though is that it makes no economic sense at all to have nuclear power in New Zealand, we would have to train up a pool of skilled labour that we don't currently have, we already have lots of natural energy resources (hydro, wind, geothermal) and a low population density to make those viable. This is assuming a reactor could even be built cheaply, which hasn't been demonstrated in any western nation for at least 40 years.
There are some countries out there that really should have nuclear, like Germany, Russia, Japan, but New Zealand isn't one of them.
@Rhys Smith Hydrogen is an interesting method - I've heard a bit about that but I'll definitely have to do more research :)
I have to wonder, does this count nuclear *power* too or just weapons? Big difference.
Just weapons sadly, but in New Zealand we still don't have nuclear power unfountley.
No, All of nuclear energy is banned. That incudes power as well.
Land based civilian nuclear power is actually allowed under the legislation but realistically would never happen due to the anti nuclear sentiment.
Was it really true that Australia encouraged the US to suspend the ANZUS pact with New Zealand?
Damn, New Zealand promised not to have/use nuclear weapons to destroy the world, and the US and Australia cut ties and the US even stopped being allies. Really shows how we live in a Civilization. 😳😳😣😔
For the record, Australia didn't cut ties, they (along with basically everyone else) wanted America to.
@@Soliloquy084 why did they want America to cut ties? It seems a little counter-intuitive
Other nations, including but not limited to Australia, wanted to maintain the status quo on nuclear weapons. They feared that if New Zealand had not been made to pay for their action, then the Australian public would soon want to follow suit.
@@Soliloquy084 but then why didn’t the Aussies cut ties as well?
@@thelunaticcultist5157 The Australian government supported nuclear weapons, I believe.
What if New Zealand had nuclear weapons?
Nah Azzie not only is a source of unranium, is better positioned to host launch sites. New Zealand just makes a better navey base, (and was a key link radio listing web)
Why that flag for, you guys lost the referendum twice 😂
A few reasons. Firstly, that flag wasn't voted on despite being the obvious alternative choice. This makes me grumpy. Secondly, it provides a more distinct symbol for New Zealand and makes it easier to tell New Zealand apart from Australia for viewers who are not especially familiar with these nations. Lastly, it makes people comment, either because they love it or hate it, and that increases "engagement".
Fun Fact: One of the other "early" nuclear free zones in the world was Eastern Germany. (Where I - coincidentally ;) - live). The 2+4-Treaty between the two german states and the former allies of WW2 not only allowed for german reunification, but also stated that no nuclear weapons shall ever be stationed on the territory of the former GDR and Berlin. There still are between 12 and 16 US nuclear warheads in Germany, but they are stationed in the Southwest of the country. I personally think that we should get rid of them, since they are immoral and have no strategic impact anyway. Paradoxicly, a majority of Germans want them to be gone too, but the government refuses to distance itself from US nuclear policy. >:(
Ayy, what the hell was France drinking during this entire spat? Surely that could have been handled better.
And the US & Britian weren't doing themselves any favors. I get it that Nuclear deterrent wasn't going anywhere in the 1980s, but NZ deciding that didn't want anything to do with it... shouldn't have had repercussions that severe. And again, flabbergasted that France was just straight up violating and no one decided to call foul on that.
Gees. NZ are the real MVPs of this story.
than
then
then
then
That Labor logo is tripping me out, making me think it was the libs.
Its she safest place from nuclear.
Pre watch comment: grilled cheese.
Good Job New Zealand! Well done.
Yeah I am glad that here in Canada we got rid of our Nukes, although we are in a bit of a Ukraine situation with our big nuclear armed neighbour protecting us, until one day... Well you know the story.
I am so proud to be a kiwi, and this video made my day. We stand up to the bullies, and we go against the grain.
Except we don't acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, because we go against the grain but when it comes to Turkey we don't and even put up a statue to one of their leaders. There is a petition about to end in two days to ask parliament to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
www.parliament.nz/en/pb/petitions/document/PET_111026/petition-of-jacob-hallgarth-recognize-the-armenian-genocide
Just learned NZ isn't part of Austrailia...
Does this affect subcritical nuclear power by any chance? i'm sure NZ could completely power themselves with renewables, but is there nuance in that law?
Australia desperately needs Small Modular Nuclear Reactors to fufill our base load with the chaotic weather that climate change brings, but there is so little nuance when it comes to nuclear power here, most people just yell "nuclear bad" and thats it
The law doesn't prohibit nuclear power, but economics have so far made it an unattractive option for New Zealand. A nuclear station would generate a fairly substantial amount of energy for New Zealand, and it would be a bit of a putting all eggs in one basket situation. And nuclear power has not been economic elsewhere in the world. That said, as energy demands grow and natural gas runs out, these equations may change. With some effort I think the public can be convinced if it becomes a profitable option.
@@Soliloquy084 Yeah, im really hopeful that smaller reactors will become much easier to build in the future, it's strange to me that the development of the tech hasn't come sooner, considering the crazy small reactors the US was trying to stuff into aircraft. if they get small enough, they could properly replace Natural Gas in small countries too, maybe with a battery backup to manage peak loads.
Thanks for the reply ^-^
Just goes to show how war mad american politics are
Man, America was really butt-hurt over the banning of their nuke-carrying ships in Kiwi waters with the cutting off of NZ from the ANZUS treaty, then downgrading NZ from "Ally" to "Friend" over the increased anti-nuclear sentiment and actions.
I'm not fond of nuclear weapons being aimed at others across the globe, but would rather see that powerful material go in to power generation to cut down on coal and petroleum-based generation or propulsion for space vehicles.
We should be neutral as well as nuclear free.
New Zealand may not be as nuclear free as she thinks. As if Britain is ever invaded and conquered, the standing order for the Royal Navy is to head for New Zealand and put themselves under the command the New Zealand government. Which would instantly make New Zealand one of the world's leading nuclear powers....... I guess the Kiwi reaction would be, get all those nukes off those submarines..... by launching them at Australia!... A once in a lifetime opportunity to good to miss.
That would be an interesting scenario.
Why New Zealand and not Australia. Australia has the larger military, is more strategically placed and I always felt Australia was Britain's favourite child (this coming from a kiwi).
@@danielcooper3332 while Australia is more strategical blame for silos, New Zealand is more stratcial placed for Navel operations
@@geraldgrenier8132 Thank you for clarifying,
@@danielcooper3332 New Zealand is Britain's closest ally. For example the only country that sent a ship in the Falkland's War... Australia since WWII has been very America looking, hence it joining the Vietnam War.
800th like 😂😂
It's always the French
It’s easy . I’m technically nuclear free
Nuclear powers, in my thoughts, are bullies and idiots.
As a New Zealander, I can’t wait for this to be undone
Why?
I have a feeling you might be from New Zealand yourself. ..Nah who am I kidding, your some just some random bloke on the internet. You probably live in a cave.
1. How did you guess I grew up in New Zealand?
2. Yes I'm just a guy on the internet, I agree.
3. A house I a /kind/ of cave if you think about it.
Next do a video on how
New Zealand has become NaZiland
Jesus Christ I can’t believe that some people fall for that bullshit
LOL the whole story is just that New Zealand didn't feel like it needed protection because it was so isolated.
That's like a beggar walking freely down a dark alley because he knows he can't be stolen from.
Stupid? Sure. Mad? Absolutely. But I suppose it does have some sort of a Buddhist or stoic charm to it, believing that nothing can hurt you since you have nothing that can be hurt.
But if New Zealand didn't need the protection extended to it by the United States, why did it sign on to the initial treaty? Seems like they needed a convenient scapegoat to back out of a deal, and they were able to frame stepping down as a "victory."
Classic politicians, even when you lose (squirm away from a deal), you have to make it look like you won.
Did u not watch the video? It was the police brutality against citizens protesting against Frances open air nuclear tests
Also, it was the Opposition party that came to power and made the Nuclear free zone. It wasn't the original politicians who signed the deal
The citizens elected the opposition into the majority, and gave the new prime minister a mandate to make it a nuclear free zone.
All because France was being brutal to protestors, then did a terrorist attack on NZ shores against a Greenpeace ship.
Public sentiment turned, and they elected new politicians to make them a nuclear free area.
I mean, officially it was America who kicked NZ out of the alliance. NZ would have stayed provided America wouldn't send nuclear powers or armed ships to NZ.
@@masstv9052 I did watch the video. The "police brutality" did contribute to it, but it was not the full story. As France did transition to underground tests, but public sentiment was already against nuclear at that point. So the "terrorist attack" and the US bringing in ships that may or may not have nuclear arms ashore certainly did not help, but the original impetus was that New Zealanders felt that they did not need to be protected by nuclear arms (as seen in the video where he talked about their isolation and the joke about how they get left off of maps).
Public sentiment turned, the new government did not want to honor past agreements, and so the US issued a burn notice and demoted New Zealand to "friend." That's that.
Ì think you're both somewhat right. To me this is a story of many small things growing over time to become a bigger thing. One of those things was the French treatment of protesters, and another was the feeling of isolation. Neither in upon itself produced the result. I'd argue the original impetus wasn't actually the isolation but the intellectual moral argument that having weapons capable of destroying the world was wrong. I'll also point out that New Zealand politicians were careful not to argue that nations like America and the UK should disarm, they presented their predicament as unfortunate when compared to New Zealand where the Cold War didn't have as much effect.
First of all the 1950s and the 1980s were vastly different geopolitical time periods. The 50s was a time of extreme paranoia directed towards the Soviet bloc by western, capitalist, democracies. By the time of the 1980s it was obvious that the Soviet Union wasn't some hulking monster about to unleash hordes of ideologically driven soldiers upon the west, but a deeply flawed, economically bankrupt state. Also, numerous test ban and arms limitation treaties had been signed by that point. The idea that nuclear war could break out between the US and Soviet aligned blocs at any moment wasn't prevalent anymore. So it wasn't such a stupid idea. Besides New Zealand was more than willing to continue its commitments to the alliance. It was the US who saw this as the breaking point in the relationship.
In addition the idea that the US wouldn't acquiesce to New Zealand's requests to confirm the nuclear armed status of their warships entering its territorial waters was seen as insulting to New Zealanders. New Zealanders were rightly concerned at any impact an accident could have on their country. Would the US have assisted New Zealand with the cleanup effort or provided compensation in the event that this was impractical? The answer to that question is murky. I think it's a reasonable request, don't send nuclear armed ships to New Zealand, please. The whole thing could have been easily dealt with but the Reagan administration wanted its big dick moment.
Realistically any attack on New Zealand would likely prompt a US and Australian response anyway as it would most likely come as part of a larger conflict (looking at a certain country in the region here) and a New Zealand occupied by powers hostile to the US and Australia would most likely not be part of the strategic plans to defeat those powers.
Rugby World cup in France next year. Will our All Blacks be safe in a nuclear powered territory? Or a nuclear armed and targeted country? Shouldn't we declare that the All Blacks shouldn't go to a nuclear non free country? What will the roentgen levels be like? We need to start protesting tomorrow and make our views consistent.
Hey, Austria is a nuclear-free zone it is in our constitution. Since the Referendum in 7. Juli 1978. And the Peoples dicier in 1999. As a result, the New Ly bild Zewenddorf nuclear powerplant was never switched on and can be toured today. Nowadays all the parties from greens Socialists conservatives and fascists agree on one thing we don't want nuclear. No one has raised the Issue since 1981.
The only time in history it was right to be a NIMBY
Who cares though? New Zealand is an insignificant remote country. It doesn't matter either way, and they certainly aren't the first country to grandstand over pointless gestures.
You do know that the maker of this video is Kiwi? As an Australian, i've learned quite well you do not call New Zealand puny. And as an Australian, i am inclined to also be upset you would insult our neighbour so much.
Hahaha dw yeah, on geopolitical scales, NZ is only known for being a nice place and not much more.
Literally at no point in history has New Zealand had an anti-American, or anti-western stance.
Even at the height of the anti-nuke movement, NZ still considered itself a part of the western world and allies in the fight for freedom.
And despite all this New Zealand received little but condemnation from its allies (at the time).
You ask who cares? Well, you should care. Because if you believe that the US or French response to New Zealand's actions was justified, then you accept that it's okay for one ally to bully another for the sole reason that they believe they can get away with it.
We may be a small country in the corner of the world, but we are as proud as you are of our identities and we pull our weight on the international stage.