New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance has nothing to do with nuclear power. The reason we don't allow American warships into our waters is because we disapprove of nuclear weapons, whether powered by or as a payload.
>Labour campaigned against nuclear propulsion and weapons
>Labour announced its decision to ban ships that were either nuclear-powered or -armed.
>party activists were unwilling to draw distinctions between nuclear propulsion and nuclear weapons. The mood of the nation was also turning against such political manoeuvring.
>Following confidential discussions over the selection of an acceptable ship, in late 1984 the United States requested that the ageing guided-missile destroyer USS Buchanan visit New Zealand. The Americans hoped that a perception that it was not nuclear-armed would be enough for it to slip under the political radar, and believed they had Lange’s agreement. But on 4 February 1985 the government said no. ‘Near-uncertainty was not now enough for us,’ Lange later explained. ‘Whatever the truth of its armaments, its arrival in New Zealand would be seen as a surrender by the government.’ In response, Washington severed visible intelligence and military ties with New Zealand and downgraded political and diplomatic exchanges. George Shultz confirmed that the United States would no longer maintain its security guarantee to New Zealand, although the ANZUS treaty structure remained in place.
In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.
Lange’s Oxford Union speech defending NZs rejection of nuclear weapons is worth watching if you haven’t heard it before. The second link provides some background and the transcript.
> In any case, even if your claim was true (and it quite clearly isn't), rejecting the alliance with our strongest and one of one of our closest allies over the issue isn't a good move, no matter what way you look at it.
This is a really interesting point. I'm no social scientist, but my naive viewpoint is that not being armed hopefully makes us a less interesting target. Whether or not that matters is hopefully something that would never be put into practice.
