NZ should end the nuclear free status to gain a free trade deal with USA?

On average, everyone disagrees with significant nonconsensus between 435 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

Nothing should be done to gain a bi-lateral trade agreement with USA, because such an agreement would make NZ worse off economically, culturally and sovereignly.

New Zealand should stand by its nuke free policy. America should not be using this as leverage to try and allow weapons of mass destruction and ships designed solely for the purpose of war to come into our country.

Well given that the US is about to give the President (that's George W Bush, people)the power to make preemtive nuclear strikes against *suspected* terrorist caches of WMDs or regimes they don't like (but who have WMDs of course), I think, ah, no effing way. We should remain nuclear free and keep our country's status as a tiny little voice of sanity. Don't believe me? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

Why endanger our country!

Even further, New Zealand should take an active stand in condemning the nuclear irresponsibility and profound hypocrisy on this issue by the USA. The greatest nuclear threat to the world is and has always been the United States of America.

HELL NO!!! There is only one country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against somebody else, why do we even bother giving them the time of day? We dont need a free trade deal with the US - they dont even know what free trade means!

Please d/l David Langes speech in the debate at the Oxford Union. http://publicaddress.net/default,2710.sm This sums up what nuclear free means to myself and I believe the majority of New Zealanders. The speech is almost 21 years old but is still relevant in today;s political context.

The NZ Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act (1987) doesn't ban nuclear power...it bans visits from nuclear-powered or armed vessels. Check your facts! The idea that nukes kept peace in the cold war is erroneous...ask the people of Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan or any other of the multitude of countries in which proxy wars were fought by the US and USSR if they felt the protective benevolence of the bomb while their populations were being decimated and their country and social structures torn apart by CIA/KGB sponsored terrorism. Has anyone noticed recently the Bush Administration's refusal to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran? The Pentagon Chiefs of Staff (the senoir military planners of the USA - traditionally the most war-hungry of its citizens) have been resigning in protest...because the White House refuses to rule out this option. With neocons talking of new generations of 'USABLE' nukes (entirely contrary to the USA's international legal obligations under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty), NZ should now be doing everything it possibly can to fight nuclear weaponry, and that certainly means keeping the 1987 legislation. As a source of power, nuclear generation is untenable. Quite apart from the many obvious problems with the nuclear fuel cycle (open cast uranium mines destroying landscapes, enormous enrichment and reprocessing costs, use of spent fuel in depleted uranium munitions which blanket war zones with low-level radioactive dust - as is currently happening in Iraq and Afghanistan), IT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE OPTION. According to the World Nuclear Association, there is only enough easily-enrichable uranium worldwide for 50 years more power generation AT PRESENT RATES OF USE. After this point, more electricity will be needed to enrich the uranium than will be rendered by it through the nuclear power generation process, thus making it counter-logical to continue the necessary enrichment. Given China's intention to increase its nuclear power-generation capacity from around 87000 MW today to 40,000 MW by 2020, the 50 year estimate looks pretty shaky. So why would we waste tens of billions of dollars setting up an infrastructure that will be obsolete in 50 years at best, will have to be subsidised permanently by the taxpayer (look at Britain's example), and in the meantime will create thousands of tonnes of radioactive matter which needs solutions lasting hundreds of thousands of years to ensure environmental protection? New Zealand must stay nuclear-free, for the sake of the world eco-system, for the sake of our national economy, and for the sake of peace.

There is a much more important reason for maintaining our nuclear free status than anything related to the US: it is our excessive number of industrial accidents. There's no room for "good enough" or "she'll be right, mate in the production of nuclear energy, and that is much more likely to be the result of reversing our position than is gaining a free trade agreement with the US. Realistically, we have little or nothing that the US needs or even wants, inclusing access to our ports. Have you noticed any US ships queueing to get in? A far more likely reason that no trade agreement is forthcoming is New Zealand's blatant anti-Americanism. Since we don't have anything that they want, why should they have any dealings with people who go out of their way to insult them, indeed, create petty insults at every opportunity? Americans may criticize the politics of other countries, but they don't use their media to insult their culture or their values. There are plenty of US newspapers and magazines online; have a look and see if you can find anything to compare with NZ's second national sport (rugby being the first, of course): America-bashing.

Nuclear Free is the way to be! You know it! We dont even want the risk of having nuclear stuff in NZ!

Definitely not. I have always been proud of the fact that New Zealand is a small, clean, green country. Nuclear factories cause meltdowns, spill radioactive material, and send radioactive fumes into the air. I do most definitely not want my country turn into a small version of the USA pollution-wise, and I don't want our native birds, fish, animals and plants and the environment in general being harmed because of some nuclear big giants swanning over to New Zealand to extend their big franchises at the environment's expense. Are there not other ways we can generate powere rather than bring dirty, radioactive nuclear into it? If the president of the US only does business with countries that use nuclear power, then he should go to hell.

There is a reason our forebears enacted this policy during the 80's and that is because they realized the destructive element of nuclear energy. It's not failsafe at all - nothing is. The folly of bringing it to NZ in the form of energy production, research or warfare is astounding giving that any accident or otherwise would ruin NZ almost completely. Even a 2% chance or less of anything happening is too much a risk to take. To then allow this risk turn into a possibility to make a buck is just evil.

America's government is the worlds biggest bastard I dont know why people would even consider associating themselves with it.

IN the recent APEC summit, there was a lot of pressure for NZ and Australia to become nuclear. WE DO NOT NEED THIS!!! If NZ is serious about getting some independence and international recognition, the best way to do this would be to go completely wind and solar powered. Yes, it WOULD be expensive but the long term benefits far outweigh this AND havent we just had a massive surplus? It would be great to see America's reaction in 20 years when they have 34 million tonnes of radioactive waste and we are thriving on renewable sources. Nuclear power is NOT the answer, strong action DOES need to be taken but one that produces tonnes of waste that requires billions of years to de toxify it not it. Dont give in to international peer pressure! What are they gonna do ? Bomb us?

The very fact that we are contemplating this just shows how cowardly and meagre some of our nation has become.

(LAUGHS) america will screw us over just like that,

We don't need an American FTA. We don't need ANZUS. End of story for me...

We should keep our tittle as a "clean green country",Yes China and America have nuclaer items thats only because both countrys have the biggest land to develop war stations and nuclear power plants and they have the biggest population. So no we shouldnt end our nuclear free status

Keep New Zealand clean

Reasons To Agree

The threat and fear of nuclear weapons played an important role in ending the second world war and maintaining peace throughout the cold war. To defend democracy against the spread of communism, larger nations such as the USA needed a nuclear deterent. Today the role of nukes is open to question - but either way, we owe it to the Americans to at least offer a friendly port of call to their ships considering how we have benefited in terms of world security by their actions and sacrifices. In the end, given our small size and geographic isolation, the anti-nuke law hurts us more than any other country. I believe it achieves nothing positive for anyone and I'd like to see it reversed. Besides, New Zealand owes a lot to the US Navy.

I agree with "Nuclear-Free Policies" hurting us far more than it helps. The US has every reason to use it as leverage mainly because it is out of distrust and fear that we don't allow US boats into our waters. What was a sound Policy 20 years ago, is not so effective now, I don't see how NZ maintains or not maintains a cultural or sovereign image because of this policy as I would assume Tourism Trade affects this more. Economically we would have more choices, more trade deals (with tariff deals that we don't have at the moment) and would foster future trade with countries that support the US, exports or imports. I think it's too harsh a decision, and should be reviewed with the benefits in mind, not just our "sovereign conservatism"

There is no longer any scientific reason that suggests nuclear energy is a threat to either the environment or human life. If NZ wants to be truly "clean & green", then surely nuclear energy is cleaner and greener than coal, which produces 65% of NZ's electricity supply. Nuclear-free is a fear based argument and is useless in a modern context. People who are anti-Nuclear, have no basis except the percieved threat of Soviet Russia in the 1970s. Times have changed. Lets move on.

Yes but not to gain a free trade deal. We should do it to reactivate the NZ-US aspect of ANZUS.

There never was any logic to it anyway - although that's the Labour party for you, isn't it ? Also about time we also had a nuclear component in our electricity supply, don't you think ?