PaulL:
tdgeek:
Haven't read the rest of your post as no need. The issue was propelled by nuclear power.
OK, refer here:https://www.artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/special/nzfpra/docs/NuclearBan3.pdf
Quotes:
In any case, a greater number of warship visits was seen as increasingly provocative and led to Richard Prebble’s first attempt to introduce an anti-nuclear legislation into Parliament. In 1976, he called ‘for the recognition of the South Pacific nuclear-free zone.’9 After failing to get a majority in Parliament, Prebble made a second attempt in 1982, this time with the Nuclear Free Zone (New Zealand) Bill. He pointed out that ‘his bill would not ban visits of nuclear-powered ships ... It dealt solely with whether parliamentarians were prepared to allow nuclear weapons to be brought into New Zealand.’10 This bill was equally unsuccessful.
So the original debate was around nuclear weapons.
One year later, on 3 August 1983, Bruce Beetham, leader of the Social Credit League, attempted to introduce the Prohibition of Nuclear Vessels and Weapons Bill. As Beetham stated, although expensive to build, nuclear powered ships do not need constant refueling, and for that reason they are ideal vehicles for the offensive role that falls to the Navy. That being so, such vessels will almost invariably—in fact, one could almost say automatically— be armed with offensive weapons, which must include nuclear weapons.11
Thus, Beetham’s bill was the first attempt to introduce a ban on nuclear-powered ships to parlia- ment because such ships were almost certainly armed with nuclear weapons. In the end, the bill was defeated by 40 to 39 votes.
So the debate moved to banning nuclear powered ships - but because they would almost certainly be nuclear armed. The aim wasn't nuclear power, but nuclear weapons still.
Page 14:Lange himself had doubts about banning nuclear-propelled vessels. In his memoirs, he wrote that he ‘wanted the policy to allow for visits by nuclear-powered vessels if acceptable stan- dards of safety were met.’18 This uncertainty about Labour’s proposed ban on nuclear-powered ships in Lange’s own mind probably led some American diplomats to believe that Lange would sway the views of people within his party to eventually drop the idea of banning nuclear-powered ships.
I don't believe you can be as certain as you appear to be. The stated policy was non-proliferation. Some people wanted nuclear power banned as well, and indeed it was. But I would argue that the NZ consensus is around banning nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there is a consensus to ban nuclear power, but there is a political reality that it would be hard to change the law and little point given that no nuclear powered ships are likely to visit, and NZ is unlikely at the current time to build a nuclear power station. Interpreting inaction as consensus is not correct.
Much of this remains true today. If these are US Virginia-class submarine, then they will use weapons grade uranium in the reactor. The use of this highly enriched uranium generates more energy by volume than low-enriched uranium and the reactor can last the service life of the vessel.
There is some speculation that these submarines might be the UK Astute-class submarine, but with statements about the "nuclear reactor not needing a refuel throughout its 25-year lifespan" this suggests a weapons grade uranium core.
So the first problem is that this presents a nuclear weapons grade uranium proliferation issue.
In addition, just like most nuclear powered US naval vessels, the US Virginia-class submarine is capable of firing a nuclear weapon.
https://www.theday.com/article/20180327/NWS09/180329393
The policy of the United States has been to never confirm nor deny if any particular US naval vessel carries nuclear weapons or not, which is how we ended up with the current legislation. The ambiguity over which vessels carry a nuclear weapon and which ones do not, works to the advantage of the US, who might prefer to force an adversary to track hundreds of targets instead of just a few.
Of course the Morrison government in Canberra is saying that these submarine will not carry a nuclear weapon, but I'm sure that the United States would prefer to see Canberra align with their own policy of neither confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons.
We will have to wait until the first of these submarine is launched to find out if the Canberra government's desire to please the US administration is greater than the need to inform the public of Australia and New Zealand.
Does anyone want to place bets on the outcome? Right now I'm guessing that when the time comes, the answer will be that "it's classified" or words to that effect.
