Written By:
- Date published:
9:37 am, June 1st, 2026 - 30 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, Disarmament, don brash, national, nuclear war, nuclear-free, Peace, same old national, uncategorized -
Tags:
National has yet again chosen to march onto one of the third rails of New Zealand politics, the ending of our anti nuclear status.
The policy has been popular since its inception. It is arguable if national pride peaked more after we won the first Rugby World Cup win or after we declared ourselves to be nuclear free. And it certainly peaked when this happened.
Lange really nailed the stupidity of the arms race that day. Like when he said:
I also feel a considerable sympathy for the members of the opposite side, who have this extraordinary sense of destabilisation at the imminent prospect of peace breaking out.
Or this:
[T]here is no moral case for nuclear weapons. That the best defence which can be made of their existence and the threat of their use is, as we have heard tonight, that they are a necessary evil; an abhorrent means to a desirable end.
I hold that the character of nuclear weapons is such that their very existence corrupts the best of intentions; that the means in fact perverts the end. And I hold that their character is such that they have brought us to the greatest of all perversions: the belief that this evil is necessary – as it has been stated tonight – when in fact it is not.
Or this:
The weapon simply has its own relentless logic, and it is inhuman. It is the logic of escalation, the logic of the arms race. Nuclear weapons make us insecure, and to compensate for our insecurity we build and deploy more nuclear weapons. We know that we are seized by irrationality – and every now and then some new generation technology comes in, the argument for which is that it will cause us to draw back from the nuclear precipice. And we are seeing right now another initiative, under a new title: the title of course in dispute as much as its efficiency will be. And that, Mr President, is the story of the whole saga of the nuclear escalation.
We know, all of us, that it is wholly without logic or reason, any sense at all, to have the means at the disposal of two particular sets of powers to turn this world into rubble time and time again. And yet in spite of that awareness, the world watches as two enormous machines enhance, refine their capacity to inflict destruction on each other and on all of us.
Lange then responded to an interjection by claiming he could smell the uranium of the questioner on his breath as he leanded towards Lange. Humour and politics peaked at that particular time.
Fast forward to now and Chris Penk has again raised the prospect of a National Government doing away with the anti nuclear legislation.
From Sandra Arambepola at Stuff:
Speaking to Bloomberg Television on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Penk said New Zealanders had long been sceptical about nuclear weapons, but “it might be an interesting conversation in terms of the extent to which that’s different to nuclear propulsion”.
Australia is working with the US and UK to build and equip a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines under the 2021 Aukus agreement, with the vessels expected to be deployed in the 2030s.
Penk said Australia’s move meant “it would be helpful for us to have that conversation in New Zealand”.
Chris Hipkins’s response was exquisite. Again from Stuff:
“Over the weekend, the National Party has told international media that it is open to New Zealand reconsidering its position. This is not something it campaigned on or shared with the New Zealand public,” He said.
“Four decades ago, proud Kiwis took a stand and made a clear choice. We wrote into law that nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels would never enter our waters. Now, National has said it’s time to have a conversation about whether this stays in place.
Lange was directly opposed against nuclear weapons but more nuanced in his views on nuclear propulsion. The problem was however that the Americans refused to admit or deny if there were nuclear weapons on board any ship or submarine and by allowing in nuclear powered submarines in particular the policy could be breached. So an effective policy had to include nuclear powered ships because of the American’s policy.
And besides the policy is a symbolic call for peace, and any dilution of the policy would deter from its effectiveness.
And there was the concern that allowing nuclear powered and potentially armed or armable ships would be a slipperly slope and result in gradual changes to the policy until it had no weight.
Nicky Hager in this speech highlights his background in the nuclear free movement in the 1980s and says this:
In the following weeks, we introduced a further concept, which was that the nuclear-free policy had to ban all “nuclear-capable” vessels. Again, we were trying to take away wiggle room. Since no one could know for sure which vessels actually had nuclear weapons on board at a particular time, a genuine policy had to ban all vessels that were “capable” of launching nuclear weapons.
There was a showdown coming: if the government allowed a visit by a warship with systems capable of launching nuclear weapons — in other words, possibly nuclear armed — the nuclear-free policy was over. If they refused the visit, the nuclear-free policy was set in stone. Thus the scene was set.
Christopher Penk has raised the prospect of an Australian Nuclear powered ship being allowed into New Zealand ports. Delivery of these ships is not expected until the 2030s. There is no need to change the policy now.
The primary reason for raising this policy now appears to be appeasement of the current US administration. While we may not be willing to spend billions on extra weapons we could grovel to them by allowing their nuclear powered and capable ships into our ports. And of course we would not need to ask if their ships actually had nuclear weapons on board. Nod nod wink wink would replace the clear moral position taken by our no nukes policy.
National has tended to keep quiet about the policy. In 2005 when it was revealed that Don Brash had quietly told the Americans the policy would be “gone by lunchtime” it hurt National in the polls.
It is strange that National should raise the prospect of change now, particularly given that Christopher Luxon had earlier ruled out changes to the policy. It makes you wonder how heavily America is now demanding change.
Hipkins is right to oppose this. And all I can say is bring it on. Now more than ever not only is the policy very popular, it is also the right thing to do.
Responding here because comments are closed on Micky Savage's last, and related, post dated 9.24am yesterday. That's a few minutes longer than 24 hours. Duhh? New rules on the platform? ???
We've got this accusation of 'freeloading', which seems to attract buy-in.
Not deeply immersed in NATO's history, I asked Google's AI for the occasions when America had generously defended its NATO allies. It said:
"The United States has actively stepped in to defend other NATO allies exactly once in the alliance's history: following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when the U.S. invoked Article 5 to launch the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan alongside allied forces."
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. And how that particular action defended us all is a bit of a mystery.
[Don’t know what happened to the other post but comments are now open again – MS]
That's one of those AI hallucinations. It's true NATO's been called on exactly once, but it was called on by the Americans after the 9/11 attacks so that the other NATO countries would come to its defence, not the other way round.
Oz has 6 Collins class subs (past use by date) – basic diesel (inferior to the old Japanese ones, let alone their newer versions)
The nuclear deal involves buying 3 second hand Virginian class nuke subs over 15 years (those coming to the end of their life-span). There was an option to buy up to 5. The first one arrives in the early 2030's (there are now America first pressures on their government to have enough of their own).
Australia plans to build (the hull not the advanced stuff) 5 of the Aukus class subs in the 2040's (the UK starts building them first).
This has been superseded by recent developments for South Korea to have nuclear subs (they want to build them – and will do so for a lower cost than the Americans or Australia).
It is possible the re-imagining of our nuclear-free policy is of a design to have us in the AUKUS Pillar 2 (unless nations were all nuclear propulsion host friendly the AUKUS tech brand would seem inappropriate).
The term Trojan horse is well known.
Not being an ally guaranteed American security, Hegseth has over-stepped the mark on claims we have some newly finagled/spangled banner 3.5% GDP spending obligation.
Penk appears to be bending us into AUKUS 2, but using retaining neither confirm nor deny to keep us out of ANZUS (and the higher spending level).
Our alliance is with OZ, our first line.
Otherwise we have our nuclear weapons free South Pacific policy, more credible while we are not in ANZUS with the nuclear armed USA.
ANZUS is a clusterfk with supply side pressure not seeing any Oz subs for deacdes whilst they wait in line behind Uncle Sam warmongers requirements.
We should bend into it then let Oz political/economic issue take care of it down the line after they blow a few more billion for nada return. It'll be easy to exit not having delivered anything. Another ScoMo special.
This also has elements of 'flood the zone' and dont hegseth/penk look the perfect couple. Both full of BS who are there because they follow orders and don't trouble their grey matter with pesky logic or common sense.
I’m sceptical of Chris Penk downplaying New Zealanders’ deep & long‑standing opposition to nuclear weapons.
Can you smell the uranium on Penk's breath?
Bubble, bubble boil and trouble. The nukes are all part of this witches brew (old-time witches ) being stirred up by progressive widdershins, and that's praising them. Of course we are too intelligent and well-educated thinking people to be caught up in such dangerous manoeuvres. (See, I know how to spell it, but do I know how to operate it)?
Penks been punked ?..
What Penk said was consistent with what Luxon said only weeks earlier.
How open, well apparently not in their 2026 manifesto.
Australia would not get their first send hand Virginian class nuclear powered sub until the 2030's.
In reality, the potential huge vote losses from dick brain Penk (as others in Thread have pointed out) have triggered a worried Luxon has spoken message….
Onya Chippie and Labour !
Luxon says "not on the table"…… ( does he mean under the table, like many things done by this CoC, out of scrutiny.?)
Penk just "mis-spoke?' out of turn to imho,"test the waters/start the conversation?
Out in '26
I can understand the strategic argument for Australia and the US having nuclear submarines and, more uneasily, nuclear weapons. Deterrence is ugly, but the world is ugly.
But that does not mean New Zealand needs to abandon its nuclear-free policy.
We are not going to have a meaningful nuclear capability ourselves. Nor should we. Our contribution is more likely to be maritime surveillance, logistics, disaster response, fisheries protection, cyber, intelligence, interoperability, and credible conventional capability.
So the real position is not “pretend nuclear deterrence does not exist”. It is: align with Australia and the United States where our interests overlap, contribute seriously to regional security, but maintain a clear sovereign line that nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels do not enter New Zealand ports or territorial waters.
That is not freeloading. It is a small state making a deliberate strategic choice about what kind of ally it is willing to be.
And to be fair, we should be honest about the limits of that policy too. New Zealand can control port visits and assert its law in territorial waters. It cannot assume perfect visibility over every submerged military movement in the wider maritime approaches around us.
isn't the elephant in the living room what happens if the US goes full fascist? not just Psycho Milt's "there are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth", but the moral and pragmatic dilemma of a working relationship with such a state should it happen, which I don't think is a given.
Are we able to think in terms of a world of rising fascism and increasing loss of rules based order, and plan for our security within that?
That's a risk, sure.
But at the moment our other option for a superpower ally is a brutal, authoritarian, shameless dictatorship with a terrible human rights record and an increasingly belligerent foreign policy.
Sometimes, in foreign policy, we only have bad choices. For now, our interests and values are better aligned with the US. Which still has a chance of coming back from the brink starting in November.
The USA?
Res does seem to have at least one foot firmly planted in the 'Chinese regime bad' camp, and certainly it would be very bad for many Kiwis (well, me anyway) if that regime (was) imposed on NZ. But all governments are trying to manage internal pressures and external threats/opportunities, and the evolving Chinese regime is no different in that regard. As you remarked under the 'Hegseth accuses New Zealand of freeloading because we don’t want to arm for war' post:
And that's the crux of it, imho – NZ govts selling NZ for parts, so 'we' can keep the overshoot Ponzi scheme going. 'Hey everybody! We're all gonna get rich!'
For a CCP public relations piece, dated 3 June 2026, see here.
NZ can't even get its head around the mindset and cultural differences between the dominant culture and tangata whenua, how do you think it would go with China?
How it would 'go' if Chinese culture became dominant in NZ Aotearoa?
"Very bad", in my view – possibly at least as bad as it was/is for tangata whenua, and some ethnicities (e.g. Chinese, Pasifika) arriving later.
Not sure if that’s what you were meaning/asking, and I’m not sure wheather Chinese ‘influences’ are seeking to dominate NZ either.
what? I was talking about NZ shifting allegiances to China and away from the US.
OK, didn't get that at all, so thanks for clarifying. Imho, NZ shifting allegiances to China isn’t necessary, and, in the short term, distancing ourselves a little from the US of A as it is might be worth considering. After all, ‘we’ did it in 1985 – “I can smell the uranium on your breath“.
He does. Mainly because he's a realist when he comes to geopolitics. And also, a Mandarin speaker who's read a fair bit of classical and modern Chinese history.
But please, do continue to tell me how I've failed to properly contextualize China's current foreign policy.
I don’t think concern about the PRC is reducible to “China bad” rhetoric. There are legitimate issues around the treatment of minorities, increasing authoritarianism under Xi, and a noticeably more assertive foreign policy since around 2012.
More importantly, though, my concern is less moralistic than strategic. States pursue interests, and China’s interests do not necessarily align with New Zealand’s, any more than America’s always do.
I also think excessive cynicism about international politics can become self-defeating. If every institution, alliance, or strategic concern is dismissed as hypocrisy or profiteering, it becomes very difficult to think clearly about what New Zealand’s actual long-term interests are.
"Shaun had a potato on his shoulder, a chip wasn't enough."
"Continue"? Please, be patient – even I have limits
Two superpowers on spaceship Earth – peas in a pod.
You’re sort of illustrating my point here.
I’m not disputing that great powers pursue their own interests. In fact that’s explicitly the framework I’m using.
The actual question is whether all great powers are therefore strategically interchangeable from New Zealand’s perspective. I don’t think they are.
Simply posting quotes from Rubio saying “America pursues American interests” or articles about US-China rivalry doesn’t really answer the underlying issue of alignment, regional order, strategic dependence, or what best preserves New Zealand’s autonomy and security interests over the long term.
That’s the foreign policy question I’m trying to discuss.
And yes, of course the US acts in its own interests. Every state does. But that does not automatically make the US, China, Russia, India, or anyone else strategically or politically equivalent from the perspective of a small Pacific democracy.
At the risk of repeating both myself and yourself, I agree that China's and the US of A's interests do not necessarily align with NZ's.
My off-the-cuff 'thought', in as much as I give any thought to geopolitics, is that NZ's foreign policy should keep us nimble, but it's difficult/demanding work to regularly reconsider foreign policy positions and strategies on a case-by-case basis. And, at the risk of contradicting myself, I think Penk's enthusiasm for reconsidering NZ's anti-nuclear stance was an unhelpful mix of toadying and laziness.
No question which way a tiny and nimble FVEY NZ would jump if push came to shove, imho – we'd throw our lot in with Aussie, and (by default) the US. Still, while there's peace in Oceania (long may it prevail), there's also some wisdom in not putting all our eggs in one basket – keep 'em guessing.
I think that’s a fairer way of framing it, honestly.
And I actually agree with quite a lot of that. Small states generally do need a degree of flexibility and hedging in their foreign policy, because overdependence on any single great power creates risks of its own.
Where I probably differ is that I think geography, economics, intelligence integration, defence interoperability, and institutional alignment mean NZ’s manoeuvring room is far more constrained than we sometimes like to imagine. In practice, if things deteriorated badly in the Indo-Pacific, we are overwhelmingly likely to align with Australia and the wider Western bloc.
Which is precisely why I think it’s important to think seriously about what our sovereign red lines are, rather than pretending we can float entirely above bloc politics indefinitely.
That’s partly why I support retaining the nuclear-free policy even while acknowledging the strategic realities that produced AUKUS and nuclear deterrence in the first place.
Three things come to mind for me:
1. Americans' individualism and consequent enthusiasm for individual rights and rule of law would make it very difficult for a genuinely fascist movement to take over there.
2. Even if it did go full fascist, it would be no worse than the situation in Russia or China, which many people on the left don't seem to have a problem with at all.
3. But yes, if the US were to go full fascist, that would be the end of the historical miracle we call 'the west' or 'liberal democracy' or whatever, and we'd be back to more historically typical times. Which our descendants would seriously not enjoy.
Coalition of Cockups, "flying a kite" to see if they can get away with it.
Obviously to pander to the current US Fascist Government.
Re "No nukes"
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/596981/non-negotiable-christopher-luxon-says-nuclear-free-stance-not-changing
New Zealand's best defence and foreign policy choice is Australia.
Federation will follow family.