I see New Zealand has no problems now letting the US bring nuclear powered ships to port.....just saying...
The current National government is very US friendly but it would be guaranteed out the next election if it allowed a visit by a nuclear powered ship from anywhere.
The people of NZ are proud of our nuclear free stance... which likely only got stronger after the unfortunate events in Japan recently.
Who owned the boat the blew up? Was it financially connected to someone outspoken trying to keep nuclear out?
It was the "Rainbow Warrior" owned by Greenpeace and used for protesting French nuclear testing on Pacific Islands.
The French were claiming it was completely safe as the heat fused the rock and sealed in the radiation. When asked why they couldn't do it in France if it was so safe they didn't have an answer.
They decided to sink the ship and in the process of doing so killed a photographer from central or south america.
They first denied anything to do with it but we caught two of the terrorists they started threatening our exports to the EU. In the end the two terrorists were sent to an Atoll in the pacific to serve their time in prison... one got a sore tummy and had to be moved to France for treatment and the other terrorist got pregnant and also went back to France. Interpol were no help at all, in fact they did everything they could to slow down the process.
France has been a dirty word here for some time.
Of course we haven't done anything like "Freedom fries".
We always called them chips anyway.
Back on topic
By my opinion Russia should respond with no matter how strong reaction to each of NATO provocation.
I totally agree. If ABM systems in Poland are not directed at Russia then they wont have a problem with Russian ballistic systems based in Kaliningrad.
They already had Tochka-U batteries there and the movement of Iskander was to upgrade and replace the Tochka batteries and was planned some time ago... well before the ABM issues.
The setting up of an ABM system in Europe that Russia is not an equal partner in and with no agreement that it will not be used against Russia should in my opinion lead to Russia withdrawing from the INF treaty.
Russia is limited by the new START treaty regarding how many ICBMs, ALCMs, and SLBMs it can have so a new ABM system in Europe will require more missiles to ensure deterrence. Rather than build strategic ballistic missiles which are large and expensive they can build IRBMs which are smaller, lighter, and cheaper to make and operate and could be used to cover targets in Europe, the Middle East and Asia without using up the numbers limited strategic warheads.
If the US wants to sign a treaty limiting ABM systems then I am sure the Russians will agree to a treaty that limits IRBMs so that a balance can be achieved so that deterrence is maintained.