Nuclear menace
The report on the INF treaty in the Chronicle on February 4 is a little weak.
US policy is "pre-emptive" nuclear war or "first strike" to destroy much of Russia's civilian population, when sure that Russian retaliation is impossible.
Russia's policies are nuclear retaliation, and nuclear defence against overwhelming invading armies.
Putin has warned, "There can be no world without Russia."
Nato troops and ships sit on Russia's borders. Nato is widening roads and strengthening bridges, like Hitler did before invading Poland and Russia.
America menaces Russia with more than 400 short and medium range nuclear capable missiles in Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Turkey, with nuclear war heads in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Germany, Korea, Okinawa (and Turkey).
American ships and submarines carry missiles along Russia's coasts. America is deploying "low yield" tactical nuclear bombs.
With an economy the size of Australia's, and a population smaller than Nigeria or Bangladesh, Russia struggles to keep up.
Forget climate change: we may not live long enough to see it.
Alan Davidson
Gonville
Disconnect on ferry project
It is not surprising that the private venture ferry project for our port has not gained support from our council. It is patently obvious the two project teams have not been talking to each other, as both planned to use the same footprint.
Indeed, if I was to make an assessment, I would suggest the business skills of both groups are very sadly lacking. In particular, the council group are of special concern. The problems the city faces from the river, which will also have a significant impact on the port, seem to be only given the most superficial acknowledgement from the port project.
This suggests that the team are either severely blinkered, or constrained in their terms of reference in such a way to doom the project to failure, while still managing to absorb and ultimately waste a significant amount of taxpayer funds. This includes the Government grant to finance a business proposal.
This attitude is surprising as WINC does appear to be not averse to risk having invested a significant amount of ratepayer funds into the aviation school, at a time when they will have to compete with already established schools in other parts of the country with well-founded reputations. Although I wonder how long it will take for the school to show a profit?
Murray Shaw
Whanganui