Mururoa Test Veterans’ Association
-Operation Pilaster
July 18th, 2025, Levin
(Introductions)
Shimasaki:
You go by Michael?
Nat:
Actually, funnily enough my Navy name is Nat; Nat King Cole, Nat Cole. You can call me Nat or Mike.
Shimasaki:
Nat, great. So what year did you join the New Zealand Defence?
Nat:
Oh, 1965, January 1965. Yeah.
Shimasaki:
And which frigate or frigates, if you went across the both of them, were you on during the Mururoa protests?
Nat:
HMNZS Otago.
Shimasaki:
Okay. Can you tell me about your role and responsibilities for the deployment?
Nat:
I was understudying Bridge watchkeeping. I was there specifically to do Bridge watchkeeping, because I was trying to get the qualification to proceed from the upper decks officer classification, and I needed a bridge watch keeping experience ticket all signed off by the captain to say that I had experience doing bridge watch keeping at the time. So that’s why I was there on Otago at the time.
Shimasaki:
And what exactly is Bridge watchkeeping?
Nat:
Okay, well, where you call the ship from and making up the appropriate orders and steering- getting the helmsman to steer the ship in the correct direction and taking sightings and fixing yourself where you are in the world and that sort of thing; navigation, I suppose.
Shimasaki:
Okay, and what were your initial thoughts or expectations before being sent to that protest site?
Nat:
I don’t know whether I had any expectations, I suppose at the time being a young sailor, you know, I was interested in actually seeing what was going on at Mururoa. I didn’t have any thoughts about nuclear protests or anything else like that. I just wanted to go out there and see what was going on. I wanted to go and see the detonation of a nuclear weapon, I suppose, in some ways. It was another experience to add to my boat, you know? Something, it was certainly very interesting, you know, and that point of view.
Shimasaki:
And were you briefed on what you were going to be doing in the tests?
Nat:
I think we were, by the captain. I can’t quite remember to be honest with you. I knew we were going up there to stand off; we weren’t going inside their restricted zone. But we were there to show a presence of New Zealand’s opposition to nuclear testing. It was our job to go and do it because that’s what the Navy told us to do. I had no expectations other than that, you know, I was going to go and do my job and see what happened.
Shimasaki:
Do you remember how you prepared for that journey to Mururoa Atoll?
Nat:
Yeah, there was a lot of training done on board the ship. There was exercises in nuclear defence and protection from nuclear fallout and things like that. And so there was quite a bit of that sort of training done, you know, pre-wetting the ship in and so on and so forth. So yeah, we were trained up there to take any of how we got nuclear radiation or anything of that nature, we were trained to actually combat that.
Shimasaki:
That’s good. Did you recall that, when the time came?
Nat:
Oh, yeah, yeah, there was no, there was no question about that, you know, we knew what to do, when the actual bomb detonated. We actually were told to go down to shelter stations, which is deep in the ship, for prewetting, I think was activated on board the ship as well. So it was all practice and it was all pretty, it became second nature in some ways.
Shimasaki:
Moving into your experience in Mururoa, can you describe your experience at that protest site?
Nat:
Boring. A lot of it was bloody boring. I mean, say we steamed up and down and the real exciting parts that came when the actual bomb detonated. You know, we had the occasional flyover by the French. The French, we were under surveillance from the French, and I’m sure that the Americans had us under surveillance as well, even though we didn’t see much of them, of course, we didn’t see them at all, but I’m sure that they were there. So, yeah, it was quite boring on a daily basis, you know, we had things to entertain us, there were competitions and things like that. We had a whole lot of things that we could do, but it was basically steaming up and down, up and down on a daily racetrack sort of thing.
Shimasaki:
That would definitely get, as you said, ‘boring’ after a wee while.
Nat:
Yeah, like I said, the only exciting bit was the overfly sometimes, like by the French in their aircraft and surveillance that they were shadowing, standing with us and then the detonation of the weapon.
Shimasaki:
What do you remember about the weapon’s detonation?
Nat:
Oh, that was we were all down in shelter stations, which was low in the ship, you know. And the bomb went off, and I remember the countdown going down, and the next thing we heard was the captain saying, all right, that’s it. We can all go up and have a look. So, the whole ship is virtually cleared out from down in shelter stage. We’re all on the upper deck. I’ve got photographs of it at home.
Shimasaki:
That’s amazing.
Nat:
And the bomb detonation, of course, you can see the cloud, you see the mushroom cloud in the sky as the weapon went up, so that was that was very, very interesting. No, we were outside the fallout zone, so there was no harm or anything else to the crew.
Shimasaki:
How would you describe the detonation, the aftermath?
Nat:
The denonation. Well, we actually never saw the detonation; we saw the aftermath of course. Well, it was something to say, “look, I was there, I saw a bomb detonate.” I saw a nuclear weapon go, you know, and the possible destructive power that you get out of a detonation like that, a nuclear burst. I believe it was from what I understood, it was only a small detonation, from our point, from a military point of view. I think it was only five kilokons- a predetonation burst or a triggering device as far as I can recall. Yeah. It was, I don’t know whether it was shock and awe; I don’t think I came to that, but it was, it was interesting from my point of view, very interesting.
Shimasaki:
Beyond the protective measures being in your shelter stations, were there any other protective measures or protocols put in place during those tests?
Nat:
Oh, we were dressed appropriately. We had the anti flash gear available to us which we would wear. There was prewetting, like I said, on the ship, which was designed to go before a detonation of a bomb and wash any radiation off the upper deck of the ship. And there was obviously parties which went around and tested for radiation residue and there was various nominated crew which had dosimeter badges, which would tell whether they had a radiation dose or not, yeah. I think that was the main thing, and yeah, that was probably major thanks for what I remember. Probably more stuff that I can’t remember.
Shimasaki:
The physical and emotional impact; have you experienced any implications, whether that’s health, social… That you believe are, or may be, connected to your service at Mururoa?
Nat:
Health- I don’t know, to be honest with you. Health and social. I don’t think any social impact came on, but I do, you know, I feel a little bitter about it, you know, subsequently, because we were promised by the then Prime Minister, David Lange, he would look after us and look after our veterans- not a bloody thing. Well, it doesn’t seem to be anything, I think. You know, we were quite willing to go as a crew. We went because we were on board the ship, we were told we had a job to go and do, and so we went. You know, that was part of the deal of being in the Navy, or part of the deal of being in any service, military service; where you’re told to go by the politicians, you go, whether you like it or not. I really think to this day that we still haven’t been really looked after or recognised for what service we actually did, and that’s a major part. Sometimes I get really grumpy about it. You don’t want to hear me go on about the bloody Prime Minister at the time. I remember him standing on the ship before we left and he saying, “Oh yes, guys we’ll look at you.” Well f*ing, excuse me.. Don’t go there. That’s why I feel.
Shimasaki:
It’s completely valid to be frustrated by what’s happened.
Nat:
Other than that, socially wise no, I don’t think so. Health wise, I have skin cancers, but I don’t think they’re linked necessarily to Mururoa… Since being at Mururoa, my son has been born- He doesn’t suffer any genetic defects as far as I’m aware. He’s slightly ADHD, but that’s the only thing, but I don’t believe that was a product of Mururoa.
Shimasaki:
You’ve spoken a little bit about both of these next questions, so if you have nothing else to add, that’s fine. But, how did the experience affect your mental health or well being, and building on from that have you felt supported by government or veteran services?
Nat:
Yeah, mental health is okay. No problems there: When I left the Navy, I had a lot of flashbacks, you know, after serving. I did 23 years in the Navy so it’s a lot of flashbacks, a lot of yeah, things like that, and a lot of hard, hard stuff for my wife, you know. I used to, I used to be quite violent sometimes, I didn’t even know it. I still am to this day on certain occasions, you know, but not as much, thank God. But no, I don’t think I served any ill effects- Just the frustration of what I’ve said before.
Shimasaki:
And, how did your deployment shape the course of your life afterwards? And that can be after those 23 years (in the service) or after.
Nat:
I don’t think it shaped my life in too many ways. It became this life, now… I think my life went on a normal course, I went on normal operations in the Navy. I went to other various ships from then on. I don’t think it affected me in any particular way as far as I can tell. That’s an interesting question.
Shimasaki:
Have you spoken about your experiences with family friends at the time and what was your reaction?
Nat:
Not at the time. Well, my first marriage at the time, I spoke to my first wife at the time, and I spoke to my wife about it, so she knows all about it. My son knows about it, so do my two daughters; they know, I went and what went on. But they really don’t have any perception, I’m afraid, the kids don’t, even though you’ve told them what’s going on. I mean to say, they’ve always lived in a nuclear-free New Zealand. They never understood what it’s all about. I don’t believe so. Anyway, my wife certainly understands, but I don’t think the kids do. Yeah.
Shimasaki:
Is there anything that has helped you process your experience there?
Nat:
Oh, yes, reunion business, you know, coming down to your reunions here on an annual basis. It’s always great to come down and pick up threads with the other guys and talk and you know, we may say we may repeat the same old lies to each other, but it doesn’t matter. It’s always good to come down and talk to these people and I still keep in touch with people like Lindsay and Jerry, people like that, and Ivan, and we still talk and discuss the same things. That’s good, that I can actually do that.
Shimasaki:
That is really good, having that connection with your shipmates.
Nat:
Yeah, because they would have gone through the same thing, you know, felt the frustration, I’m sure some of them do. Yeah.
Shimasaki:
Looking at reflections and legacy, so moving forward a bit again, how did witnessing the nuclear detonation influence your views on nuclear weaponry, if it did at all?
Nat:
No, it didn’t, it didn’t influence my thinking at all. All it did was confirm the power of the weapon, you know? I could see what would happen if a nuclear weapon was detonated in a conflict. And we were trained even when I first joined the Navy in 65, we were trained about nuclear fallout and nuclear weapons and things like that. We knew the devastation, we knew the history of weapons and detonations over Japan and what could happen. And we were, if we had to go to war, the ships we hoped were prepared to actually go through the situation if one was detonated. It didn’t affect my thoughts on them at all. I could just see that you know, it was necessary when we’re detonated in 1945, I believe, but you know, the genie is out of the bottle. I mean, so you can’t put the darn thing back, we just had to live with it now, worldwide, whether you like it or not- forbid that it ever actually comes out of the bottle, you know?
Shimasaki:
Yes. If you could tell younger generations, one thing about Mururoa, or nuclear weapons testing, what would it be?
Nat:
One thing… I suppose it’s like all things; nuclear weapons aren’t evil, I suppose. But it’s something that we have to learn to live with. In the laws, we have processes in place that we don’t have to detonate the darn things. We’re going to be better off as a world, but we have to learn to live with the darn things. We’re not going to put the genie, as I say the genie back in the bottle. I suppose, yeah, that’s the biggest thing. Learning that we can recognise what they can do, and, you know, to live your life the best way you can. Yeah, I suppose that’s what it is.
Shimasaki:
For yourself, what does justice or recognition look like?
Nat:
For myself. I don’t consider it necessary for myself, I don’t- I’ve got recognition. I’ve been recognised by the awarding of a medal to go and serve in that area, I’m very proud of that. Recognition is only by my peers, by my family. Recognition from the government that I’ve served, and recognition from veterans affairs that I’ve served. And, because I’ve served in the nuclear zone, the government is prepared to look after me. Do they? To a degree. Veterans’ Affairs- And I’m very thankful of Veterans’ Affairs, I’m very grateful for Veterans’ Affairs. Other than that, I don’t need recognition necessarily.
Shimasaki:
And how have you participated in efforts to raise awareness or support your fellow veterans?
Nat:
The only things I do here is with the nuclear tests; sometimes I try and assist with their welfare and things like that, but I’m not to any deep degree, no.
Shimasaki:
Looking back, how do you feel about your involvement in that chapter of Aotearoa’s history?
Nat:
I’m very proud of all we’ve done. I don’t necessarily agree with what we did. I don’t believe that defence forces are tools, to be used in the protests for things, in that sort of form; defence forces are the other bidding of a government to defend the country. I never considered that nuclear testing was a defence or nuclear protesting was a defence of the country. That is done by people who are not military people. We are meant to be apolitical, you know? Either side of the bench is not our concern; we just do the bidding of the government. But I think in this case here, it was wrong of the government to send us. That’s what I think anyway. But we went and we did our job, and our job was to go because they said you go. Even though I may not have approved of it. That’s the way life is, you know, for us.
Shimasaki:
What would you like the wider public to know about your experience?
Nat:
Only that we did on the bidding of the government. We did our job. We did it well. And because we were there on behalf of New Zealand and the government, we expect to be, I suppose, looked after for want of a better expression.
Shimasaki:
Is there anything else that you would like to add to this as well?
Nat:
No, I think we covered most of what I want to say, you know?
Shimasaki:
Thank you very much.