Nukes have saved millions of lives. the world has be free of any large scale wars since their use in forcing Japn to surrender in 1945.

Thank you Sue, for a continuing voice of reason in a world dominated by the application of distortion of fact to facilitate gratuitous belligerence.

I would prefer a scale back of nuclear weapons not under threat of war (because as Kenny said, the nations armed with them have been very reluctant to enter any conflict in which they might have been used), but from threat of another body getting access to the technology (though this is extremely unlikely, as stealing them would be impossible (unless one were to risk cutting open the missile itself to get it out), and building one isn't the easiest feat.

There is a potential threat from less moral countries giving a nuclear device to a third party (aka sponsored terrorist group) to nuke an enemy expecting the paperwork won't be traced back (which it will, but they might not know that).

Oh dear oh dear.....

Another dodgy socialist 'peacenick' on the loose.

The first sentence shows the calibre of this article.

**Two things pose an overwhelming threat to the planet as we know it, climate change and nuclear weapons**

It seems Sue is not just a peacenick, but also an intellectual lemming?

Climate Change is not the reality that she and her ilk would have us believe. Nuclear weapons? hmmm you have as much chance of stopping the proliferation of them as you have of persuading Kim Jong Dill.. dear leader to voluntarily step down from his throne.

But.. peacenicks are never interested in credible argument, they just rant, rave, sloganize, rant some more and use terms like "I am the voice of reasssssoonnnnnn" and all others are idiots.

They never recognize that the only people they have even a remote chance of de-arming (The gullible PC west) are not the problem. Or..they do recognize it and just keep on ranting anyway.

PEACE to such peacenicks is the Totalitarian Stalinist 'total peace' of hurling those who disagree off the nearest cliff. of COURSE there will be peace if you rid your society of all who are disagreeable.

Sorry Sue.. no score points from me.

“Two things pose an overwhelming threat to the planet as we know it, climate change and nuclear weapons…”

Sue Wareham, as always, states as facts things which are merely her own opinions. Climate change and nuclear weapons are not “overwhelming” threats to anything or anyone. Even those people who believe that the climate change is man-made (or that climate change even exists) ensure us that they have the answers to ‘fixing’ it. And, the “threat” of nuclear weapons has kept the world from major conflicts since 1945 and the Cold War.

Why two contenders for the Prime Ministership of little old Australia should be concerned about nuclear weapons, only Dr. Wareham knows. There is no evidence that Australians are particularly concerned about nuclear weapons. We don’t have any. There is no threat to our relatively unimportant country (in world affairs), we have far more important domestic and everyday problems with our politicians to give much thought to non-issues. Neither Abbott nor Gillard would get much of a reception if they started waffling on about nuclear weapons.

If Dr. Wareham wishes to lecture anyone on nuclear weapons, she should head for Iran and stop nagging democratic countries like her own who have no stake or influence on the issue, and who rely on the nuclear weapons western powers to protect them from mad dogs who will take even less notice of her than we do.

Agree Leigh
"There is no evidence that Australians are particularly concerned about nuclear weapons. We don’t have any. There is no threat to our relatively unimportant country (in world affairs), we have far more important domestic and everyday problems with our politicians to give much thought to non-issues."

This is exactly true and I'm glad you've pointed that out to everyone.