The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Enriching Australia? > Comments

Enriching Australia? : Comments

By Jim Green, published 24/8/2006

Could the nuclear debate be driven by a military agenda?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
It seems to me that the same forces that "necessitate" the garnering of Middle-Eastern oil by any means, are poised to thwart any constraints we might place on the production of enriched uranium.

Maybe it's just my age, but I feel it coming like a steamroller in low gear - inch by inch. Like that feeling you get with the sale of Telstra.

For their justification, they will use the cult of Economics, our modern day equivalent of the Easter Island statue. The rules of economics are a matter of convenience, not bounded by scientific law nor even primitive morality.

If we don't use our collective intellect on this ball of wax, we will simply go the way of other creatures that failed to make the evolutionary jump to something better.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 24 August 2006 10:21:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree entirely Chris and I'm sure that if it were possible to ask every individual in Australia whether or not they want anything to do with the nuclear industry, from mining right through to enrichment and the most horrible prospect of storing someone elses nuclear waste, the majority would scream NO! However, over the past decade, Australians have become increasingly scared and the Howard led Government has played the fear card to perfection. Howard will have his way with his nuclear ambitions whilst Australians will back in their usual appathetic way and let him do whatever he wants. Any appearance of revolt from the masses will result in another fear campaign from the Howard fear factory. He'll say things like..."if we don't dig it up, someone else will" just the same way he used the possibility of rising interest rates and economic instability to keep the Labor Party out of office. Meanwhile, innovation goes down the toilet. There's an electric car in Melbourne that will possibly never see the light of day because Governments continue to pander to big oil (Google "Aryana IEV 800") We can well live without the dangers of nuclear energy, but the fear factor will make sure we don't get the opportunity to do so.
Posted by Wildcat, Thursday, 24 August 2006 11:49:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim,

It might help your case if you did not INVENT stories. Lucas Heights is not equipped to produce HEU and never has been. There is no such thing as "The Whistle Project". You have been duped.

When Menzies commissioned the plant there may have been some wannabe nuclear phycisists (from UNSW - not AAEC) that had all sorts of hair-brained schemes but the design of the Lucas Heights High Flux Reactor is not suitable for enriching Uranium to HEU.

DU is a problem, but not because of radioactivity. Its half life is half a billion years making it very UN-Radioactive. DU is a poison. It is more toxic than mercury and for this reason it has to be kept out of the environment.

Perhaps if you read some text books instead of leftists know-nothing columnist you might add some credibility to your arguments.
Posted by Narcissist, Thursday, 24 August 2006 12:59:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Narcissist has a great idea here, suggesting that Jim Green, and the rest of us, I guess - should read more books.
He suggests "textbooks". Well, "textbook" - this usually implies some sort of "impartial" fact-filled book prescribed for the curriculum of some course. For example, we could read some textbooks on nuclear physics, and bone up on all the technical details.
I reckon we shouldn't confine it to texbooks. We could all read some of the broader works, ones with a historical context, ones that aren't confined to the nuclear physics syllabus. Some examples - Ralph Nader's "The Menace of Atomic Energy", Robert Jungk's "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns", even the original Fox Report - the Ranger Uranium Inquiry. I wonder if Narcissist has read these?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 24 August 2006 1:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Narcissist claims i 'invented' the information regarding the secret uranium enrichment program at Lucas Heights. In fact it is drawn directly from the books written by two retired Chief Research Scientists at Lucas Heights, namely Clarence Hardy and Keith Alder. It is not disputed by ANSTO ... in fact just yesterday I debated the CEO of ANSTO and twice mentioned the Whistle Project and he did not contest the information.

Narcissist says "the design of the Lucas Heights High Flux Reactor is not suitable for enriching Uranium to HEU." That's certainly true, the HIFAR reactor is just that, a reactor not a uranium enrichment plant!

For the details of the pursuit of nuclear weapons from the 1940s to the 1970s, see
http://www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/weapons.html
and chase up Jim Walsh's excellent article in the Nonproliferation Review.
And there's another excellent article in the Nonproliferation Review, by Jacques Hymans.
Posted by Jim Green, Thursday, 24 August 2006 2:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Best of luck generating 50 gigawatts of continuous electricity from low carbon sources anytime soon. Far from helping nuclear proliferation Australia's participation in the nuclear fuel cycle could hinder it. Australia could sell enriched fuel rods or pellets and take them back for reprocessing or deep burial in the outback. Any customer who diverted radioactive material would be blacklisted.

Apart from helping control nuclear proliferation there are big bucks to be made. Australians might feel like nincompoops if say Argentina took 'our' nuclear waste for a generous fee. Some might also argue if global warming were slowed by nuclear electricity it might ease international tensions.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 24 August 2006 2:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChristinaMac,

I think you would be surprised at what I've read. I am certainly no advocate for nuclear energy. I am dead against this poisionous technolgy and can see no value (other than medicine) in using it - for anything. A CT Scan requires nuclear material. The patient recieves about 1mSv = 500 chest x-rays = 3.5 years of normal background radiation. 1 in 2000 people that recieve an Abdo CT Scan WILL as a direct consequence contract a fatal cancer (US FDA).

I am researching and actively campaining against recent government reports such as the abuse of Australia's Cold-War WMD Veterans at the hands of an uncarring Veterans' Affairs department and RSL. According to the Government and the Uni of Adelaide, nukes are safe!! - http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/2006/nuclear_test/index.htm

It is unhelpful in the extreme when people sprout absolute rubbish that they obviously know little about. If Jim spoke about actinides rather than DU in terms of waste I would at least given some credibility. The inability to stop actinide leeching and criticality events in ceramics through neutron absorbtion failure is far more relevant to the current discussion but completely by-passed by the pseudo-intellectuals.

The reference to text books was a remark about Jim's "PhD" in the history of a building complex rather than what the complex does and how it does it.
Posted by Narcissist, Thursday, 24 August 2006 2:28:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In answer to your question, Jim, yes the nuclear issue could be driven by a miltitary agenda.

But, having been engaged in many hundred of conversation, the major agenda is somewhat less sinister. Most people pushing for nuclear, from Mr Howard down, genuinely think 1) that we have to satisfy energy demand whatever. 2) This being so, only nuclear energy seems big enough to do it - given the problem of climate change.

(For the Howard goverment there is also a little matter of economic opportunity.)

The fact that nuclear energy simply can't deliver the goods in terms of preventing climate change seems not to matter.

Even amongst groups of committed environmentalists it is impossible to get away from the 'technological 'fix' brigade - the devotees of one particular energy-supply technology or another.

This fixation on supply-side remedies is a cultural disease.

Sure, the nuclear issue is locked hand-in-glove with military applications, but I think the bigger, albeit more subtle, driving force is not that at all.

We just can't get past the futile psychology of trying to solve problems by making things bigger and meaner.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 24 August 2006 2:57:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Narc.

It was not the FDA ;) It was:

National Academy of Science released their 7th report on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), this showed 1:2500 people in the US will die of ionising radiation caused by CT scans. A similar report in the UK put the figure at 100-120 people per year.

We don't want to play with this stuff, leave it in the ground and sell coal and gas.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 24 August 2006 3:28:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought your readers and the Aussi energy dept, would be interested in looking at these energy technologies:

Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts
Posted by Erich J. Knight, Thursday, 24 August 2006 4:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dr Green

Why don't you run as a State or Federal Candidate?

I would love to be able to vote for a person with your honesty and integrity.

Any advice on who I should vote for?

Why are our "elected representatives" haggling over expending OUR taxes on nuclear power anyhow? Smell the roses people!

It is time our elected representatives take some initiative and provide their people with SUSTAINABLE POWER SUPPLIES!

Solar Power, Wind Power, Tidal Power, Wave Power, Geothermal Power.
All proven, all limitless.
All safe, all non polluting.

Leave the poison in the ground.

Restore Sanity!
Posted by Restore Sanity, Thursday, 24 August 2006 4:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having just read the preface and introduction to ‘Nuclear Power is not the answer to global warming or anything else’ by Helen Caldicott, all consideration that I may have had about a place for nuclear power in Australia has well and truly vanished.

Leave the poison in the ground!

Oh uh, there’s a ‘but’……….

But what of our defence capabilities in globally expanding nuclear weapons regime? Where will Australia be in a world where many countries have nuclear weaponry, and might like to take over vast sparsely populated us? How will be prevent countries from virtually taking our uranium, and other resources, for a pittance if they really want it, regardless of what we say…if they have the power to seriously threaten us if we don’t oblige?

Is there any sense in developing a nuclear defence regime?

There is no sense at all in developing a nuclear power regime by itself. But if there is merit in a nuclear defence strategy, could this make the economics and practicality of a nuclear power regime meritable?

Horrible thoughts.

Please fellow posters, pleeaaase tell me that there is NO sense whatsoever in us getting into nuclear in any way!!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ludwig

This is what our colonial masters have been doing to the Indigenous Population of this nation for the last couple of centuries! They invaded, they tried to genocide an entire population/culture/way of sustainable living, and then they stole their resources.

Remember Maralinga?

In fact they are still doing it. Invaders and thieves.

Aboriginal Australians have been warning us... can you hear them? Are YOU listening?... the poison, leave it!

No-one wins in nuclear war. no matter who has the biggest weapons. They are poison. Nuclear power is poison.
There are alternatives, wind power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power, and wave power. Natural, sustainable, clean and never ending.

Our elected representatives now want to expand the nuclear industry.

Time to listen to our elder brothers and sisters methinx.

For our children and for the safety of this entire planet.

Time that Mr Howard and his war mongering buddies faced criminal charges for their crimes against humanity. Depleted Uranium weapons used on defenceless civilians... sickening!

Disgusting, deplorable and reprehensible.

These "simple" men, these criminals, our "honourable" elected "representatives"!

They do not represent me, they do not represent my views...
There is no blood on my hands.

The poison, Leave it!
Posted by Restore Sanity, Thursday, 24 August 2006 6:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr/Ms Sanity

It is with the thought of our ‘displacement’ of Aboriginal Australians ever-present in mind that I fear our displacement. ‘We’ did it and it could happen to us just as easily.

I am inclined to think that a strong defence capability is very important, in an increasingly desperate and hostile world. Unfortunately it seems that having a nuke or two, and the ability to lob ‘em onto cities across the world, would do a whole lot more to boost our defences than Howard’s extra battalion or two. Yeah I know, it’s a terrible way to think of it… but is it that unrealistic?

I don’t know. It is extremely hard to reconcile. But I feel that we may just be rather naïve to think that we can get by without ‘the bomb’ in a world full of potential nuclear bullies….especially when we hold 40% of the world’s bloody uranium reserves!!

Sure, the stuff is as sinister as all ** **. But I think we need to see beyond that.

I am right into sustainability issues. Nuclear energy doesn’t make any sense in terms of sustainable energy provision or a sustainable society in terms of overall energy and resource demand and supply balance. But in terms of a sustainable society that survives potentially increasing threats from other countries, due to resource stress, especially when we are going to be one of the few countries with a large resource base still intact (coal, minerals, uranium, etc), maybe we need to think about the possibility of utilising our huge nuclear energy resources.

I would love for us to live in harmony with this ancient land as our predecessors did. But if it means leaving us vulnerable to powerful and aggressive forces, then we need to radically rethink our strategies.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 24 August 2006 9:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

Somehow I don't think your realistic concept of linking nuclear enrichment with a sensible future certainty (Australian nuclear weapons) will get much sympathy from most posters here.

Jim has already written "Australia could not credibly oppose uranium enrichment programs in North Korea or Iran if we had the same capacity to produce fissile weapons material. Nor could we credibly oppose the current plans in Indonesia to build plutonium production - oops, I mean peaceful power - reactors."

Jim has no idea that Australia carries no moral or diplomatic clout with Iran or North Korea. They are not reigning in their enrichment projects or long range nuclear missile programs for anyone. North Korea's Taepodong 2 nuclear missile appears capable of hitting Australia within 5 years. Equally India is experimenting with nuclear missiles that one day may present a threat to Australia.

Meanwhile I think Indonesia is too poor and dependent on the US to attempt a weapons program, but that is not the point. The major nuclear threats are further out than Indonesia.

The horse has bolted Jim. If Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, the UK, US, France, China and Russia all already have nuclear weapons it is odd and idealistic to overplay moral auguments against nuclear enrichment which will delay an Australian nuclear weapons capability.

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/07/north-korean-taepodong-2-missile.html
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 August 2006 12:07:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Dr. Green I have no special inside knowledge of the decision making processes in the highest echelons of Government. Australian defence documents are classified and not in the public domain. I am not aware of any firm evidence would links civil and military nuclear programmes. Bomb making with U-235 requires enrichment to orders of magnitude far greater then required for a civilian power reactor. I also understand that power reactors are less then ideal for making weapon grade Pu-239. Further the fabrication of the Pu-239 is a highly complex technology.

For details see Richard Rhodes- The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Published by Simon & Shuster, USA 1986; Penguin Books, UK 1988.
Or http://www.milnet.com/nuclear.htm

None-the-less it is clear from the public media that this is a dangerous world and that there is a premium on national defence. Thus I suggest that any Australian government that does not consider the possibilities of an Australian nuclear deterrent or acquiring Nuclear Weapons would be negligent in the extreme.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 25 August 2006 5:58:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's mountains of evidence on the repeatedly-demonstrated links between peaceful and military nuclear materials and facilities ... see ch 3 and appendix 4 of the long version of the paper at:
www.melbourne.foe.org.au/documents.htm
Posted by Jim Green, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I expected people to tell me where to shove it. But it seems that the thought of developing a nuclear weapons capability can very realistically be linked with a sustainable future, for defence reasons, not energy generation…. and that it is a hard one to argue against.

"Australia could not credibly oppose uranium enrichment programs in North Korea or Iran if we had the same capacity to produce fissile weapons material. Nor could we credibly oppose the current plans in Indonesia to build plutonium production - oops, I mean peaceful power - reactors."

Yes but, how does the US credibly oppose these programs? And what difference would it make to North Korea or Iran whether we idealistically opposed them or duplicitously opposed them or agreed with them?

The horse has indeed bolted.

In this dangerous world, maybe there is merit in not leaving the poison in the ground?
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 26 August 2006 9:53:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Green,
I have read your papers. It is no secret that there are nuclear armed weapon states. There are other states that are capable of acquiring nuclear weapons. All this is in the public domain. Details of the weaponry, rules for their deployment, the motivation for states to acquire weapons etc can only be guessed.
I differ from you viewpoint in the following matters.

1. A civil nuclear program is not a necessary prerequisite for a military program.
2. A civil program is not necessarily a façade to cover a weapons program.
3. The design of a weapon, especially the gun type seems simple enough. In reality much information is not available to the public. The resources in terms of money, engineering skills, physics and chemical know how are rare. For this reason I suspect other states have not gone down the nuclear path. In case of Libya and South Africa abandoned the path.
4. Delivery systems too require technical sophistication and are not cheap.
5. A weapons maintenance system is again expensive and difficult to organise. Neutron triggers require maintenance, for instance in the case of the bombardment of Be-9 with alpha particles from Po-238. Po-238 has a half life of 138.4days.
6. The nuclear proliferation treaty, IAEA safeguards and so on may not be perfect. This does not mean that they are valueless.
7. Do you really think the governments of say Iran, North Korea, and so, are going to be influenced by FOE, Greenpeace.
8. Do you really believe feel good anti-nuclear marches in capital cities influence government?
9. The benefits of nuclear technology and its applications in medicine, industry, research are clear and overwhelming.
10. The economics of both mining uranium and a nuclear generation industry are currently under expert consideration from a government panel chaired by Dr. Dr. Switkowski. We wait the report with interest.
11. Should Australia acquire nuclear weapons? This is a matter which can only de decided by the government of the day. Any decision may not be made public for decades.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 26 August 2006 11:00:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anti-green
You said:
>“Do you really believe feel good anti-nuclear marches in capital cities influence government?”

Marches are undertaken by people who want to be heard. They march to gain public awareness, and they do. Demonstrators do not agree with government actions. They are not prepared to sit by and do nothing. For every person who is prepared to get up and march, there are 10 more who would, if they could. There are many who are also angry but too busy with their day to day lives to participate in such demonstrations. There are many more who are just not ready to take to the streets, actually, taking to the streets is quite a “radical” thing to do for Mr and Mrs Average Joe.

Our “honourable representatives” should be hourable enough to actually REPRESENT the wishes of their people. That is why our Governments are elected you know, so that our money is spent in the way that we choose.

Our elected representatives are elected to represent “US”, the PEOPLE – and NOT the wishes of the government of the U.S., or the shareholders and executives of Rio Tinto?

Your words attempt to undermine people who take action for what they believe in, when in fact, you reason that marching for adequate, honest and fair representation is only conducted for the sake of the individual’s ego.

then you say:
>"Should Australia acquire nuclear weapons? This is a matter which can only be decided by the government of the day. Any decision may not be made public for decades."

The “Government of the day” must represent the wishes of the people who put them into their positions of power. EVERY decision made by a representative of the people should be OPEN and PUBLIC! Not conducted behind closed doors, with golden handshakes utilising the money of the PEOPLE.

Bring on the elections, I’ve certainly had enough of this arrogance!
Posted by Restore Sanity, Saturday, 26 August 2006 8:19:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Austalian physicists were involved at Los Almos and in fact headed the British team. When the US refused to help the UK develop nuclear weapons, owing to the UK's pre-emptive actions in the Suez Crisis, the Brits came to us for help.

Under "Black Knight" nuclear weapons were co-operatively developed. Australia at that time was not keen to have a visible stockpile. The silos would have been targets. We probably did not and do not have nukes. Jervis Bay might have once been a past site for the storing of weapons grade material... who nows?

Hand-in-hand with "Black Knight" was "Blue Streak". If memory serves, ex US Mercury-Redstones were modified and two stages added to allow medium to long distance delivery. What North Korean is doing now the US was doing in 1958 and we were doing in 1967.

Also, with regard to Lucus Heights, be aware that powerful isotopes (e.g., Cobolt 60) are currently developed for military purposes.

Above is public domain. Can't say more.

Australia has shown itself responsible and can handle adding value via enrichment. It would be a good industry.

The US is on the record in saying Australia and Canada are exceptions to its nuclear containment policies.

We can have a BOOM without a BANG.
Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 26 August 2006 8:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Prime Minister is starting to sound like a generic,he has lost the plot,and the opinion of this writer is get out of politics,ask your wife to buy you some knitting needles,and some wool
Posted by KAROOSON, Monday, 28 August 2006 3:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GOOD NEWS

As you would have heard (Jihad) Jack Thomas (JJ) has been put under a control order.

Thomas has been told to return to Melbourne from eastern Victoria, where he was on holiday with his family, and remain in his home under curfew between MIDNIGHT and 5am.

Under the Anti Terrorism Act, control orders can be used where they “substantially assist in preventing a terrorist act or where a person has trained with a terrorist organisation” [JJ has admitted he's trained with Taliban where he met bin Laden!?!].

The orders must be issued by a court – in Thomas’ case it was the Federal Magistrate’s Court. A spokesman of the Court said the Court issued the interim control order order after the AFP was able to satisfy the court it was necessary.

A confirmed control order can last for up to 12 months. The penalty for breaching a control order is up to five years in jail. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20275891-2,00.html?from=public_rss

This might reduce the substantial security resources necessary to keep tabs on JJ. These resources would be better used against homegrown terrorists (or al Qaeda sympathisers) who are probably idealising JJ's "religious good boy stand".

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 28 August 2006 6:22:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TOXIC NUCLEAR WASTE

Another destructive legacy for our children?
As if they won't have enough to contend to.
Even if nuclear development starts today, its is unlikely to absorb the effects of a collaspe of the oil industry.

We live in interesting times.
Posted by LivinginLondon, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 5:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think nuclear is the only way to go

GO GO GO

Go johnny
In ireland last week saw a show on the hole theyve put themselves in
Have 15 wind farms here and have to build another 15 by 2010 or some similar date Cant remember exactly but ruining the history and
countryside like you wouldnt believe.
Part of the Kyoto protocol What a mess

Also in Portugal they have wind farm but no wind. Just eyesores
Like your comment livinginlondon. But really.
Posted by normman, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 5:43:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yea, go Johnny... right out the door, but on your way, don't forget to pick up your summons to appear before the high court on charges laid by the people (that you are supposed to honourable represent) for your crimes against humanity.

I wonder how you sleep at night? I am not the one to judge you, but you will know when your time comes.
Posted by Restore Sanity, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 8:26:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We could argue that Aborigines lived in harmony with their life-support systems at the time of European contact. But they were effectively pushed aside very easily and the continent was taken over.

Well, if we develop a sustainable lifestyle with a decent quality of life and live in harmony with our environment, we are going to look very inviting to increasingly desperate and aggressive nations.

We have one huge advantage over the pre 1770 Aborigines – we know the threats that exist overseas.

So we had better damn well keep up our defences. And in an expanding nuclear weapons regime where the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and other means of suppressing weapons capability and proliferation are looking pretty sick, we had damn well better get us a few nukes!!

It’s as simple as that.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 8:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't we all have a nuke each, one in EVERYONES backyard.

We could have local competitions on who's is the prettiest at Christmas... how jolly!

Then if our neighbours dog gets into our bitch, we can nuke the mothers right offa the planet.

yup, sounds pretty simple to me.

I hold the button safely in MY trusted hand.

Hopefully the fall out won't blow over the fence and harm my organic tomatoes
;-)
Posted by Restore Sanity, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 9:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mmmMMMMMMmmm okaaaay!

Sorta sounds a bit like you might not want us to have any nukes Restore!

Hey, I know it’s a horrible thought. It has played havoc with my brain for quite a while now!

But is it that unrealistic? Don’t you think it would be a damn good idea to be able to defend ourselves… which means having a defence capability or a threat capability that would serve as a powerful deterrent to our potential aggressors?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 1:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alas Ludwig

Trying to convince original,, or born again peaceniks, is like p#ssing in the wind.

I recall in the early 80s unilateral nuclear disarmament of the West (especially UK) was seen as the ONLY way to resolve the Cold War nuclear impasse. If "the West disarmed the Eastern bloc would disarm" was the logic. Instead the West "stuck to its guns" and the Eastern bloc backed down in 1989-90.

Nowerdays the mantra is if stable Western democratic countries (like Australia) decide not to have nuclear weapons then theocracies or neo Stalinist dictatorships (read Iran and North Korea) will feel sooo guilty and see the moral error of their ways that they will disarm forthwidth.

The fact that having nuclear weapons is also popular in Iran is ignored. The fact thaat Iran has so many strategic nuclear threats (Israel, Russia, the US etc) is also ignored. Similar goes for North Korea. These guys will not curb further nuclear development plans or disarm.

Iran and North Korea both have their positive nuclear weapons arguments but by word and actions they are enemies of the West (including us).

We should not be reliant on the American nuclear umbrella (particularly in a US-China conflict). As you say Australia should develop its own nuclear capability.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 3:14:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Restoring Sanity to this arguement is an oxymoron.
The race started long before we were even aware of it. All we can do is know that thank god we are on the most powerful side and hope
it stays that way.

The arms race and nuclear energy is as vulnerable to mans mistakes as anything else.
Its useless pretending that you can turn the clock back.
I think its all part of the world wide game and that the real agenda
is kept hidden and anything the admin tell us is propoganda.
I choose to believe that good will triumph even if it means more reactors and a more dangerous world for all.
Posted by normman, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 8:56:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy