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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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