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 > The two major challenges: climate change and nuclear weapons > Comments

The two major challenges: climate change and nuclear weapons : Comments

By Sue Wareham, published 22/11/2007

Unless Australia changes direction, we may be leaving our children little more than a scorched nuclear wasteland.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"australian families deserve..."

no, they don't. what they've got is what they deserve.

if you want more, you must do more. stop playing oliver twist, get off your knees, demand democracy!

action, now! or i'll be really, really rude.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 22 November 2007 10:54:57 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
It is indeed a sobering and shocking thought that our politicians are ignoring the greatest threat of all - nuclear war, and its precursor, nuclear weapons.
As Sue Wareham points out - those who were previously "hawks" - ppeople like Robert MacNamara, have now joined with ICAN and the many proponents of peace to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It is no longer a cause for the "tree-huggers" "greenies" "radicals" etc.

Just like concern about global warming, concern about nuclear weapons is now a "mainstream" matter. It is almost laughable to see the way this concern is ignored by our so-called leaders.

But - equally - opposition to the entire nuclear industry is completely bound up with opposition to nuclear weapons and concern about nuclear war.

It is no coincidence that democratic countries that have experienced nuclear power are finding that they just can't raise interest from investors in new nuclear plants. Nuclear power is just so expensive and impractical that it can only be set up with guaranteed tax-payer funding. Taxpayeres in Britain and U.S.A do not want to subsidise this industry. In France, the massive tax-payer subsidy is hidden. In Russia and China - well - again, the state pays the costs.

Why do these countries want nuclear power? It must surely be as just a fig-leaf for nuclear weapons programs.

And Australia's role in all this? Australia has the shameful role of flogging off our uranium, pretending we don't know that it will result in more nuclear weapons. For example - our present government wants to sell uranium to India, which hasn't even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Australia is to sell uranium to Russia, helping Russia not only to develop its nuclear weaponry, but also to supply Iran.

Australia - well placed to be a world leader in clean renewable technologies - is poised to become the nuclear quarry and waste dump of the world - as well as to promote nuclear weapons.

Shame on us!
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com
Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 22 November 2007 12:17:30 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
A typical empty green rant - full of information, but totally lacking in any meaningful suggestion of what to do. I am as concerned as anybody that the international lunatic fringe (and here I particularly include North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Israel) possesses, or is working to possess, nuclear weaponry. But what should, or could, we do. Not mining Australian uranium will not have any effect - uranium is quite ubiquitous in the earth's crust and a country determined enough to get some will mine and process their own regardless of the price. Saying "please play nicely with the other kids" won't do much either.

We in Australia need to realise that nuclear power generation is not necessarily linked to nuclear weaponry. Then we can move towards progressively replacing CO2 producing coal-fired power stations and replacing them with nuclear power stations. Climate change, to borrow a phrase, is a clear and present danger. CO2 emission must be halted. Neither the world as a whole not this country is going to reduce its energy consumption. The only solution present technology provides is nuclear power generation.

And hope that fusion is not too far behind.
Posted by Reynard, Thursday, 22 November 2007 2:56:31 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
Well-intentioned Person

Please consider.

Australian campaigns and policies on nuclear disarmament have obviously been irrelevant since 1945.

Russia has 16,000 nuclear warheads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons 6,000 more than the 10,000 you (selectively) quote for the US.

Soft left campaigns of making Western countries feel guilty are out of date as weapons have since proliferated to Pakistan, India, North Korea and soon Iran.

Japan could very quickly become a nuclear power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_atomic_program#Current_nuclear_activities_in_Japan :

"...Japan has the third largest nuclear energy production after the U.S. and France, and plans to produce over 40% of its electricity using nuclear power by 2010. Significant amounts of Plutonium are created as a by-product of the energy production, and Japan had 4.7 tons of plutonium in December 1995...Japan has also developed the M-5 three-stage solid fuel rocket, similar in design to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM."

Hence, the Japanese may tire of their morally forgetful post Hiroshima status (Japan killed 30 million people in WWII) and start building their own Bombs.

Time to think up something more effective than attempting to shame Australia's governing parties.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 22 November 2007 2:58:10 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
Sue, thankyou for that article.

Pete, ICAN is a new International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons with the aim of establishing a binding Nuclear Weapons Convention. See http://www.icanw.org/securing-our-survival for why and how this will work.

Renowned environmental journalist George Monbiot is right to go further than to agree that there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East (The Guardian, 20/7), that “Iran isn’t starting an atomic arms race, it is joining one”.

The nuclear power industry has continually demonstrated its complicity to nuclear weapons via infrastructure, expertise, covert research, nuclear fuels themselves and ineffective uranium “safeguards”, which neither guarantee inspections nor apply to military nuclear facilities.

Climate change seems to have surpassed the still-present, if not dangerously complacent, nuclear threat as far as being media “mainstream”, yet it remains in the interests of us all be tackled as an equal -- and pro-actively is our only option.

In the words of the Governator of a leading solar power state:
"A nuclear disaster will not hit at the speed of a glacier melting. It will hit with a blast. It will not hit with the speed of the atmosphere warming but of a city burning. Clearly, the attention focused on nuclear weapons should be as prominent as that of global climate change."

With Australia being a major world supplier of yellowcake to nuclear weapons nations, this Saturday Australians have a choice to vote
nuclear-free. I urge voters to see the scorecard at http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net or become a friend at http://www.myspace.com/votenuclearfree to help them decide.

And keep this in mind: just a fraction of today’s 27,000 nuclear weapons risks another most catastrophic climate change within minutes: nuclear winter.
Posted by Atom1, Thursday, 22 November 2007 4:29:16 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
I think that the possession by nuclear weapons by a few major countries was a force for peace, and I think that the chances of a major nuclear exchange between them are negligible. But the more recent proliferation is more dangerous. The Australian Government will never be a major player in this, but it has been involved in the positive developments in North Korea, and it’s justification for intervention in Iraq was based – at least in part – on Saddam’s apparent development of WMDs.

I’ve expressed scepticsim on the merits of the advanced global warming argument elsewhere, and won’t repeat it. But Nigel Lawson (former UK Chancellor and father of sexy chef Nigella) made some good points, quoted in The Australian today. He noted that humans prosper both in Helsinki (average temperature 5C) and Singapore (27C), so that an average rise of 2C or so over a century should not exceed our ability to adapt. He also notes that if the costs of warming estimated by the IPCC are correct, then in 2100 our descendants’ income will be 2.7 time ours if we ignore warming, 2.6x if we do. The figures for the developing world are 9.5x and 8.5x. Hardly disastrous, and indicating that future generations will have far higher resources than we do with which to address any issues.

Let’s keep some perspective here
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 22 November 2007 6:54:23 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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