Probably the most dangerous in today's world politics is the atomic set ilegally now held by Israel, which if used against Iran could easily bring in a very much now fiesty Putin's Russia and possibly China.

Cheers - BB

Tilman

This is a nice wishlist uncontaminated by reality.

So we go the way of that unspoken example, New Zealand, and ban US ships and US aircraft because they may hold nuclear weapons. We lose an ally - our main protection.

Result - we have to radically enlarge our defence force.

There is no way that McCain or Obama is going to strip America of its nuclear defences because Australia (we are SO insignificant to them) talks of disarmament.

The Russians, Chinese, and Indians are not building more and "better" nuclear weapons because they are waiting for moral guidance. They do it because they distrust each other, have occasionally forght and each sees nukes as an effective counter to America's massive superiority in conventional weapons.

So given the value of nukes as an asymmetric defence against larger armies - where do we go from there? Is the solution to abolishh armies so we will all have peace.

Conventional weapons have, after all, killed uncounted tens of millions of people since the 2 nuclear weapons of 1945 killed hundreds of thousands. Grizzly stats but important.

Your ideals are worthy, but the world, politics and human nature, more complex.

Pete

Look on the bright side BB. An Israeli nuclear attack on its oil producing neighbours could have some beneficent consequences:

More than one third of global oil production capacity would vanish in a radio-active cloud. Oil would top $500 / barrel. That's more than $3 / litre just for the crude. The price of refined petrol would head north of $4 litre.

Why is this a beneficent outcome?

Because the consequent reduction in road traffic would finally make the roads of Melbourne safe for cyclists like me.

Then there is the resulting global frost. That would slow down global warming giving us more time to find clean carbon-free alternatives.

Perhaps the occasional nuclear war is the answer to global warming.

On the other hand, as the owner of some South African mining shares I do like the idea of Australia shutting down its uranium mines. The value of my shares would instantly double if not treble.

BTW was this intended as a serious article? Is an academic at Melbourne University really so deluded as to believe that l'il ol' Australia can influence global nuclear policy?

Does anyone connected to the real world believe that Rudd's "..announcement of an International Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission to report to an international summit in Australia next year…" is something other than flim-flam?

Sad to say theres nothing we can do about nukes.
All thats left is to pray.
If God hadnt shortened the days on earth no one would have survived...Mark 13:20.

If you want real good hope you have to go to Jesus the Saviour and invite Him in, receiving what He did on the Cross for you.
Born again christians are the happiest people on earth, even with the future Revelation portrays.
The problem is greed and fear. Anything new including n weapons we just have to have.
There will be no peace until Christ Returns.

I don't believe any government can protect the world against nuclear weapons.
Its all about greed.
Who would have thought that uranium mining would get the "go ahead" for the second time in Kakadu National Park. The uranium is being mined by a non Australian company. Who has any control over foreign owned companies, what, if any processes have been put in place to make sure that the uranium is not being "on sold" for military purposes.
The Indigeneous people who own the land could not turn down what would have been a very tempting offer of money nor could the Northern Territory Government miss the opportunity of receiving some of the proceeds coming from the mining of uranium, such as jobs etc.
I think that once the mining has started its too late worying about who the uranium is being sold to.

There is an aspect of stockpiling nuclear weapons which is seldom discussed.

Although national security is often given as the need for secrecy, I believe that the cost and effort of maintaining the bombs at some kind of operational readiness would prove embarrassing if the public only knew how difficult and costly it all is.

These devices have a shelf life. Over time, they lose their potency and reliablity. This applies not only to the fissionable materials, but also to the conventional explosive charges, detonators and triggers.

Lots of stuff about all that here:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html

- it's worth keeping as a reference.

I suspect that, like chemical and biological weapons, the greatest penalty is paid in the end by the citizens of the aggressor countries themselves. The sheer mess, pollution and filth that is the intractible by-product of making all this stuff, comes home to bite the very people it is claimed to "protect".

Yet another example of the military making war on their own populations