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.

Thanks, KH. Sue Wareham is a serial luvvie, with not idea of what the real world is all about.

Sue I agree with your sentiment although the immediacy of the subject as an election platform is remote to Australia and Australians for two reasons.

First there is no appreciable escalating threat at present; it is as it has been since the sixties. As a child growing up I remember the peace sign painted on some fences in our back lane. Old neighbors told me that the teens of the sixties painted them when Russia and the US were on the verge of nuclear destruction. It was an all too real issue at that time with the real possibility it may happen. We have had no appreciable threat since then.

Secondly the fact that countries with nukes do not adhere to mandates from the UN or disarmament agencies unless it suits them. So as an election issue here and now it is a non issue.

Sue Wareham, bless her, makes perfect sense.
Let us persuade all civilised countries to set a noble example by giving up their nuclear weapons.
Once they are all disarmed, surely the rogue countries will follow their example and we can all live in peace.

Proxy">>Once they are all disarmed, surely the rogue countries will follow their example and we can all live in peace.<<

Proxy given there has not been an aggressive nuke detonation since 1945, we have still managed to war with each other every year since. Nuclear strikes concern the western societies, but most places that are in conflict today fear the Kalashnikov and RPG. Rogue nations are controlled by threat not consensus, that is why they are rogue.

"Two things pose an overwhelming threat to the planet as we know it, climate change and nuclear weapons, and neither is receiving a serious commitment to action by the two contenders for the position of Prime Minister of Australia."

I think the reason it is receiving no attention is because both Gillard and Abbot know perfectly well there is nothing they can do about it and are reluctant to make asses of themselves in front of the electorate.

Sorry, let me rephrase:

Gillard and Abbot are reluctant to make even bigger asses of themselves.

Don't sell uranium to nuclear armed countries?

They'd get it elsewhere South African miners do good business selling uranium to India at premium prices.

I am sure if Australian uranium were taken off the market a wave of exploration would uncover new sources.

Get real Sue.

Although the author is obviously concerned, in essence her article adds nothing to the debate. The author alsdo seems unaware that the world has been dismantling nuclear weapons since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some of the uranium, after processing, ended up in nucear reactors. The real problem since the Berlin Wall has been rogue launches where some nut in a failed former soviet republic gets their hands on a rusty nuke and decides to use it.
This has not happened and the moment seems to have passed and Iraq, as we now know, was never any threat. The terrorist organisations have never shown any real interest in atomic weapons which I find suprising, as they haven't stopped at anything else and nukes were readily accessible for a short time..
There is nothing Australia can do about any of this and no real possibility of general nuclear war, at least not at the moment.. Limiting uranium sales would also have no effect. Time to move on.