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.