Clever! We stop sending our yellow cake, and they buy it elsewhere!
It makes almost as much sense as selling off the still profitable domestic arm of Qantas, and retaining the loss making international arm! Which seems to be the current option on the table?
Better we should process this stuff ourselves, to power generation standard only, rent the rods, and then take it back, when it is used up!
That is ultimately, the only way, we can with absolute certainty, keep this material out of the hands of terrorists, or unfriendly Govts.
The Ukrainians can hardly be held accountable for entirely illegal Russian incursions into their territory, and hard on that basis to make a case, we should simply dishonor any existing contract!?
Nice try, and sure to influence the minds of those too weak to reason for themselves; or understand that it is carbon that is threatening to destroy all life on planet earth, not current nuclear arsenals or nuclear power stations?
Rhrosty.

A thoughtful article.

I agree with the author - but not for ant-nuclear reasons - rather market reasons.

Better that Australia not export Uranium to any country for a few decades - as we are currently exporting at low prices. Better to export later for higher prices that will result from the coming world shortage of gas and oil.

Australia curtailing Uranium exports to Russia would not effect Russia's production and maintenance of nuclear weapons. Russia mines its own Uranium with weapons uses effectively having first call on Russian mined Uranium.

Russia also neighbours Kazakhstan - by far the world's largest Uranium miner and exporter - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Mining-of-Uranium/World-Uranium-Mining-Production/

Australia may be more likely merely a backup exporter of Uranium to Russia.

Australia exporting Uranium to such countries as Russia, China, Japan, France, UK and US may actually be depressing the world Uranium price. So in market terms we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by exporting Uranium early and low.

Pete

The single biggest flaw in Dave Sweeney's logic is that he knows absolutely sod all about the history of the nuclear arms race, for if he did, he would know that the 14000 nukes that Russia has is the reduced number after the arms reduction process, and that the stored fissile material from the decommissioned nukes could easily make another 10 000 warheads without purchasing one gram of Aussie yellow cake.

This is yet another anti nuke beat up from the same pin heads that brought us the carbon tax.

An extremely weak attempt at connecting two unrelated events. If the author was honest he would have addressed/mentioned the following points:

1. Russia vs Ukraine, militarily, diplomatically, and by any other measure is not exactly a fair fight. Russia could defeat Ukraine without even thinking about nuclear weapons. I mention diplomatically, to include EU/NATO/US alliances in this dispute.

2. What everyone else has said about the actual impact regarding our supply.

3. The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by Russia, US, UK, China and France to provide security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, in return for giving up it's nuclear stockpile (at the time 3rd largest in the world).

Now it is clear this treaty is not worth the paper it is written on (like all treaties), however do you think we would be in the same situation if Ukraine still had its weapons? Even ineffective practically, they are very effective diplomatically.

For God's sake what are we exporting uranium for? To add to nuclear waste which must be isolated for one million years - a scientific impossibility, which, as it leaks will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic diseases in future generations, which manufactures plutonium which lasts for 250,000 years and therefore always available for nuclear weapons production. We are lucky we have escaped a nuclear holocaust thus far and the Ukranian situation is at the least unstable with the US and Russia facing each other off, each armed with over 1000 H bombs on hair trigger alert ready to be launched with three minutes notice. You can bet your bottom dollar that each side is on a high state of alert. So we want to add fuel to the nuclear fire?

The sale of Australian uranium was justified by the industry saying it would never be used to make weapons. The inpections supposedly monitoring our uranium are totally inadequate. Basically, selling Australian uranium to Russia and justifying it by saying "otherwise they will buy it from other countries" is very reminiscent of the arguments used to justify slavery. It is wrong to be providing uranium to Russia. It either ends up as toxic waste or weapons. Neither outcome is acceptable.