So to cut a long story short, the yanks have said it's ok so Australia should merely ignore the NPT and sell, sell, sell. India already has form from the past, but don't worry about that, sell, sell, sell, how irresponsible can you get.

I am one of those dreadful lefties to whom it is completely obvious that the use of the bomb was the INEVITABLE outcome of the historical processes that lead to its manufacture in the first place. It HAD to used and demonstrated, come what may---it had its own culturally determined, dreadfully dark logic and momentum. It was the INEVITABLE outcome and manifestation of the drive to total control and power at the root of the entire western "cultural" project.

Western "civilization" (such as it was) essentially destroyed itself during the course of World War I and finished itself off during World War II. It could be said that the dropping(s) of the bomb were events that quite literally smithereened western "culture".

Ever since then, and despite the seeming outward success and glamour of our "culture" it has been all down hill. Every other traditional culture and civilisation has also been effectively destroyed to the extent, that with very rare exceptions, in isolated pockets, there is hardly any civilization left in the world.

What we have now is a "consumer" so called "culture" which is quite literally consuming itself and the planetary support systems to death.
The word consume means to destroy.

"North Korea is another terrific example of a nation signing the NPT, but merrily going about arming itself to the teeth, at the expense of feeding the mouths of its people."

50% of children in India are malnourished - and there is no population growth control programme! This is the nation that builds nuclear weapons and has a space programme but cannot feed its own children.

The impending sale of uranium to India proves once again that we are just a puppet of the USA. There is no real need to sell to India. There are many other buyers out there (although the market is somewhat suppressed at the moment as nuclear weapons are being recycled into power rods). The real motivation behind this is to build a coalition of India, Japan, Australia and the USA to counterbalance China's emergence.

The article is well researched and I agree with its pro trade message. However the article suffers from an unnecessarily anti Muslim tone which goes beyond dislike of the terrorist minority.

Rudd appears to be opposing sale to India because:

- he values Labor Party unity (he's avoiding Howard's invitation for Labor factions to split over the issue) and

- Rudd favours the larger China market (his personal specialty). China is an established customer for Australian uranium that can divert Australian uranium into Chinese Bombs with impunity :)

If Rudd gets in (I think) he'll honour sale to India but with a few more (allegedly safe) safeguards.

Pete

My very good friend worked in Windscale renamed Sellafield we always argued. He assertively argued that Nuclear Power has always been safe.
He said that he is a living example that it is safe. So often when he took his dog Rusty along the beach for a walk the dog would have a swim in the Irish Sea. Recently he phoned me Bronco he said Rusty has recently died. What did he die of I asked ?
Leaukeamia he answered !
He was shattered of course we could never prove that swimming in the Irish Sea would cause that could we. Unless Rusty was checked for radiation.

See video of 'Arms controls experts attack India uranium plans' at: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30

Key disturbing excerpt:

MATT PEACOCK (Interviewer): ... it will put inspectors into 14 of India's
reactors. What happens in the other eight?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: What happens in the other eight is their nuclear facilities
that are related to India's military needs.

MATT PEACOCK: The bomb factories? They just keep making bombs?

ALEXANDER DOWNER: (*stupid grin*) Well, that sort of thing.

AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
MEDIA RELEASE

14 August 2007

Selling uranium to India fuels regional insecurity

Federal Cabinet’s nod for uranium exports to India sends a message to other nations: the United Nations’ nuclear non-proliferation treaty means nothing to Australia.

“In giving the go-ahead for uranium sales to India the Federal Government is telling the world if you break your promises, breach international law and build nuclear weapons, Australia will respond not with sanctions, but with priority picks of our uranium,” said the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney.

“India’s civilian and military nuclear programs are intimately linked,” he said.

A former head of India’s National Security Advisory Board, K. Subrahmanyam, told the Times of India: “[given] the need to build up our minimum credible nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India’s advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our natural uranium for weapons grade plutonium production.”

“Australia selling uranium to India would directly fuel India’s nuclear weapons program and contribute to regional insecurity,” Mr Sweeney said.

“Foreign Minister Downer should explain why he is promoting uranium exports to India when his Department’s travel advisory says Australians visiting India should ‘exercise a high degree of caution’ because of the ‘high risk of terrorist activity by militant groups.’

“The Department of Foreign Affairs’ advisory for neighbouring Pakistan warns of an ‘unpredictable security situation and very high threat of terrorist activity’.”

“There is nothing responsible or neighbourly about selling a long-lasting radioactive legacy to India or contributing to tensions between India and Pakistan.

“Australia should get out of this toxic trade,” Mr Sweeney said.

http://www.myspace.com/icanw

"Whatever reactors we put under safeguards will be decided at India's discretion. We are not firewalling between the civil and military programs in terms of manpower or personnel. That's not on."
India had no intention to quarantine its military program from its civilian program because nuclear scientists would work across both programs. - India's chief scientific adviser, Rajagopala Chidambaram, in an interview with The Hindu newspaper.
- http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/uranium-sale-to-fuel-arms-race-imran/2007/08/15/1186857593210.html

http://www.myspace.com/icanw

you could do something about this,if you had cir and/or direct election of ministers. it's called democracy. but you don't, and you can't do anything about it.

so why talk?

I'd like to meet the real Jonathon, he is obvioiusly very opinionated and has a lot of scholarship and research in his writing, which I have also read. But Mate, don't think you are always right, the unwarranted assumptions and vituperation for those you don't agree with may be remembered when you're older. "Atomic John" could be the 21st century soubriquet applied to John W.and his Mate George W. who he follows in everything- it seems.Robert G. was our P.M. in a former time who earned the nickname "Pig-Iron Bob" I wonder if he still thinks his exports did a lot of good too.

SHONGA

You claim I’m all for ignoring the NPT and my policy is one of: ‘sell, sell, sell’. My point is that the NPT is a joke. Some people will advocate (with a straight face) that we don’t sell to India (a non NPT signatory but good nuclear citizen and a democracy to boot) yet in the same breath suggest we sell to major non western powers who, when not engaged in selling nuclear technology to rogue states, are too busy oppressing their own people.

Ho Hum

I agree with your sentiment ‘the use of the bomb was the INEVITABLE outcome of the historical processes that lead to its manufacture in the first place’. But that does not negate the fact that dropping the bomb brought forward the end of the War in the Pacific, saving countless Allied and Imperial Japanese lives. Does it?

michael_in_adelaide

I agree with your comment ‘The real motivation behind this is to build a coalition of India, Japan, Australia and the USA to counterbalance China's emergence'. But I ask you, is it so bad that we nail our democratic colours to a mast composed of like minded democracies? Are we ashamed of our Christian values and our belief that no men should live with his freedom denied him? Must we walk on the Asian stage with our tail between our legs and head bowed unable or unwilling to say to all who will listen that our resources are indeed for sale but not values.

Plantagenet

You are spot on when alluding to Rudd being a sino-sycophant.
My point on Muslims is simply to venture that non state actors such as Islamic terror groups pose the greater proliferation risk and not nation states. And hence arguments proposed by Kevin Rudd and Gareth Evans (and others)are poppycock.

In response to DEMOS ("it's called democracy. but... you can't do anything about it.")

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

The NPT apologists need to draft a new treaty.. the one promised in article VI of the NPT.

How about the destruction, under UN supervision, of all nuclear weapon cores within 5 years?

By 2012 a world free of nuclear weapons. A simple treaty to draft.. only a few articles required.

India has said it will sign such a universal treaty.
Will the US? Or Russia? Or China?

Yes, the NPT is heavily flawed in that it sets no deadlines for disarmament whatsoever, it allows for weapons-related nuclear infrastructure & expertise, and under the Treaty India is a non-weapons state.

Yet we have a Chemical Weapons Convention, a Biological Weapons Convention and a Mine Ban Treaty.

The world needs a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

http://www.icanw.org/

... as well as a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). And the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) must be ratified, non the least by India and the USA.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

“We know very well what we would do if we signed such a
convention: We would not make atomic weapons, at least not
to start with, but we would build enormous plants, and we
would design these plants in such a way that they could be
converted with the maximum ease and the minimum time de-
lay to the production of atomic weapons saying, this is just in
case somebody two-times us; we would stockpile uranium; we
would keep as many of our developments secret as possible;
we would locate our plants, not where they would do the most
good for the production of power, but where they would do
the most good for protection against enemy attack.”

- Robert Oppenheimer, 1946 on a possible convention banning nuclear weapons.

>a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). And the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

These are fraudulent treaties, designed to hoodwink the unwashed masses while maintaining the military superiority of a select few states, allowing them the freedom to wage aggressive war. People have been led to believe that these treaties make the world safer.

If you believe in disarmament, just one treaty is enough... one that outlaws the possession of nuclear weapons. All weapons should be destroyed in a set time period, say 5 years.

No need for a test ban treaty if there is nothing to test. No need for fissile cutoff since all fissile material becomes civilian... every last gram.

No NPT either... nothing to proliferate.. no "Nuclear Weapon States"
No "Non Nuclear Weapon States"

Of course this will never happen ... the anti-nuclear crowd really backs selective possession of nuclear weapons.. their hands are clean while they shelter under the nuclear apron strings of other states..

Hypocrites all...

Thanks John (not) for generalising and calling us all "hypocrites". I agree with you ("All weapons should be destroyed in a set time period") and this is a major failing of the NPT, as is the fact that many nations including India are defined as non-weapons states. Yes, arms reduction is not disarmament.
A Nuclear Weapons Convention is, however, very achievable and thus seen as part of the process.
A NWC would
- Define terms
- Outline a series of 5 phases for elimination of nuclear weapons beginning with de-alert status
- Create rules for undestanding prohibition
- Establish a schedule for reducing the threat via dismantlement
- Outline patterns of behaviour & cooperation
- Establish verification measures.

Also, we all can boycott the many common name companies which design, build, test, store, maintain and fuel such weapons & delivery systems - and tell them so.

http://www.icanw.org
http://www.votenuclearfree.net

Aside from the vague undercurrent of racism through the article, there are a number of problems within it.

First of all, the writer acknowledges that India’s domestic Uranium is too limited to produce weapons AND operate civilian reactor, yet doesn’t seem to realize that by importing Uranium, Australia would be assisting in freeing up the limited domestic supplies for non-peaceful purposes.

Secondly, those who argue that the NPT is irrelevant create a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you continue to disregard it and flout its rules then of course it will be irrelevant and achieve nothing. By selling uranium to India the government is actively undermining the NPT and non-proliferation more generally. The NPT did not have any sanctions, but it contained the bargain, that if a state agrees to abstain from obtaining nuclear weapons, then they can have access to nuclear technology and materials, for strictly peaceful purposes. Anyone see the link here?

The author also argues that because the NPT is inherently unequal, and provisions about permanent disarmament of the permanent five are not going to happen, then it is pointless. The NPT is designed to limit the number of states that possess the bomb, would the wuthor really prefer a world with no NPT, and 20 or 50 nuclear states?

The author readily criticizes Pakistan, but makes no acknowledgement of the links between India and Pakistan’s nuclear programs. By legitimizing Indian nuclear weapons, you are effectively ensuring the Pakistani program also continues, as Pakistan possesses a nuclear arsenal in response in India. I doubt the Author would be so overjoyed about propping up and sustaining the Pakistani nuclear program, but that’s effectively what this deal will do.

The articles double standards are readily apparent, as the praise relished upon India is unfounded, especially when you consider that much like North Korea, India also suffers huge amounts of Poverty. Maybe a cut in nuclear program…

Actually India's Uranium reserves are too small for its massive electrical power needs period.
There is no choice between bombs and electricity. It simply doesn't have enough for electricty.
It does however have far more than it would ever need for bombs.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf

http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

Look up the estimates done by Arun Sharma on the amount of Uranium mined in India and that required for electrical production. There is an awful lot of missing yellowcake there. It could only have disappeared as low burnup fuel (weapons grade production) in approximately 1/8 of the cores of several CANDU reactors. India has far more weapons grade Plutonium than previously estimated.
Its stockpile of unsafeguarded reactor grade Pu is also huge - enough for thousands of nuclear weapons if it choose to build them.

What it lacks is Uranium for electricty.
The choice isn't bomb or electricity. It is coal or uranium.

India will either use imported Uranium or burn several million tons more coal every year to produce electricity.

John, where are India's plans to phase out coal power plants?
You give a false choice. Why? Because military and mining interests drive the nuclear industry, NOT nuclear power or the trojan horse of it being a solution to greenhouse gases.
At least by prohibiting uranium sales to India we could encourage it to use its existing reserves for domestic use, perhaps even to decommission its bombs for power reactor fuel (which it wont do, hence demonstrating the lack of a dire need for N power and my above statement) and Australia could stand to exert considerable pressure for India to at least ratify the CTBT and reduce escalated deals between Pakistan and China.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

Phase out?

India is building "ultra-mega" coal fired plants, using coal from Indonesia and Australia.

All the fissile material in India's arsenal won't power its nuclear plants for very long. You're not dealing with a Soviet sized arsenal.

Even if bombs vs electricity was an option, India would just build bombs and use its massive deposits of high sulphur coal for electricity.

As long as China possesses nuclear weapons (and has territorial claims on parts of India), India will also possess nuclear arms.

So this is all about weapons then and not about a "need' for nuclear energy. Thankyou for helping prove my point.
And the issue must then be reframed on that basis - military and mining.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

Some figures:
India has 3,300 MW of installed nuclear electrical capacity.
It wants to add 20,000 MW of nuclear.
Its proven Uranium ore reserves will support only 10,000 megawatts.

At present India gets 54% of power from coal, 34% from oil+gas, 3% from nuclear, 6% from hydro, 1% from wind + biomass, 2% from solar.
It hopes to get 10% from solar in 5 years.

Under its 11th 5 year plan it wants to install 70,000 MW of capacity (all types).
India suffered a massive shortfall of 20,000 megawatts in power capacity addition in its 10th five-year plan.

There is a 20-25% power shortage in Maharashtra, 20% in Uttar Pradesh and 10-15% in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi.

Many towns and villages get 4 hours of electricity per day.

Captive power (private homes and businesses are thought to have 20,000 MW of capacity) is fueled by diesel and petrol.
Average power theft or transmission and distribution loss is more than 20%

Indian coal is particularly dirty - high sulphur with little SO2 abatement at plants. Most of its Uranium ore is of poor quality. The primary Jadugoda mine produces ore with 0.02% U. I doubt that even qualifies as ore in Australia. The waste tailings of Australian mines probably have more Uranium in them.

In spite of this India has 17 operational nuclear power reactors with 8 more under construction. India's Uranium reserves, while not capable of fueling the envisioned 20,000 MW of thermal reactor capacity, can fuel about half this figure. India's small arsenal (<150) is easily taken care of. The maximum figures suggested by retired military - 400 to 450 weapons would have no appreciable effect on the indigenous power generating capacity.
If India opted for a superpower sized arsenal (many thousands of weapons), it could do so by using about 25-30% of its proven Uranium reserves according to estimates by Ashley Tellis.