atom1,

you sound and act like a twit. you are a person of less than modest intelligence. Listen to the rocket scientists in Australia and India. Look at John Frums's brilliant arguments. So far they have gone over your head. All you do is post links to outside sites, because u cannot formulate your own arguments. And your posts just repeat the same old tired mantras. Say something new, She-man !

Australia is a democracy and we have decided to sell Uranium. The more you whine, the more Uranuim we will sell.

I have done enough work for peace. But looking at your hate filled posts, I will now switch over to working for the pro-war hawks - at least they give respect to their own folks, unlike the anti-nuke nitwits. (BTW, the reason people join militant Islam is because they crave respect from their own organisation.) By demeaning others, you are not going to change their minds, but only make them more steely resolved.

I challenge you to a telephone debate on selling Uranium to India. I will beat you hollow. If you have guts, give me your number. And we can record the debate. I doubt though that u will take up this challenge.

ecorin,

Stop taking the testosterone shots. Have a Bex and good lie down instead! Your macho posturing and aggressive language impresses no one.

Heh, heh, heh.....

The very fact that I got noticed and a response (even tho' negative) means I was successful. The idea is to force a public debate and to sell more Uranium, lots more. Long live Australia.

Expecting more replies......

Heh, heh, heh....

> It contravenes the Treaty of Raratonga

No it does not. From Article 4 of said treaty:
"Each Party undertakes .. not to provide .. special fissionable material to any non-nuclear-weapon State unless subject to the safeguards required by Article 111.1 of the NPT"

NPT Article III.I refers to "non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty"

Now, India is NOT a state party to the NPT. It never signed it.

From the testimony of Condi Rice to the US Senate:

"Article III(2) establishes the basis under which NPT parties may engage in nuclear cooperation with safeguarded facilities in countries that are not parties and do not have full-scope safeguards"

Note the "not parties" bit.

She continues:

"This conclusion is also supported by the practice of the parties to the NPT. The U.S. and Canada engaged in nuclear cooperation with India before and after the NPT entered into force. The supply of fuel under facility-specific (INFCIRC/66) safeguards agreements was understood to satisfy our obligations under the NPT. Even after India’s 1974 detonation, fuel was provided to India’s safeguarded Tarapur reactors by the United States, France, and Russia."

"nothing in the NPT, its negotiating history, or the practice of the parties supports the notion that fuel supply to safeguarded reactors for peaceful purposes could be construed as “assisting in the manufacture of nuclear weapons” for purposes of Article I. "

"nuclear cooperation under safeguards does not fundamentally differ from other forms of energy cooperation (e.g., oil supply, clean coal technology, alternative fuels). All such energy assistance would arguably relieve India of its reliance on domestic uranium for energy production. Yet such energy assistance clearly could not be viewed as assisting India in the manufacture of nuclear weapons."

Ashley Tellis demolishes the notion that supplying India with Uranium will free up domestic supply for weapons.

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

Read the part about low burnup of a portion of the CANDU core and the amount of material it would require

Ecotrin you don't know me at all, a phone debate between us may satisfy your ego, nothing more, and the "outside" links I supplied are non-vested interest, referenced facts, so read the Forum rules and stick to the issue, as you only look foolish.

You say "Australia is a democracy and we have decided to sell Uranium", yet polls on this issue have consistently shown otherwise.

28/3/06 Should Aust export uranium to China?
nine msn: 64% (36,938 votes) No
Herald Sun 79.8% No

Should Aust export uranium to India?
The Age: 53% No
ABC: 84% No

14/5/06 Do you support uranium leasing deals?
The Age: 67% No

15/5/06
Should Aust accept N-waste from future customers?
nine msn: 85% (50,822 votes) No

22/5/06 Is Aust ready for nuclear power?
The Age: 57% (2083 votes) No

30/5/06 Newspoll:
66% of Australians oppose new uranium mines and 78% of ALP voters are opposed to new mines or uranium mining altogether.

5/6/06 Do you support new N reactors?
Herald Sun:
65.3% No
34.7% Yes

Would you support a nuclear reactor near you?
Yahoo:
66% (3,185 votes) No
31% (1,485 votes) yes

29/12/06
Should Australia use nuclear power to generate electricity?
SMH:
Yes, it's cleaner than coal - 46%
No, it's too risky - 54% (Total Votes: 8,176)

Ecotrin: "The more you whine, the more Uranuim we will sell".

Gee, I had no idea it was all so dependent on me.

John, without having read the full text of the Treaty of Raratonga (Pacific Nuclear Free Zones), Fran Kelly's Radio National program featured an interview with Leonard Spector - Deputy Director, James Martin Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey Institute for International Studies, California.
He said, among other things, that the Howard Government's decision to sell Australian uranium to India would breach the Treaty of Rarotonga. The interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2007/2006382.htm

and Australia is bound to uphold treaties it has ratified under the Article XVIII of the Vienna Convention on Treaties:
http://www.oas.org/legal/english/docs/Vienna%20Convention%20Treaties.htm

http://www.votenuclearfree.net