I can't agree with the author's approach to this issue. To be absolutely opposed to all nuclear weapons states and proliferation is understandable but those positions can't go searching for individual targets of opportunity without regard to balance of power. I believe Labor's recent moves are motivated by anglo alliance pressures. I also believe that it would be increasingly dangerous to do otherwise while living in a resource producing state. But that doesn't mean I believe there is anything but no good that is going to come with what has been happening in central asia, the balkans, and now the Caucases in this past decade. Russia used to be a state that relied on conventional weapon superiority. Now it must rely on nukes so it will keep nukes until geo-politics improves remarkably from its current deteriorating state. They are a resource producing state like us, they have much in common, and they don't show any sign of wanting to do anything else other than develop domestically while getting free market prices for their resources (not BP-TNK exec decided transfer prices).

I am an undecided on nuclear power, the people that have built them have certainly proved that trust is not warranted, and I fear fusion and gigantic swiss colliders even more but I can't abide stone age solutions or reductions of energy delivery by 80% by taking out fossil fuels and nuclear.