I don't think you understand human nature. People and nations want power and control and if they see someone with more of that it than they have, then they will go to great lengths to get grab it. That's the way it has always been and always will. A lot of it brought on by religious and philosophical dogma. Just read some of the Old Testament.

The only way to protect ourselves from this is to ensure a fear of retaliation. I too would love to live in a peaceful and trusting world, but only a cursory glance at history would indicate that ever since the invention of the bow and arrow, it has not been possible.

Blah, blah, blah,

Nuclear weapons bad, Blah blah,

Australia push for disarmament Blah, blah,

Same old rhetoric trotted out with no new take on the issue. Dream on Bill.

P.S. Get a life.

And ever since the invention of the bow and arrow mankind has been involved in a suicidal arms race. From bows and arrows to nuclear weapons in what 3000 years or so.

WAR
Humanitys greatest failure.

Not very good timing when we have North Korea firing missiles willy nilly. Also quite ridiculous for this author to talk about an approaching “retirement” of nuclear weapons after he has listed the countries with nuclear weapons, or the capacity to produce them.

“In the USA, Barak Obama was elected with the clearly articulated goal of reducing nuclear arsenal.”

Obama, even in his short period of office, has found quite a few things that he has had to back down on. He might be the most powerful man in the world, running the most powerful country in the world, but he has no more say in what North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, India and China do than did his predecessors. Perhaps the leaders of these countries need a good talking to by this medical practitioner!

Bill Williams, medical practitioner, claims that “abolitionists” have had “shivers down (their) spines” because our Defence White Paper suggests that “we remain dependent on the extended deterrence provided by US nuclear forces to 2030 and beyond” rather than kidding the U.S. into getting rid of these “illegal” (by whose set of laws?) and “immoral” (defence is now immoral, is it?) weapons.

Perhaps the White Paper’s recommendations come from information that defence experts, not GP’s, are privy to. Perhaps it has something to do with the forecast that 2030 is around the time that conflict in the Pacific Basin will occur.

Dr. Williams should stick to his day job. His article is an emotional, unrealistic and mischievous piece of work. His alternative to weapons of deterrence doesn’t bear thinking about.

Well spoken Bill. You nicely make the links between nuclear weapons, nuclear power and our supposed foreign policy, and you highlight the vast gap between what Labor, the Govt and Rudd say and what they do. Not to mention sanity and morality.

To the naysayers who have already spoken and those who no doubt will: the problem is not human nature, it's a system, and leaders, who appeal to the worst in human nature, rather than the best. If we just say it can't be done, we'll be right. When powerful people appeal to our best, people like Lincoln, Ghandi, Mandela and (perhaps) Obama, amazing things can happen.

Bill's third last para about China is spot on.

Bill's other paras are sadly ludicrous. One day the US will actually abandon Australia - removing the umbrella. We will need to build our own nuclear weapons. But, that aside, Bill's Luddite attitude to nuclear power would us make us energy anorexics starving ourselves of nuclear energy from the uranium available in our own country.

Concerning:

"A world free of nuclear weapons will be more readily achieved and sustained in a world in which nuclear power generation is phased out."

Phasing out nuclear power is a commendable aim if you support the only base load alternatives for power stations ie. coal, oil and gas. Oh yes there may be carbon capture - putting deadly gas undergound - in 20 years. Give me tiny quantities of less dangerous nuclear waste any day.

I'm sure the people of France 60% + dependent on nuclear electricity would love to have the only viable alternatives that spew greenhouse gases. Either that or their cloudy Northern European winter could support solar energy or perhaps their small, overcrowded, areas between cities could support noisy wind turbine plantations for sporadic gusts.

Get real Bill. Your purist zeal forgets and distracts how bad things were even before 1945. Take Peaceful 1944 - 40 million were already dead in that World War - due to conventional weapons and poison gas...

Pete

I am sure that Dr. Williams means well but statements such as "Even if China abides by the bilateral safeguards agreements, our uranium will conveniently free-up domestic supplies for weapons production" do indicate an almost incredible naivety on his part.

I doubt that China would worry too much if Australia heroically decided to ban uranium exports. I am sure it could get all it needs from client states in Africa such as Namibia and Niger which also have very large uranium reserves and are undoubtedly less worried about "bilateral safeguards agreements"

This reminds me of the idea that was seriously put forward by the Greens some years ago that Australia should phase out its coal exports because China was burning it and producing greenhouse gas. What the purveyors of this particular idea apparently didn't know (or perhaps chose to ignore) was that China has larger coal reserves than Australia and would import a negligible amount from us.

Well put Bill. Nuclear weapons threaten all humanity - they are a 'defence' only in so far as their use threatens annihilation, the M.A.D. principle. Advocates really need a reality check if they feel this arrangement provides security. The US military hawk and Defence Secretary, Robert McNamara who saw many military mistakes in his time claim thousands of lives, argued nuclear weapons did not allow similar mistakes when the same human fallibilities would claim entire nations and perhaps humanity. We came close to nuclear war during the Cuban missiles crisis, and again in 1983 - both averted due to luck, not human cleverness. The link with nuclear power is clear - the same technology that enriches uranium to fuel these reactors can enrich it to construct bombs - that's how India achieved its nuclear capability (civilian nuclear technology was given to it by the USA as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' program) and in turn spurred Pakistan's program (stolen from a Dutch civilian nuclear program by their nuclear father and nuclear criminal A. Q. Khan who then onsold it to North Korea, Iran and Libya and others. Increasing reliance on nuclear power increases nuclear weapons proliferation. Are we still feeling secure?