I understand that the latest generation of nuclear power reactors are capable of utilising both U238 and U235 and do not have the ability to produce Plutonium.
There is also very little long half life waste produced so waste is no longer a serious problem.
These reators will solve the carbon fuel supply and pollution problems. They are capable of extending nuclear fuel reserves such that human energy needs could be met from nuclear sources for about 50000 years.
Clean coal and carbon dioxide sequestration are proposed technologies with little hope of success. Why are we wasting effort researching them?

Another fluff piece by Sue, using vague emotions to justify a flawed policy.

The cost of developing weapons grade fissile material is 99.9% the refining of the uranium not buying it.

There is sufficient low extraction cost uranium in present mines to supply current demands for 200 years, the boycotting of any country will simply mean that they buy it else where at a slightly higher price.

As the cost cost of uranium is a tiny fraction of the cost of generation, this will have absolutely zero impact on either the production of power or weapons, but put a lot of Australians out of work.

What next? Boycott iron ore sales because a tiny fraction is used to build tanks? It is just as stupid an idea.

The problem with debate on this issue is that there are really two issues. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Is it possible to debate first whether or not we want nuclear weapons as a separate issue? Do we want nuclear weapons? If the answer is yes may I suggest you visit Hiroshima on August 6 and see if you change your mind.
Then comes the question of power. We are probably at a stage where we know enough to develop safe nuclear power, and this could be the way go in the future. If it is than how do we achieve this without having nuclear weapons as a by-product?
If the choice comes down to both or neither my vote would be for neither. Instead of the continuous knocking and insults that is a feature of OLO how about ideas and suggestions on how to get rid of nuclear weapons without limiting our options on nuclear energy?

Daviy, Do we want nuclear weapons? If the answer is No may I suggest you visit Arlington Cemetery in Washington DC, USA, on any day you like and see if you change your mind. I'm not trying to be adversarial, just presenting a different opinion you understand.

My point is that Arlington is for fallen US soldiers, it is absolutley huge and vast, it would be over twice as big if the Atomic bombs had not stopped the Pacific War in 1945, and the US had to invade.

Yes, there was an attempt at surrender so another poster mentions, it was not unconditional, why should the allies have accepted anything less. Yes of course the Japanese are now horrified by the Atomic Bomb, like they were not at the time horrified by the way they dealt with everyone else. It was a hard lesson, but it appears to have been learned. (some people don't learn you know and repeat their errors, e.g. Germany was in 2 world wars)

I understand the horror of a bomb that could do so much so fast, and also understand the horror of weeks or months of hand to hand urban combat that would have achieved the same result, with possibly ten times as many dead and many more lives ruined.

RPG is correct.

More than 1 million Japanese were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo and Kyoto in the two months preceeding Hiroshima.

The estimated casualties of the imminent invasion would have been in the millions.

The bomb was the lesser of 2 evils.

The issue is emotive and is similar to the fear of planes crashing or shark attacks when the real dangers are car crashes or drowning.

It is perception rather than reality.

rpg

The war could have ended eight days earlier if the Americans had accepted the Japanese surrender on the 29th of July. Two things stood in the way. The Americans wanted to test their bombs and Russia wanted to go through the motions of declaring war on Japan before Japan surrendered.
Saving allied lives was an excuse to justify the un-justifiable.
Even this is of no consequence because it belongs to a past generation. The question is 'Do we want it?' This is now, and now is our responsibility. Are we to continue the sins of our fathers?
Shadow Minister. Kyoto was spared convention and nuclear attack because the Americans wanted to have it as their administration centre. Nuclear weapons perception rather than reality?