Should Australia withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is nothing but paper. We could quite legally withdraw from it by simply giving 3 months notice. As it stands right now we are totally reliant upon America's nuclear arsenal for protection. This means that our national defence is externally sourced and if ever we should fall out with America over a difference of political opinion then we could find ourselves completely defenceless. I consider it naive to assume that America will always be in a position to protect us anyhow. Even Super Powers come and go as the relatively recent collapse of Russia demonstrated.

Nuclear Weapons are here to stay. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and utopian fantasies about disarming the world are just that... childish nonsense. Proliferation will continue either openly or disguised forever. The mere knowledge that nuclear weapons are possible makes the task already half complete for those seeking the most powerful weapons known. Weapons which ensure a sovereign nations independance and guarantee invasion an impossibility.

India and Pakistan recently had their own miniaturised version of the Cold War with exactly the same result. Mutual respect with each others new devastating military capability has forced peace talks upon the pair. After ignoring interfering do gooders like the US they resolved the problem themselves. If anything the threat of sanctions from outsiders only worsened the situation.

N.Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, China. How many more neighbours are going to nuclearise before we wake up and counter with our own equivalent defence?

What's the matter Wayne?

You were out voted and out smarted on your last rant "Nuclear Power is the Future!" so you have to start another thread in the same vein?

Talk about a bee in the bonnet!

Accent, who are you to decide what people can talk about! We have to put up with people who have conspiracy theories about 9/11, think David Hicks is a saint and comment on foreign policy when they probably do not even have a passport. I think there is little use in becoming a nuclear power, but don't appoint yourself the judge of what should be discussed!

"You were out voted and out smarted on your last rant "Nuclear Power is the Future!" so you have to start another thread in the same vein?"

The opinions of a noisy mealy mouthed minority is no reflection of true public opinion. Polls indicate that the majority of people want nuclear energy. Throwing insults simply because you have nothing of any substance to add only further weakens your stance. This is a very different topic. After posting it I discovered that it was the front page story of an independant newspaper called the Epoch Times. Strategists are indeed considering nuclear weapons now for Australia in the face of N.Korea's new nuclear status. Not for the first time either.

If Japan declares it will go nuclear at some point then I think we will have little choice but to follow suit.

Wayne,

I’m sure you can refer us to the polls indicating that the majority of people want nuclear energy.

Why haven’t you done so on this occasion? You seem to know all about the subject, so it should be no trouble for you to produce the polls, or at least tell us where we can find them.

Matt, if you read most of what our Wayne says in his previous topic you’d have to conclude there a few bats loose in his belfry. Starting a new topic on the same note he left the previous one may be ‘live to fight another day’, but it appears more like cut and run then start again.

When are you guys going to get over 9/11?
Just because a handful of religious nutters committed a stupid, criminal act it's not the end of the world.
Some 20,000 people die of hunger and disease every day, largely because their governments are so indebted to western corporations that they have to grow cash crops, raze their forests and rip minerals from their soil, just to pay the interest.
That is real terrorism, day in, day out.
Of course I could mention Chile, Greece, Guatemala, and the terrorist thugs known as the Contras or ‘freedom fighters’ by Ronnie Reagan. Compared to the cold-blooded torture, murder and terror committed by ‘the good guys’ 9/11 was a surgical strike.

David Hicks is no saint, just another stupid mug who’s been duped by superstition and acted with impetuosity of youth.
That he is locked up in a quasi-concentration camp rather than treated as a prisoner of war is a crime. Everyone who claims to represent ‘freedom and democracy’ should be deeply ashamed, especially when trigger-happy cowboys are shooting civilians in Bagdad or blasting them with missiles in Gaza.

Only when we remove the stain of hypocrisy from our own rhetoric will we have any chance of fighting terrorism. We are losing the battle for hearts and minds.

And, to remain on topic, no amount of nuclear arsenal is going to protect anyone when the very core of our society is rotten.
The only answer to global conflict is tolerance, education and wisdom, three elements sorely missing in the international debate.

And by the way I have a passport, enjoyed over 50 years of international travel and have lived in several countries.

By the way, rightthinker, that is the best oxymoron I’ve heard this week.

Dear Accent,

I don’t think the answer to war is tolerance, wisdom, or education unless you mean by education that people are educated to realize that wars aren’t about intolerance so you wont solve them by being tolerant.

All wars are over the land and territorial resources.

Racism is only a symptom of the deeper under lying territorial hostility that exists between tribes. We are programmed to ensure the survival of our biological offspring and we are not biologically related to people in other tribes and that is why tolerance wont stop war only tribal intermarriage on a wide scale will.

The old Kings instinctively understood this when they married their children off to children of other Kings . It was often used to avert territorial warfare between the Kings of differing kingdoms or countries.
We need to understand like the old Kings did that we need biological connection to avoid war and serious conflict between the different ethnic(tribal )groups in this country.

The territorial instinct is a survival instinct just like the sexual instinct and just as you cant take the sexual instinct out of mankind you cannot take the territorial hostility(racism) out of mankind. It is always simmering just below the surface. You wont educate it, tolerate it or wisdom it away

Ah good no you accent. Agreed re: 9/11, agreed re: “that is real terrorism, day in, day out”, agreed re: Hicks, agreed re: “Only when we remove the stain of hypocrisy from our own rhetoric will we have any chance of fighting terrorism”

Matt, with respect, I don’t think accent was appointing himself a judge of what should be discussed any more than you were.

But I do admire Wayne’s tenacity. And I grapple with the issue of nuclear power or the development of a nuclear defence capability, as I have expressed previously on his threads.

Accent
Boy dont let us stop you. Feel free to jump right on the next plane and go hold Davids hand. Just how would you know what he was thinking or doing over there ?
If you get picked up in war then your a prisoner of war.
All I am saying is I just popped into this thread and the one thing that struck me was your agression towards Wayne.

If there were two people holding the button to these weapons i would certainly hope one of them was not you.

Fair Go Man no need to be so agro at everybody.
People will consider far more of your points if you dont come on like Hitler.
Other than that I am sure you are a very nice person.
David Hicks would like you anyway.
I tell you what i didnt agree with. Some fool suggesting his father for Dad of the year.
There you go Wayne that should liven up your thread. Just thank old Ned,
cheers Mat

"I’m sure you can refer us to the polls indicating that the majority of people want nuclear energy."

Poll backs nuclear increase
74% of respondents: Strong support for additional power plants
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=b054eedc-3164-4d34-9101-5cfc61d95123

Australian polls are hard to locate but according to http://www.antinuclearaustralia.com the support in an smh poll was 60% in favour.

I'll dig up some more later.

Here we go. Australian poll. 47% for nuclear. 40% against.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/newspoll.html

More Australians approve (49%) than disapprove (37%) the introduction of nuclear power plants to replace coal, oil and gas power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while 14% can’t say, a special Morgan Poll conducted after Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the Australian uranium industry finds.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4032/

Thanks for disrailing a topic about nuclear weapons Accent. You accuse me of being crazy when clearly you can't even see a difference between commercial reactors and nuclear warheads. Stop trolling. It only makes you look an idiot.

Almost half of Australians have given nuclear power plants the thumbs up as a replacement for coal, oil and gas power plants, a poll shows.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=104053

I'm on an annoying 20 minute only library computer. I'll collect some more for you later.

So "more than half of the poll voters gave nuclear power the thumbs up".
I'm sure that a few centuries ago, more than half of those polled would give "the earth is flat" the thumbs up. It doesn't make nuclear power right or sensible. The fact that close to half give it the thumbs down should be a consideration, especially in the light of the hype in the media and the uranium selling lobby in favour of nuclear power.
Strangely, we hear nothing in the media about the uporoar in the U.K, where nobody wants to have the nuclear wastes, and so industry will not invest in new nuclear power unless the government (i.e. the taxpayer )commits to coping with the wastes. And nothing about the uproar in the U.S where they can’t store the wastes either.
I suggest that, in the light of the nuclear weapons frenzy – the only possibly safe countries will be those who don’t have nuclear weapons - given the new doctrine of pre-emptive strike. Christina Macpherson www.antinculearaustralia.com

Thankyou, Wayne. Those in your first post concern Canada – not of much interest to Australians, and the other site, partly in French, seems to indicate an opposition to nuclear power.

In you second post: 47% for 40% against, 13% presumably undecided. Not much in it, and we all know how fickle people are, and how the margins for error in polling are notoriously unreliable.

The Roy Morgan looks better, but were respondents told of near-ready technology which can knock all of the baddies out of coal? I notice that 87% of respondents are still concerned about the disposal of waste. Seems that there could be a lot of qualifications in their “yeses”.

We usual never find out what questions are actually asked, and how they are asked with polls.

Don’t look for any more on my behalf, Wayne. You have given me enough to show that what some politicians say (not that they really believe it, of course, especially if the polls are against them)- that the only important poll is the one at an election is true. I would put good money on the likelihood of the ‘ayes’ and ‘nays’ changing their minds as many times as they were asked. That’s why governments change the rules between elections.

Top marks for getting back, though. I admire your tenacity in the various subjects you are interested in.

"Thankyou, Wayne."
My pleasure Leigh.

"In you second post: 47% for 40% against, 13% presumably undecided. Not much in it,"
If that was an election result it would be called a landslide victory and we both know you singled out the least favourable one there. LOL.

"and we all know how fickle people are,"
And we all know thats the favourite answer given by those who don't like a poll result.

"and how the margins for error in polling are notoriously unreliable."
thats the second favourite response.

"The Roy Morgan looks better,"
Approve of nuclear (49%)
Disapprove of nuclear (37%)

Sure does!

"but were respondents told of near-ready technology which can knock all of the baddies out of coal?"
Not all. Cleaner isn't clean. Were they told that recycling waste gets rid of it? Were they told that nuclear desalination could help solve the water crisis?

"I notice that 87% of respondents are still concerned about the disposal of waste."
That's right. Imagine how much support will be boosted when they realise the waste can be recycled.

"We usual never find out what questions are actually asked, and how they are asked with polls."
Its all on the page.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4032/

"Don’t look for any more on my behalf, Wayne."
Are you sure? It's no trouble.

"Top marks for getting back, though. I admire your tenacity in the various subjects you are interested in."
We are all tenacious at those various subjects we are interested in. The ones we find boring we only put up with. Either because its part of some mundane job.

I realise polls aren't perfect and can't be relied on. Most of the public are ignorant of most topics. I've never met anyone who knew everything about everything. Indeed poll results often conflict in the most illogical way because while people seem to know what they want they often don't understand the full ramifications of a certain choice.

That's the reason why we have Governments. Atleast it's supposed to be.

.