Why would you think that the Lucas Heights reactor never made sense steven? It wasn't built for just producing power you know. You might be surprised at how many applications the isotopes produced at that facility are used for. There are good logistical reasons for making them here.

We don't need nuclear weapons, they'd only end up forgotten under the old Holden ute in some bogans front yard.

Bugsy,

The production of isotopes was the rationale given for the new Lucas Heights reactor. It never made economic sense because such isotopes are freely available on world markets. Buying them would most likely have been cheaper than building a reactor. I do not see why purchasing isotopes should pose any particular logistical problem.

You wrote:

"We don't need nuclear weapons..."

As I thought I made clear in my previous post, I agree. We do NOT need nuclear weapons NOW.

Repeat: NOW

For the future, who knows?

Do you?

I suggest it would be prudent to retain the CAPACITY to initiate a nuclear weapons development program should we start to see a deterioration of the security situation in our neck of the woods. Since the relative power of our main ally, the USA, seems set to wane this could happen though probably not for a long time.

Realistically I do not see us needing to start on that track for many years if at all.

But I'd still like to have the ace in the hole – being the capacity to initiate such a program – just in case

In for a penny in for a pound, I agree with hasbeen here.
Yes I am allergic to the bloke but truth is still worth while.
Nice and cuddly thoughts will not save us.
God, good will, thoughts about the greatness of mankind will get us no place.
MAD worked and can continue, while we await evolution to change mans willing ness to hate and kill each other.
I think we have it now, I truly do, if not why not?
Power , now lets forget the green frog approach, IF we both sell uranium and build nuclear power stations, we will do more for climate change, not just here, but world wide, [sorry for stealing a great mans words but they fit]NO!the great man is not Abbott!he is the opposite to that.
Gert by sea? yep true, and is truth of value?
If we had no border protection policy, no defense force, rafts small boats, big ones would over run us in just a few years guns not needed.
Now for some, intent on not seeing truth have branded myself red neck.
Not true realist yes, caring left of center still, but realist too.

Steven,

I'm sorry, we fundamentally disagree here.

I don't believe that you are factoring in enough factors into your assessment.

- Going down the nuke bomb route would blow away the international nuclear arms limitation treaties.
- add to pressure for a nuke arms race in the Asian area.
- Irritate China no end (they have the bombs)
- The cost would be mind blowing, an expensive white elephant we don't need, especially given the more pressing need for GW (with or without Anthropomorphic in put)mitigation expenditure.
- I think Indonesia will have its hands full with GW anyway.
- I don't think it would achieve anything positive in the region.
- China's response wouldn't be benign, trade etc. They're not happy with us being part of the US nuke shield. Our puny nuke ambitions would prove to be counter productive.
- Likewise if Indonesia etc tried to go nuke China with its standing military forces including multiple bombs and rockets to boot response would be less than tolerant.
- China would see Indonesia's nuke ambitions as a threat to their resources.

In short, it would be pointless, 1/2 dozen well aimed nukes would inhibit the US and decimate Australia. To me it's a bit like throwing stones at Israeli tanks, not a lot of point and certainly counter productive.

Hasbeen and ilk's strategic thinking (?)is, IMHO, ego/arrogance motivated and thinking of a bygone era.

Ok steven, now you're the humorless one. Quoting half a joke isn't even half as funny. Why so serious?

You and I differ on the logistics, as I understand many of the issues relating to isotopes used in research and medicine. Many isotopes used have a half-life of two weeks or less. While this increases their hazard/risk level, this also restricts them from being usefully transported by sea. Thus, with heavy radiation shielding and tightly sealed almost indestructible packaging, the cost of regularly shipping them by air immediately after they are made starts to climb. Add to this the saftey concerns of such activity as well as being at the mercy of international markets and currency exchange. As you say, the cost of importing them NOW may be cheaper, but wouldn't you like to ensure regular supply?

You can fantatasize all you want about it being about retaining the capacity for a weapons program, but I know where that idea originates- inside your own head.

Nuclear weapons. Do we need them in Australia? I don't think so. MAD worked. It scared the s#!t out of everyone. That's why we would not like to see rogue stateds like Iran getting them because they are the type of people that would use them.

Lucas Heights is very old Tech. & it's about time Australia had an upgrade to the latest Tech. The research that can be done there must just about be exahausted. Research into Nuclear Fusion is a good thing, not for weapons, but, for Alternate Energy Sources.

With the mining of Uranium & selling it overseas. I'm in favour. Provided we get back all the spent fuel rods for storage in Australia. For one, if we have control of them research into storage can be conducted, the whereabouts of all the potential sources of weapons grade material is known & safe. & who knows maybe, one day, scientists may figure a peaceful way to reuse the spent fuel rods & produce more alternate energy from them. As we will own it, we will reap the profit.