trackwhack
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3,757
- Likes
- 2,590
Of course we do!We don't have any such territory. The French tested in their colonies.
In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.
Of course we do!We don't have any such territory. The French tested in their colonies.
Our fishermen fish in these waters. It would be a bad idea to spread radiation here. It will also raise protests from neighbouring countries.Of course we do!
In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.
1) our possessions in both seas are inhabited.Of course we do!
In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea.
Once we have invested billions in nuclear power we are essentially hostage to the West. If we test then our nuclear plants freeze. Who do you think will suffer more if we reach our stated ambition of 25% power from nuclear, of which more than 50% will be from uranium fueled PWR's and PHWR's. If we test and fuel is banned, our economy will go into deep freeze. Please think through what you are saying. This is precisely the reason that many scientists did not want to go through with the deal and many others advocated that we use the window before the deal to test before signing.1) our possessions in both seas are inhabited.
2) we don't. Sed to test right now. Right now we need the tech, the uranium, the money invested in power plants. Once the west has billions invested and a lot riding on India while their own economies are a mess and also a couple of other countries too might have gone nuclear which will mean NPT loses all credibility, then if we need to we can test. By then we will be equal to the US economy and no one sanctions such a big economy. Knowing when to play the right card is the key in such games.
Temporary effect. Can be easily compensated.Our fishermen fish in these waters. It would be a bad idea to spread radiation here. It will also raise protests from neighbouring countries.
Please search - Barack Obama Amendment. Per the 123 agreement and the deal with the NSG, we get only enough fuel that justifies our present need to run the reactors for a short time frame. This was done to ensure India does not build a strategic reserve. So no in 15 years, even if we managed to siphon off enough from our purchases we will have enough reserves to power our reactors for a 12 month period max. Wrong again.India is building strategic reserve of uranium. 15 years down the line, the west will not be able to sanction India.
Using imported fuel frees our own mines to be made as reserve.Please search - Barack Obama Amendment. Per the 123 agreement and the deal with the NSG, we get only enough fuel that justifies our present need to run the reactors for a short time frame. This was done to ensure India does not build a strategic reserve. So no in 15 years, even if we managed to siphon off enough from our purchases we will have enough reserves to power our reactors for a 12 month period max. Wrong again.
A thermonuclear device needs a fission device to trigger the chain reaction and there would be more fission reactions as the bomb explodes. Else it is a dud.Totally disagree,
for one there are other ways to show australia that we dont need uranium for bombs. Explode a themonuke at the southern most tip of the indian ocean. you dont need uranium (or at least too much of it) for that. Then publicly state in a press conference that australia's apprehensions are misplaced as India's nuclear weapons program is largely based on thermonuclear devices and not fission devices. Also state that we strongly believe that australias decisions are driven by chinese money to ensure india's economic development is undercut through cheap tactics like these. This would have convinced them and Mr Rudd would sound like a blabbering fool if he tried to oppose it.
Should Australia sell uranium to India?Bruce Arnold, Lecturer in Law, University of Canberra
Life would be so convenient if we could pick and choose which laws to obey. Given Australia's pretensions to leadership in our region and our stated respect for international law we cannot blithely disregard international agreements such as the NPT simply because we can make a quick buck or because a trading partner is prepared to engage in global street theatre.
India wants to be treated as a major member of the international community. Membership involves responsibilities, not just recurrent selective claims of victimhood. Irrespective of debates about whether nuclear power is 'green', whether nuclear will allow India to lift a hundred million people out of poverty (and reliance on use of dried cow dung as fuel in poorly ventilated huts), and whether use of uranium will benefit the environment and public health by reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations, we should not be endorsing a 'pick & choose' approach to international law.
Indulging India's refusal to sign up to restrictions on nuclear proliferation is patronising. It makes a mockery of the notion of international law. Australia might well operate on the basis of a hardheaded realpolitik, deciding not to posture about human rights and the wide range of agreements that make up international law.
An explicit commitment to realism – policymaking driven only by considerations of power and national advantage – might be advantageous merely because it would force Australian voters to grapple with some hard decisions. As things stand we are however committed to a rule of law, rather than the rule of the cash register (a cash register that ultimately doesn't result in large-scale employment or enhancement of social capital). If we take law seriously, want to be taken seriously as a nation and want other nations to take law seriously – something that is in our long-term interest – we cannot ignore the NPT. Prime Minister Gillard should not succumb to short term expediency. She'll gain more credibility as a conviction politician and as a national leader if makes the uranium sale conditional on adherence to the NPT.
Yusuf, all the ore reserves we have can run 40,000 MW for one year or 4000 MW (our current installed capacity) for 10 years. In 20 years our installed capacity is going to be in excess of 50,000 MW, which is why I said there is no way we can build strategic reserves for more than 12 months. If we explode a bomb, our reactors stop working.Using imported fuel frees our own mines to be made as reserve.
I realize that, which is why stating that our arsenel is primarily fusion bombs in effect states that we dont need any more uranium to convert to plutonium and our existing stocks are adequate.A thermonuclear device needs a fission device to trigger the chain reaction and there would be more fission reactions as the bomb explodes. Else it is a dud.
The fission device will carry the Plutonium we need.
I doubt the Uranium we will get from Australia will be used in bomb making. We can always use Russian and Kazakh rocks.
... and NPT is just about that, pick & choose between Nuclear haves and have nots. If the Aussies were so egalitarian, let them root for a non-discriminatory treaty because going by the author's own logic, NPT is indeed pick & choose.Sigh, the world is full of hypocrisy.we should not be endorsing a 'pick & choose' approach to international law.
To be expected... he was ousted from his prime-ministership by his own party, and besides, has a distinct pro-China attitude... I believe he even has Chinese/vietnamese blood in him/in his extended family.