nuclear bomb proliferation Australia
(Image: Getty)

Yesterday Crikey asked how possible a future nuclear-armed Australia would be. While the prospect was less unrealistic than many originally thought, readers let us know, emphatically, that nuclear weapons would bring nothing but greater danger to the country and the world. Elsewhere, readers joined Inq as it looked into the ramifications of Australian mining operations in Africa, and discussed the prospect of an Indigenous voice to parliament.

On Australian nukes

Dr Sue Wareham, president of Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) writes: The notion of Australia developing nuclear weapons is absurd. It would encourage other nations to break the taboo against these weapons and to also consider getting some. A world with more nuclear armed states would be even more dangerous than our current unstable situation. Sooner or later the weapons would be used, bringing catastrophe that could destroy civilisation as we know it. Weapons of mass destruction don’t constitute a defence policy but simply a preparedness to inflict terror.

Ian Lowe writes: The more countries have nuclear weapons, the more likely it becomes that a leader somewhere will be desperate enough — or mad enough — to use them, with unthinkable consequences. Those countries who had nuclear weapons when the non-proliferation treaty was signed have done nothing significant to disarm. We are now complicit in the nuclear arms race by selling uranium, basically to anyone who is willing to pay for it. That is bad enough, but developing our own weapons would be a much worse contribution to an increasingly unstable world.

On Australia’s mining in Africa

Richard Shortt writes: I’m sure the justifications are flowing freely, like: “if we don’t, someone else will”, or “we’re helping the people that need investment”. But at the end of the day the sad truth remains that Africa and Africans continue to suffer at the hands of outside interests. Those living in the “lucky” countries of the world continue to fear and push back against the brave souls who flee repression, corruption and greed. All the while happily investing in the latest stock market sensation, without a passing thought for who is being harmed by their money.

Peter Wileman writes: Morals go out of the window when it comes to extracting minerals or oil, as demonstrated in Timor-Leste.

On an Indigenous voice to parliament

Jackson Harding writes: Hardly surprising that the usual right wing reactionaries from the fringes of the Liberal party, along with the hayseeds in their junior coalition partner are preparing to die in a ditch to prevent this. Let’s face it, the Nats would rather see sheep and cattle get the vote before any sort of Indigenous voice.

Mark e Smith writes: What happened to the tried and true treaty? What happened to ATSIC and why couldn’t it have been rescued and reformed instead of cynically prodding its destruction? What is being proposed in this instance that will grab and inspire the collective imagination and support ? My best wishes to Mr Wyatt even if he is a Lib. You’ll need it mate.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.

Peter Fray

SALE EXTENDED: Save 50% on a year of Crikey

They weren’t bluffing. Facebook flicked the switch and Australia woke up to a newsfeed without news.

So where do you come to understand and talk about the news now? Come to our place.

Get a year of Crikey for just $99 — usually $199 — when you subscribe today with the promocode DONTGETZUCKED.

Hurry, offer ends midnight Tuesday.

Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey