Frankly, you give a weak argument. You don't even consider the new nuclear technologies that lessen the threat of the hijacking of nuclear fuel or byproducts. You guys just hark back to the bad ol' days of nuclear energy. I find your arguments absurd.

And besides, there's more danger from biological agents then nuclear dirty bombs. And then there's nano weapons technology that the Chinese are researching heavily. I find more danger from nuts like Kucinich who think that appeasement and withdrawing into some kind of sane idealistic cocoon will keep the terrorist's away.

It's like trying to eliminating crime by taking away guns from the police. The machete has killed over a million more people than any other weapon except perhaps the spear or sword, next to poor living standards.

Frankly, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. It's like trying to stop the flood after the dam has broke. We have never lived in a sane world, except in myopic idealists academia circles! If we had a sane world we would not need prisons or armed forces. Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Iran have the technology and there's no turning back. So the best approach is to take advantage of it and improve upon it, which nuclear researchers and engineers have been consistently doing. The links I provided consistently show that and the French and other countries are doing it, that the technology is sound and relatively risk free.

Perhaps in two decades there will be better technologies to replace nuclear fission but I only see them as local alternatives. When people see the negatives of so many touted free energy schemes they will realize that nuclear is the best option, the best value!

Uranium has to be enriched for WMD further than for fuel. Certain 'Breeders' are the only reactors that create more U238 or plutonium, which is why the USSR used the Light Water Carbon Moderated reactor design at Chernobyl, and it was cheap. Other than that, direct carbon fuel cells are a good alternative also. You just can't convert over to these new technologies on a politician's whim, technology does not stand still or favor one item over another, otherwise we would have super bright whale oil lanterns at Kmart.

But I do think that there should be good incentives for people to buy into more efficient products, where practical. But it boils down to intelligent choices and what you can afford. Here is one nuclear advocates choice in home efficiency:

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/dream-house.htm.

It's has very efficient technologies but I'm not sure if it can work everywhere for everyone. You can't mandate communism except by the point of a gun. And Mr Rodgers is dead also.