You bring up the "necessity" of uranium. I always wonder why? It is needed for Nuke weapons, something that the world has not used for more than 60 years and no nation expresses the desire to use. Deterrent Nukes may be necessary for now, but they already exist. (Note, really most of our Nukes are H-bombs, but even those are detonated by fission bombs that may need either uranium or plutonium). As for nuclear energy, such reactors require more than 10 years to build. So this is NOT a viable alternative energy option for dealing with global warming since we need solutions that are in effect in the next 5-10 years. Not one single nuke reactor started now would make a difference when it came to global warming in a time frame that was significant.

So nukes should be de-emphasized. Not necessarily eliminated, but de-emphasized. Anyone who pushes for a primarily Nuke option for either energy or strategic needs is being foolish. It is a minor component of EITHER our energy or military policy. I feel we need our nuke aresenal to remain a dominant power right now, but it won't in any way help us in fighting the terrorist threat that is our main strategic problem. So focusing on uranium is foolish and short sighted.