Despite your posts being woefully off-topic, I’m going to address some of your comments. First off, let me just kinda recap. You are proposing to nuke all of:

Afghanistan, Iran, possibly Syria, possibly Pakistan, and use “daisy cutters” on Palestine

All without any further provocation, other than the perceived, and in some cases verified, support of terrorists. That’s whole countries. The wholesale slaughter of everyone in them. Then you say:

We, at least, give a damn about innocent life

What about the average citizens in those countries who hate the terrorists and what they are causing just as much as you? The man or woman who’s just trying to make enough money to support his family in a regular ol’ job. The kids that are going to school and playing outside. The patients lying in hospital beds with some illness. None of them is innocent, I guess, huh? Just because they happen to live in those countries makes them our enemies. Simply by having been born there, they are our enemies and are not innocent?

You also speak of using our might to deter other countries from attacking us. Suppressing those who disagree with us. Sounds rather despotic and un-American, to me, and smacks of dictators of the past: Ghengis Khan, Vlad Tepes, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and, dare I say it, Sadam Hussein.

Speaking of Hussein, IIRC, he was an atheist and was an enemy of people like Osama Bin Laden. Yeah, he was a prig, but he was hardly buddy-buddy with Bin Laden’s crew.

Then there’s the whole macho show of force…just nuking whole sovereign countries without taking any manner of diplomatic means to address the underlying issues. Now, if I were in the government of the other countries in the world, I’d worry that the U.S. is being led by a madman. Sure, some of our enemies, real or imagined, might be cowed into submission if they had only themselves to rely on. However, the actions that you propose would probably turn even our allies against us.

Furthermore, taking on such a despotic demeanor will likely just breed more terrorists. The more people you slaughter, the more they will feel that diplomacy or even conventional warfare will not work. What is left? Guerrilla warfare, terrorism. Inevitably the “powerhouse” will collapse, and likely from within.

Finally, terrorists use violence to get their message across and to scare their targets into compliance. How are you being any different? Your suggestions merely perpetuate the cycle.

While I understand the emotions of the issue, when thought through, your suggestions only stand to make things worse in the long run.

I read these comments and despair at many of them. So many of you have missed the point it is laughable, or taken the point in some direction that has nothing to do with the original topic!

If you are able, you need to fight the woo whereever you see it for the people that are not equipped to do it themselves.

Fight the woo.

Over and out.

They die. Bin Laden dies. We win. They become dust – radioactive dust.

Any survivors get to realise they chose wrong and regtret it – tough shiite.

ICBMs incase youdon’;t already know =

Inter
Continental
Ballistic
Missiles

Pakistam lacks ‘em.
We got ‘em.

Russia has them – but would hesitate to use ‘em if we didn’t threaten them, directly.

Taking out the Terrorists who attacked us – well Russia won’t mind too much. They’ve got their own Muslim Terrorists in Chechnestan. Huff and puff as they may, the Russians will NOT die and destroy * their * country for the sake of the Iranians or Bin Laden or Palestine or wherever else. They might get angry – but they won’t attack. They dare not.

Esp. if we show we’re not too weak & gutless to hit back at our enemies with ALL the forces at our disposal,incl.the most destructive.

Make ‘em choose once and for all – are they with us or with the Terrorists?

They choose to be with us – to properly support us then we go in there with their support and kill the terrorists incl. bin Laden sheltering there. War on terror ends – in victory. We’re safe, they’re dead.

(Oh & the Israelis are safe too. At long last.This is the day after we’ve shown them we’re serious by taking out Iran, Iraq, Gaza etc ..Without putting our troops in harms way and without messing about.)

They choose to be withagainst uis – easier still w ehgo intheire without their support and with our ICBMs. They die. Bin Laden dies. We win. Theey become dust -rasdioactive dust. Any survivors get to realise they chose wrong and regtret it – tough shiite.

This should’ve happened on Sept. 12th or maybe by latest October 2001. Sadly, it didn’t.

Still there’s always President McCain to do the right thing and be a real man and not what Arnie calls a girlie man.

Its pretty simple really :

You’re on our side or your not.
You want America (& the West) to win – or you don’t. That’s all.

Liberals don’t want us to win? Then they’ll lose. You’ll see.

Saddam and Osama bin Laden both hate and seek (or inSaddam’s case sought -past tense & good riddance!) to destroy the United States of America – also known as me & you – isn’t that enough for you?

Arch nemesis’s my foot! Both were Muslims beliveing in a religion that has made itself our enemy.

@ Jadehawk :

Well when you said :

“oh and i don’t know about your geography skills, but how exactly do you propose to nuke Palestinians without taking out Israel in the process? or do you count that entire country as collateral damage?”

You’ve got a point. No I wouldn’t want to hurt the Israelis, they’ve suffered – & are suffering enough. Okay I’ll change my mind there ..

.. I’ll use these little things we’ve got called ‘Daisy-cutters’ or fuel air explosive bombs. They’r ealmostas good as nukes. One or two onGaza , one or two onthe theWest abnk and thats thePlIsreali-Palestinian issue solved. Goodbye Palestinians you choose terrorism & now you’ve lost evrything incl. your lives because of it. You’re loss – not ours!

THX for the reminder!

Jadehawk also said :

“And on nuking foreign countries… please keep in mind that Pakistan has nukes, too. and they’d usem. and so would russia if it felt THAT severely threatened. that why it’s called “mutually assured destruction”, and this is also EXACTLY why nations whom the US ignorantly lables “the axis of evil” feel like they need them. it’s their only way of assuring NOT being nuked.”

“Saddam was “on their side”? whose side would that have been?

The terrorists – & that should be enough. If people anywhere in the world support terrorism they’re making themselves our enemies. If they do that they should face the consequences. If these consequences include being nuked off the planet ..well tough shiite & good riddance to them!

Does your heart bleed for people who would not hesitate for one cold nano-second to murder you? To behead you as an unarmed prisoner or fly a jumbo jet into your workplace? If so you’re a fool – if not you should be with me!

Life itself is futile. There’s no use living. The true believers will always win in the end over us skeptics.

Well, at least I won’t have to see it.

You shouldn’t feel in any way personally responsible.

@SC

(Well actually its SR but anyhow.)

(Me “Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?”

We do observe them, but they’re not controlled collisions. We don’t know where and when they’re going to happen. Even if we did we can’t get the detectors we need to view the collisions in detail high into the atmosphere where they occur.

(me again): “The other thing is that the particles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them.”

That’s how nature does it. But that’s not how the LHC does it. The LHC uses far less energy to accelerate a small number of protons along a 27 kilometer track. It just duplicates some of the effects of these events, not the events themselves.”

Hmmm.. Maybe. I’m still not sure about the LHC and that we may not be better off instead just observing what nature provides rather than trying to recreate these exotic and poorly understood particles and events. That’s poorly understood by scientists aswellas Joe Public Ithink, I mean we don’t even know if the “God particle” exists but we’re still going to see if we can play around with it?

@ Mark Quinn -good post. I agree with your sentiments. The scientific minority often come across whether by design or accident as thinking themslevs alot smarter than average people -and worse, holding average people without PhD’s in contempt. This isn’t good for science, it isn’t helped by having scientists go “yeah, just trust us” we know what we’re doing.” History has shown Joe Public that whenever anyone says “trust us” that’s the last thing we should -or are likely to – do.

I like science, this is a great blog and all, but sometimes Dr Plait and his more militant supporters need to step down from their ivory towers and take a guess at how this appears through the eyes of Joe Public.

Saddam was “on their side”? whose side would that have been? Iraq was under a secular dictatorship. repeat after me: SE-CU-LAR dictatorship. he was in constant conflict with his religious neighbor-states (remember that pesky Iraq-Iran war in which the US actually supported him for exactly that reason?). his adoption of jihad-language was a desperate attempt at finding some neighbors who would help him stand AGAINST the US. he failed, because one half of those neighbors doesn’t want alliances with secular nations, and the other half wants to keep their cozy relationship with the US. And his WMD’s? they didn’t exist, and would have most likely never existed (though any argument about this is pure speculation). the place is more a threat to the world now then it was under Saddam.

And on nuking foreign countries… please keep in mind that Pakistan has nukes, too. and they’d usem. and so would russia if it felt THAT severely threatened. that why it’s called “mutually assured destruction”, and this is also EXACTLY why nations whom the US ignorantly lables “the axis of evil” feel like they need them. it’s their only way of assuring NOT being nuked.

oh and i don’t know about your geography skills, but how exactly do you propose to nuke Palestinians without taking out Israel in the process? or do you count that entire country as collateral damage?

lastly, it’s insulting to the veterans of wars that DID have something to do with fighting for freedom to claim the iraq war has anything to do with that. (with a respectful nod to WWII veterans). in reality, it’s a ritual human sacrifice of the nastiest sort.

@Markquinn
the whole point of skepticism is doubting everything, and then learning who is most likely and who is least likely to blatantly lie. And especially, who would immensely PROFIT from blatantly lying/exaggerating/etc. Skepticism isn’t instantaneous, it’s an acquired skill. And just because at the moment the majority of people lacks this skill, doesn’t mean that’s how it’s supposed to be. And don’t say that most people don’t have the luxury of time to acquire that skill. Most people spend 12 years in school, memorizing random factoids and cheering for the football team. The time would have been much better used teaching them critical thinking!

@Markquinn
the whole point of skepticism is doubting everything, and then learning who is most likely and who is least likely to blatantly lie. And especially, who would immensely PROFIT from blatantly lying/exaggerating/etc. Skepticism isn’t instantaneous, it’s an acquired skill. And just because at the moment the majority of people lacks this skill, doesn’t mean that’s how it’s supposed to be. And don’t say that most people don’t have the luxury of time to acquire that skill. Most people spend 12 years in school, memorizing random factoids and cheering for the football team. The time would have been much better used teaching them critical thinking!

@Hawk

Saddam was “on their side”? whose side would that have been? Iraq was under a secular dictatorship. repeat after me: SE-CU-LAR dictatorship. he was in constant conflict with his religious neighbor-states (remember that pesky Iraq-Iran war in which the US actually supported him for exactly that reason?). his adoption of jihad-language was a desperate attempt at finding some neighbors who would help him stand AGAINST the US. he failed, because one half of those neighbors doesn’t want alliances with secular nations, and the other half wants to keep their cozy relationship with the US. And his WMD’s? they didn’t exist, and would have most likely never existed (though any argument about this is pure speculation). the place is more a threat to the world now then it was under Saddam.

And on nuking foreign countries… please keep in mind that Pakistan has nukes, too. and they’d usem. and so would russia if it felt THAT severely threatened. that why it’s called “mutually assured destruction”, and this is also EXACTLY why nations whom the US ignorantly lables “the axis of evil” feel like they need them. it’s their only way of assuring NOT being nuked.

oh and i don’t know about your geography skills, but how exactly do you propose to nuke Palestinians without taking out Israel in the process? or do you count that entire country as collateral damage?

lastly, it’s insulting to the veterans of wars that DID have something to do with fighting for freedom to claim the iraq war has anything to do with that. (with a respectful nod to WWII veterans) in reality, it’s a form of human sacrifice of the nastiest sort.

@Markquinn
the whole point of skepticism is doubting everything, and then learning who is most likely and who is least likely to blatantly lie. And especially, who would immensely PROFIT from blatantly lying/exaggerating/etc. Skepticism isn’t instantaneous, it’s an acquired skill. And just because at the moment the majority of people lacks this skill, doesn’t mean that’s how it’s supposed to be. And don’t say that most people don’t have the luxury of time to acquire that skill. Most people spend 12 years in school, memorizing random factoids and cheering for the football team. The time would have been much better used teaching them critical thinking!

@Hawk

Saddam was “on their side”? whose side would that have been? Iraq was under a secular dictatorship. repeat after me: SE-CU-LAR dictatorship. he was in constant conflict with his religious neighbor-states (remember that pesky Iraq-Iran war in which the US actually supported him for exactly that reason?). his adoption of jihad-language was a desperate attempt at finding some neighbors who would help him stand AGAINST the US. he failed, because one half of those neighbors doesn’t want alliances with secular nations, and the other half wants to keep their cozy relationship with the US. And his WMD’s? they didn’t exist, and would have most likely never existed (though any argument about this is pure speculation). the place is more a threat to the world now then it was under Saddam.

And on nuking foreign countries… please keep in mind that Pakistan has nukes, too. and they’d usem. and so would russia if it felt THAT severely threatened. that why it’s called “mutually assured destruction”, and this is also EXACTLY why nations whom the US ignorantly lables “the axis of evil” feel like they need them. it’s their only way of assuring NOT being nuked.

oh and i don’t know about your geography skills, but how exactly do you propose to nuke Palestinians without taking out Israel in the process? or do you count that entire country as collateral damage?

lastly, it’s insulting to the veterans of wars that DID have something to do with fighting for freedom to claim the iraq war has anything to do with that. (with a respectful nod to WWII veterans)

Phil attracts just the best defenders.

Oh wait a minute. Scientists do err, just like everyone else. Just like corporations, governments, organizations of every kind. Mistakes are a fundamental part of what it means to be human. Or is it a lack of critical thinking that makes me suggest such rubbish?

Since most of us do not, of course, have a degree in physics, perhaps the best way we can critically think about all this is at its most basic, yet most monumental, level: would the tens of thousands of scientists involved in this project move forward if there was any chance whatsoever that it could result in the death of six billion people? Of course not. Another way to critically think about it is to understand these aren’t a bunch of gas station attendents manning the collider. They’re all experts in their field. Finally, the last use of critical thinking we might exercize, if the first two aren’t enough to allay our fears, is to go out and do the research ourselves. Perhaps we’ll never fully understand the molecular makeup or chemical bonds of wheat and chaff, but if we can at least learn to identify one or the other from a distance, we’ll be one step ahead of the game, one iota closer to enlightenment.

Here’s the problem. This just isn’t our field. We don’t know what the fundamentals are and we don’t know who the players are or their qualifications. Some say Wagner and Sancho are quacks. Maybe they are, but they’re also quacks who know a hell of a lot more about the physics behind this technology than the rest of us. Hey, don’t get me wrong: I know these guys are no more significant than the purveyors of Intelligent Design, but does the average Joe (who BELIEVES in Intelligent Design, I might add) understand this? Of course not. All he knows is that every day he’s lied to. He’s lied to by his government that says “everything will be okay”. He’s lied to by corporations who say “everything will be okay”. He’s lied to by his religion, lied to by his boss, lied to by his neighbors and even his family from time to time. Why should science, in his mind, suddenly be the great beacon of truth? And frankly, it’s not. Science as a method is good and true and unbiased. Science as a community is subject to the same kind of imperfection as everyone and everything else. Why should he trust it?

So he does his research anyway and everything he reads tells him the odds of something bad happening are infinitesimally small. Ah, but those are still odds. “Infintesimal”, in this case, represents numbers which are frankly too large for him to comprehend. He reads somewhere else that the odds of something bad happening are about one in 50 million. That’s a number he can understand a little better. You know that obese woman with the ten kids living in the trailor park who falls on the ground screaming and kicking and laughing because she just won the lottery? You know her: the one who’s become instantly wealthy and is going to enjoy three or four years in the lap of luxury before she winds up right back where she started — albeit with a slightly larger trailer — because she knows nothing about sound financial planning. THAT woman is proof that sometimes a one in 50 million odd hits. To our illustrious new critical thinker, scientists are rolling the dice with humanity’s future: it may be a 50 million sided die, but it’s a die nonetheless.

Critical thinking is a wonderful thing if you have the vocabulary and the knowledge to understand what it is you’re supposed to be critiquing. Otherwise it’s just a hollow phrase passed along by elitist swine who, I think, are secretly laughing at all the mayhem, going around spewing things like “Use your head for Godssake!” but knowing all the while that the vast majority of people just don’t have a head for this stuff.

Ultimately, this shall pass just like everything else. In it’s wake we will discover, once again, the inability of scientists to bridge the gap between their knowledge and the common person. Both sides will be a little more frustrated for it, a little more alienated from each other because of the experience. Thank God for people like Sagan (rest in peace) and Kaku and Ken Miller who know how to make science simple and interesting for the common schmuck. They never insulted you by suggesting things like, “What’s wrong with you idiots? Where are your critical thinking skills?” They understood that in order to think critically, you must first be armed with certain principles and in order to be armed with these principles, someone’s got to lay it all on the table in a way everyone can understand.

So, may one infer from your comment that you have read everything Phil has written, ever, on “big release[s] of energy”?

Further, that you have carefully studied all such material and can provide a complete list showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that Phil “insist[ed]” that a black hole “must necessarily [be] involve[d]” in every case?

May I ask you to describe, briefly, these “phenomen[a] about which practically nothing is actually known”, or at least a subset of them? When you’ve done that, readers may be able to do their own, independent, research on the veracity of your (wild?) claims.

And just after the anniversary of September 11th too.

I know Nathan Myers is a troll who shouldn’t be fed but his rant that about 9-11 and Iraq cannot pass unchallenged :

“In the U.S., literally (by which I mean, you know, literally) thousands of young men and women have gone to their deaths, and more to dismemberment, in Iraq over the superstition that someone there was involved in destroying buildings in New York; not incidentally, they have caused the deaths of (literally, again) hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.”

Buildings? Buildings?! Around 3,000 decent, hard-working innocent American citizens lost their lives on 9-11. From airline stewardesses who had their throats cut in front of terrified passengers to waiters and executives working for our good in the twin towers and Pentagon. Ordinary people who were burnt to death or forced to jump from the top of the WTC, heroic firefighters giving their lives in attempting to stop the fires, people who just caught a plane – or just piloted their usual aircraft only to be
butchered without warning or mercy.

We had every right, every right in the world, to strike back hard – at all those who supported, funded and cheered on our enemies.

Maybe Bin Laden wasn’t directly linked with Saddam’s nasty little regime. But he was on their side not ours – and teher was unfinishe dbusiness that very much needed finishing. He was a threat to the civilised world and would have becoime a far worse one if he’d been left to develop the WMDs which he bluffed us all too well that he had. If he had got his WMD’s do you think for an instant, he wouldn’t have used them in a far worse and crueler way than anything you can imagine?

President Bushes response was justified – even if not ultimately carried through well. It was in fact quite restrained. If I had been President at the time then on September 12th 2001 there would not have been a Baghdad – just a hole in the ground. Nor would there have been a Tehran or a Damascus or an Afghanistan – I’d have used H-bombs on the lot. I’d vapourise the
capitals of Iraq, Iran and Syria and I’d leave nothing but radioactive dust in all of Afghanistan and Western Pakistan to guarantee bin Laden was dead.

OH & the Palestinians who jumped for joy when the towers fell? I’d have nuked them too.

Then I’d have sent conventional forces in overwhelming numbers into Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi’s diddn’t like it well they’d be gone too. Either way I’d have Mecca as a hostage and UStroopp[s incontrol of it – any more Islamic terrorism and Mecca goes. That’d keep them at bay in the manner they
respect. Plus I’d then make sure we’d have oil at half the price, no Islamist terrorists or terror states left standing and China and Russia soiling themsleves in fear at what we might do if they tried any games.

The message would be absolutely clear – don’t mess with the USA.
Don’t tread on us. Don’t atatck us -or you’ll be very very sorry or very , very dead.

They started it – I’d have finished it once and for all.

We may yet regret that we weren’t that hard and quick in our response.

No the terrorists – and terror states – get zip from me as do the Muslim nutters who egg them on & incite them. Stuff them! And stuff their fellow travellers like you too Nathan Myers, you piece of filth. Good men and good women are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere to give you your freedom to spew your stupid nonsense. You wanted a reaction? Take this and stick it. And get lost.

Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?

We do observe them, but they’re not controlled collisions. We don’t know where and when they’re going to happen. Even if we did we can’t get the detectors we need to view the collisions in detail high into the atmosphere where they occur.

The other thing is that the particles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them

That’s how nature does it. But that’s not how the LHC does it. The LHC uses far less energy to accelerate a small number of protons along a 27 kilometer track. It just duplicates some of the effects of these events, not the events themselves.

“In the U.S., literally (by which I mean, you know, literally) thousands of young men and women have gone to their deaths, and more to dismemberment, in Iraq over the superstition that someone there was involved in destroying buildings in New York; not incidentally, they have caused the deaths of (literally, again) hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.”

Buildings? Buildings?! Around 3,000 decent, hard-working innocent American citizens lost their lives on 9-11. From airline stewardesses who had their throats cut in front of terrified passengers to waiters and executives working for our good in the twin towers and Pentagon. Ordinary people who were burnt to death or forced to jump from the top of the WTC, heroic firefighters giving their lives in attempting to stop the fires, people who just caught a plane – or just piloted their usual aircraft only to be
butchered without warning or mercy.

We had every right, every right in the world, to strike back hard – at all those who supported, funded and cheered on our enemies.

Maybe Bin Laden wasn’t directly linked with Saddam’s nasty little regime. But he was on their side not ours – and teher was unfinishe dbusiness that very much needed finishing. He was a threat to the civilised world and would have becoime a far worse one if he’d been left to develop the WMDs which he bluffed us all too well that he had. If he had got his WMD’s do you think for an instant, he wouldn’t have used them in a far worse and crueler way than anything youcan imagine?

President Bushes response was justified – even if not ultimately carried through well. It was in fact quite restrained. If I had been President at the time then on September 12th 2001 there would not have been a Baghdad – just a hole in the ground. Nor would there have been a Tehran or a Damascus or an Afghanistan – I’d have used H-bombs on the lot. I’d vapourise the
capitals of Iraq, Iran and Syria and I’d leave nothing but radioactive dust
all of Afghanistan and maybe abitof Pakistanm todestory all themain sponser
if not
me
Iraqi but he was
surely

Many, many millions more voted for a pair of sociopaths fronting a band of criminals who have instituted systematic torture and domestic surveillance in the U.S.; most will vote the same way again (different sociopaths, same criminals). Thousands of people in small towns fear their town hall will be blown up by the 7-11 clerk. Millions believe having their shoes x-rayed makes flying safer.