Opinion develops were the money goes. So it looks only natural that supporters of military defense systems with mass destruction potential want governments to maintain and improve their arsenal including atom bombs for security. The defense systems industry has a good income by that.
<img src='http://brontopixel.c...b88f1603538.jpg' alt='Posted Image' class='bbc_img'/>
http://www.ippnw.org International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) have a different opinion. No wonder, by providing medical therapy they have a good income by helping humans to survive. They have also expanded their survival strategy to work against great matters of life destruction. One of those matters are just atom bombs, and so these Doctors came up with the following question: How to Save a Quarter of a Trillion Dollars http://peaceandhealt...r-of-a-trillion by Lawrence Wittner, Aug 10, 2011.
Wherever money is involved, there is a great problem: the absence of rationality because of dreaming about many dollars instead of critical thinking. There must be a critical answer to think where the money has to go. So that should be my comment, also submitted at noon 15.8.2011 to http://peaceandhealt...llion/#comments with hope to find an IPPNW Peace and Health Blog author’s approval for making it published some day:
Your blog article suggests less government expenditures on weapons. But there are no reliable references to show how reasonable savings on atom bombs and defense systems might really increase global security. Actually, there are only a very few independent scientists in black hole theory to evaluate the greatest risk of particle research experiments. But their calculations have proven that particle research experiments with a great accelerator, like the LHC has been provided with, might eliminate the human race without any survivors. Thus, the theories explaining that atom bombs are still the greatest risk caused by humans for all planetary life, are no longer valid. Even a detonation of many atom bombs will not be so devastating like a growing black hole when it cannot emit radiation in a way suggested by those physicists who are running one great particle collision experiment.
A quite informative read about the actual danger might be http://www.science20...ssler_takes_lhc that describes the dangerous situation just as is - citation: "CERN, the arch enchanter of nuclear physics, isn't much concerned, with an underground lab to rival any fortress ever built, bolstered by an army of 2,500 physicists and another 6,000 worldwide just in case." Yes, they are not concerned since they are working with a multi-billion dollar particle research industry who do not want to loose a profitable business. So they will not easily admit the truth about how unbearably great the real danger for humankind has become. They are not taking care about the risk of human extinction, they are just concerned about the great funding expenditures from various governments. To physicists they provided what your blog article has favored so much: education. Research experimenters have learned to do more harm by accident but the owners of new defense systems.
