Thanks for your polite persistence in bringing these unpleasant facts home to me. I apologize for my intemperate language. As an admirer of Russell, I had no idea that he could ever have made such a horrible suggestion. Like so many other pure thinkers, it seems he had little understanding of human motivation and political realities. (however, I am still sure the idea of a preemptive strike based on game theory originated with von Neumann).

I found what seems a good and balanced summary here: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=russelljournal

Russell is quoted as saying he had supported appeasement in the 1930s but now (in the 1950s) could see that he had been completely wrong in the 1930s. But that did not seem to have suggested to him that he might be completely wrong again in the 1950s! It seems the main thing Russell and Einstein agreed about was that the USSR could not be left to its own devices - which is what happened, and led fairly soon to its downfall.

Next time I'll do my fact-checking first.

FTFY

And if you think they might be an enemy, do the same to be on the safe side. After all, their surviving relatives and friends can't harm you so where's the downside?

That is poisonous rubbish, and a horrible libel on a great (and peaceful) man. You are thinking of John von Neumann. Russell had nothing to do with game theory, and abhorred all violence: see his Wikipedia entry which makes it crystal clear that Russell was an active and courageous pacifist as early as 1916.

"During the First World War, Russell was one of the very few people to engage in active pacifist activities, and in 1916, he was dismissed from Trinity College following his conviction under the Defence of the Realm Act.

"He was charged a fine of £100, which he refused to pay, hoping that he would be sent to prison. However, his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police."

"A later conviction for publicly lecturing against inviting the US to enter the war on Britain's side resulted in six months' imprisonment in Brixton prison (see Bertrand Russell's views on society) in 1918".

I think you will find the operative word in those sentences is "we". WE don't do those things, but they are technically feasible. Maybe someone else would be only too happy to do them.

Please don't rule out the possibility that there may be even more ruthlessly violent people in the world than the US armed forces and their paramilitary assistants.

I'm still waiting for "the group" to hunt Israel down. Oh wait... "the group" (aka "the international community") is led by the USA, which has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions against Israel.

Actually, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The only unforgivable crime, which will lead "the group" to hunt you down, is defying the leader of "the group". Ask Saddam. Ask Qaddafi. Ask Assad. (Maybe soon you can ask Cameron).

Potentially, yes. It all depends. In principle, a single person with a screwdriver could kill any number of helpless individuals. In the Middle Ages, heavily armoured knights were routinely killed in their hundreds after they fell off their horses or just lost their footing. Unarmoured peasant soldiers simply opened their visors and shoved a stiletto or similar through an eye socket. A screwdriver would have done just as well.

After the battle of Towton, thousands of prisoners were apparently executed in cold blood. Each of the skulls has a similar shaped hole in the same place. They may have been lined up while horsemen rode along the line, swinging poleaxes - one head, one puncture, one death.

Never underestimate the lethal potential of a simple piece of metal.

Exactly. If you remember, Vietnam was a "police action".

The US/British invasion of Iraq has, to date, caused well over 1 million civilian deaths - plus many more maimed, bereaved, rendered homeless, and expelled from their homes.

So was that because the Americans and the British used chemical weapons? Or did they accomplish it by other means? If the latter, what's the big deal about chemical weapons?

Biological warfare is just as horrible and indiscriminate as chemical weapons. So if you deliberately bomb the water supply and sewerage systems of a nation like Iraq, as well as its hospitals - after preventing the importation of most modern medical supplies for over a decade - you bring about a wave of infectious diseases that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, quite indiscriminately. But you cleverly manage to avoid the stigma of "using biological weapons". Clever. But horrible.

So, by your own standards, if the USA didn't want over a million of its own people killed, it needed to not do it to others first.

Unfortunately, it has. Repeatedly.

Please refer to any competent definition of "democracy". You will find that it means The People are sovereign. And sovereignty entails responsibility. Just as an absolute monarch is absolutely responsible for the actions of his government, the people of a democratic nation are responsible for the actions of their government. It doesn't matter which way you voted, or if you abstained. It doesn't even matter if you demonstrated against a given illegal act. Regardless, you are sovereign, jointly with all the other US citizens. And that means you are responsible.

If you don't think the actions of the present US government reflect the wishes of the US people, which explanation do you choose:

1. The USA is not a democracy.
2. The US people wish to gain the benefits of democracy without accepting its responsibilities.

Incidentally, the USA has been indulging in many acts of war in recent years. President Obama may have said that the USA was not involved in war when it aided the attacks on Libya; but legally speaking it was. Likewise when it killed civilians in Pakistan and Yemen with drones. If it launches a single cruise missile into Syria, then - wherever that missile strikes - the USA will have declared war on Syria. That gives Syria the right to strike back at the USA by any and all military means. As POTUS and his associates are wont to assert, "nothing is off the table". So the only thing standing between the USA and arbitrarily large explosions going off anywhere in its territory is the hope that its current enemy is too weak to fight back.

"Privacy's challenge must be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears cases in secret and is under no obligation to explain or justify its verdicts."

Otherwise known as "The Court of Star Chamber".

Two words: Gary McKinnon.

"All access is limited" is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless. Do you mean "Actually no one, no matter how skilful and unscrupulous, can possibly gain access"? Or "Some bunch of military dimbulbs sitting around a table have decreed that access shall be limited"?

Not necessarily. Airliners in which I have flown commonly go no higher than 36,000 feet - occasionally perhaps 40,000 feet. The tops of thunderstorms often reach 55,000 feet and can be even higher. One extreme case reached about 70,000 feet. Moreover, it is necessary to fly well above the tops of the visible clouds, as bad things can happen up to a mile higher. Check out, for instance, http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/152684/

So pilots almost always opt to fly around storms instead.

It's an avoidable business expense. As most airlines are either bankrupt or teetering on the edge, they don't spend a red cent more than they absolutely have to.