Here is an example of how good minds may wander astray (please forgive an analysis of Yanniru's statement, with boldface added):
"I am credited with the theory of the time history of the Starfish event bubble where the mass of charged particles made a giant hole in the earth's magnetic field, which slowly diminuished in volume in accordance with my theory.]"

So I understand how fragile an existence we have on earth since we came to understand nuclear fusion and how to make it into a bomb.

It is impressive to have such accomplishments in
physics. Such "credit" apparently does not confer the permanence of careful thinking.
"So" appears to be used as a "therefore," yet it does not follow that a person who has such a physics background will understand
the danger of hydrogen ("fusion") bombs better than someone else.


The demise of the USSR was a positive step. But it put us into an even more precarious state as the USSR had enough such weapons to end our spoecies, and who knows what has happened to them.

It appears Yanniru is saying
a) It's good that the USSR ended.
b) But as a result, we are in even more trouble.
How is that "good?"
What is needed at each stage is not the collapse of governments, but responsiveness to careful, coherent critical thought. Eh?