> The harder question is whether it's well-motivated compared to other expensive (non-EF or non-HEP) science projects. Clearly many LHC discoveries would provide compelling motivation for a higher-energy machine, but such a discovery has not yet materialized.   We've tried to take a hard look in our NP report at the case in which _nothing new_ is seen at the LHC; you can judge for yourself how well we've done, but it's clearly a more slippery argument.


I think we all agree that we are not ready nor motivated to started digging the VLHC tomorrow. 

But I think at the next snow mass in 10 years, we would like the VLHC preparations to be as advanced as the ILC preparations are today. Note that significant ILC preparations were done before the Higgs discovery. 

Fortune favors the prepared mind. 


> (2) I've seen and heard some comments about "US leadership".  This is probably just semantics, but the implications trouble me, because:
> 	(i) "US" is ill defined: is it work done by US citizens? Or profs at US institutions? Or at US facilities? Or with US-built parts?
> 	(ii) "leadership" is somewhat pejorative to the rest of the community.   Isn't it enough that we work towards "continued US strength" rather than trying to make sure we have our elbows in front of our colleagues in other communities?
> 	(iii) Why is "US leadership" so important in such an international community with poorly-defined fuzzy borders?  Is such nationalism just used cynically to sell the project to Congress, or is there a real argument to be made that it's critical that we are #1?  


When the rest of the world starts calling us #7 I think we will not like the sound of that. 

regards,
Ashutosh


> Cheers,
> Daniel

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-EF list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-EF&A=1