My third paragraph was intended as a rather tongue in cheek way of pointing out that a major point of the article, as expressed by the second paragraph, was incredibly disingenuous. It is as if one were to ask why the scientists of the Manhattan Project didn't consider that their work would leave humanity under threat for decades, if not forever; they did consider that, they simply decided the advantages were worth the consequences.

I'm not sure how you get "glib" out of the second paragraph; it seems to me to be a fair summation of the original experiment coupled with a summary of the post 9/11 use of the results as described in the article.

Anyway, thank you for your consideration, and I will try to adhere to your wishes.