"As we're firmly ensconced in a global recession, quickly sliding into a global depression, it does lead to the question -- does a bunch of scientists spending millions of dollars/pounds to smash atoms together have any short-term benefits?"

I think you'll find that the key to a stable society, especially one not subject to economic volatility, is in maintaining stable priorities. Throwing everything overboard at the first sign of a storm just makes things worse. When Intel, say, decides to invest in 32nm fabrication, are they stupid? Shouldn't they be cutting back and delaying fabrication improvements? According to you they are, but I doubt that you're sitting on the smart money, somehow.

"If not, does delaying the smashing result in a significant rise in cost? Normally I don't like to think short-term, but if we hope to get out of this recession/depression, then we need to. As for my own country, I'd gladly give up the space program (including the ISS) for however long it takes to reach non-rec/depression status. Spending lots of money on things which have no immediate benefit makes little sense in a rec/depression."

So what would you spend the money on? And why must it be the money for this that is diverted and not the money for, say, guns and bombs? And how does one realistically reach "non-rec/depression status"? You can say, "Let's not spend money on anything non-essential!" You can even say, "Let's give everyone money to get them spending money again." But the former is quite likely to deepen a recession, whereas the latter will just cause a momentary false recovery before everyone gets an even nastier surprise.

Throw away the space programme, now there's an idea! We've all seen how that kind of idea worked out back in the 1970s: thirty-five years on and the US is working out how to get back to the moon. Time, money and expertise discarded, and you'd do that again to keep the failing industries of Detroit happy for a few more quarters?

Useless blather, indeed!