1. U2 are not the Rolling Stones. There are precedents for one-off stand ins - hell, Larry even filled in for Butch Vig one time; but under no circumstances should there ever be a tour with any member missing.
  2. yes - but change the band's name to U3
  3. surely the new name would be U1.5
  4. No
  5. If it’s only for the Vegas shows then I don’t see the problem. If it was for a full tour then no.
  6. They could live over pre-recorded drums on a very big screen. It could be a gag.
  7. No way. U2 is one of the few bands with such legacy that have remained with the same lineup. Larry is a key part of the band and wouldn’t want to see U2 without him. If one of them can’t go, then time to call it quits as U2, sure the others can do a side project or solo tour or whatever, but U2 means these 4 lads.
  8. What’s the difference? 12 nights in Vegas is still 12 nights.