Interesting. Very HLL.
Although the # comments would surely get on my tits after a while.
I don't think CaptJosh is making a bad point in terms of code readability being a good thing; I think maybe you're thinking at cross purposes here, though.
From what I read here, the primary objection to Python is not to do with forcing readable code (is such a thing even possible), but in forcing a restrictive code structure/formatting that may be counter-intuitive and ultimately irritating (I've never even looked at python myself, so I can't evaluate personally). This is not to do with wishing to be a 'sloppy' coder, but simply to work within the most comfortable personal format (and hence the most efficient/effective one).
To me, readability is not synonymous with a particular format, but more simple conventions; meaningful variables, proper commentary.
In either case, drawing an analogy with missiles is IMO not valid. Because with a missile, the physical form affects performance; this is not true for programming - any non-trivial code will be able to be written in a large amount of (perfectly readable) different formats, without that difference affecting performance.
(that's entirely aside from the functional aspects of abstraction & decoupling, which I'd expect to be outside the scope of the scripting being discussed here, but are another significant difference from 'physical' engineering)
Oh, and enforced tabulation can sometimes, in my experience, hurt
readability anyways, particularly if enforced in a non-intuitive way (try - catch blocks come to mind).
I'm firmly on the fence vis-a-vis python, though, given my never having used it. If it's chosen, I'll adapt. If not....well, I'll adapt to whatever else is used