Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!limbo!taylor
From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Computers as weapons
Message-ID: <1744@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 22:10:33 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Organization: University of Rochester
Lines: 26
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

Michael Schechter responds to Paul George by writing:

>  There is always working for university reasearchers, some of whom
>  have equipment and techniques only 1-2 years behind mil-ind.

Actually, top research universities tend to have computer equipment at
least as current as top defense labs and considerably more current
than the average defense contractor.  This is from my experience as a
undergrad at CMU, a grad student here at Rochester, and summer jobs at
Hughes Research Labs (a top defense lab, IMHO) and McDonnell-Douglas
(a typical defense contractor, again IMHO).

So, if you want to avoid working for a defense company, you can
do so and still have access to advanced technology.

However, I disagree with the premise that started this thread.  Unless
you're either a pure pacifist ("There should be no military -- if it
comes to war we should die rather than kill.") or a pure anarchist
("There should be no government -- citizens should defend themselves
with their own privately-owned weapons or should hire mercenaries."),
it seems inconsistent to believe that it's wrong to design weapons for
the military.  I can respect the pacifist and anarchist positions, but
I can't understand someone who says "We need a military, but they
shouldn't have sophisticated weapons."

Brian Yamauchi