Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!husc6!purdue!ames!mindcraft.com!karish
From: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: EFF Chapters
Summary: SDI
Keywords: EFF college academia chapters
Message-ID: <670552208.6477@mindcraft.com>
Date: 2 Apr 91 00:30:06 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.213148.14254@vpnet.chi.il.us> <669491914.4141@mindcraft.com> <7846@hsv3.UUCP> <1991Mar26.164325.2631@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 22

In article <1991Apr1.061003.18924@isis.cs.du.edu> swoodcoc@isis.UUCP
(Steven Markus Woodcock) writes:

>   With all due respect, Mr. Bates, your organization lost MY respect when
>it came down against the SDI concept, favoring the demonstrably amoral
>M.A.D. doctrine over M.A.S. (Mutually Assured Survival).
>
>                                                 --Steven M. Woodcock
>                                                   SDI Simulations Engineer
>                                                   Senior Software Engineer
>                                                   National Test Bed

It takes some pretty tricky moral gymnastics to deny to oneself
that a fully functional `defensive' system would also be a potent
tool in an offensive setting.  I see no clear-cut moral distinction
between the two concepts.

If the answer is "But we'd never do that!", please keep it to
yourself (note Woodcock's `Organization:' header: `The Good Guys').

	Chuck Karish		karish@mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000