Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Pegasus
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.032910.22623@amd.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 22:28:55 GMT
References: <1991Apr13.014851.22702@amd.com> <1991Apr16.041607.28295@amd.com> <1991Apr17.055602.13818@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 27
Approved: military@amd.com


From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice)


>	[Any further discussion along this line should probably go to
>	 ARMS-D if its still around, not sci.military, since treaties
>	 don't fall within the group's charter. --CDR]

I think you are being too narrow about this.  The technology and the
treaties are tied up pretty tightly.  Any meaningful discussion of
military technology is inevitably going to involve politics and treaties
at some point.  To avoid discussions of how these treaties affect our
ability to design technical systems would make this a very sterile and
very unworldly newsgroup.

	[ It's a slippery slope that leads to general discussions
	  about politics.  The line between the science of warfare
	  and the political aspects has to be drawn somewhere; I
	  consider strategic treaties to be primarily political,
	  and thus unsuitable under our charter in the sci heirarchy.
	  You can always wait a few weeks and see if Bill's more
	  lenient. :-) --CDR]

-- 
John K. Prentice    john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet)
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA