Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.tv.da,net.politics
Subject: High-Frontier, What Scientists Can Do
Message-ID: <2846@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Nov-83 21:54:04 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.2846
Posted: Wed Nov 30 21:54:04 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Nov-83 22:29:21 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 63

Regarding the suggestion to refuse funding from military (e.g. ARPA) sources:
Though I'm not familiar with the funding situation in the US, my intuition
is that such an initiative is too big a jump for scientists not used to
voting with their feet in such a way.  There appears to be a somewhat milder,
but possibly *very* important, alternative, already under way.

From the Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada) Sat. Nov. 26, 1983:
"BILLIONS TO BE SPENT FOR LASERS IN SPACE, by Wallace Immen"
Pres. R. Reagan will announce within 2-3 wks a massive spending program to
develop the arsenal of exotic space weapons he suggested in March as a means
of countering Soviet missiles, U.S. gov't sources say.  The decision would
appear to dampen prospects for a permanent U.S. space station and would
crush plans for a new program of planetary exploration.
... spending between $18B-$27B over the next 6 yrs on [high-frontier systems]
... that can track and shoot down up to 1,000 ICBM's simultaneously
... weapons capable of generating laser and particle beams
... development of dozens of small missiles that could shoot down warheads
[missed by the high-frontier systems]
... no unsolvable technical obstacle to the concept
... A group of influential scientists has tried unsuccessfully to persuade
Mr. Reagan to give up the concept
... Building weapons satellites and getting them into place could cost more
than $100B over the next 2 decade
... Robert Bowman, a retired USAF space weapons planner who now heads the
Institute for Space and Security Studies in Washington D.C. [says that cost
of the new systems is the least problem and that the new weapon systems
envisaged] "have staggering technical problems"  "All violate one or more
existing treaties.  All are extremely vulnerable.  All are subject to a
variety of countermeasures.  All could be made impotent by alternative
offensive missiles and therefore would be likely to reignite the numerical
arms race in offensive weapons."

---- Here's the response by some scientists that seems worth publicizing -----
  An increasing number of physicists and engineers are protesting against the
exotic weapons plans.  Jack Ruina, an electrical eng. at MIT, told the NY Times
this week he expects increasing numbers of scientists to refuse to develop
equipment for the space weapons system.
  "There's a silent group out there; I'd say it's a majority, that says:
` We're working for a living here, but we think that what's going on is
crazy.' "
  Groups similar to the Science for Peace organization in Canada are
forming in the U.S. to petition for an end to space weapons spending.
  Several scientific organizations have issued statements of concern that
hundreds of billions of dollars will eventually be spent on space weapons
and this will drain the life out of science research not related to military
needs.  Mr. DeLauer [U.S. Defence Undersec'y for Research & Eng.] said studies
show that there are about 8 technical problems that must be solved before space
weapons can be made practical.  Each one of them would require teams of
scientists and engineers as large as those that developed the U.S. moon-landing
program, he believes.
  Defence spending has already eliminated almost all of the planetary research
programs of [N.A.S.A.] over the next decade.
  ...
----------------------- end of excerpts -------------------------------

I'm sorry I can't post the whole article, but I didn't have time, and it
would violate copyright.

It would seem that a declaration not to work on space weapons is something
that might have widespread support.  Now is the time to do it, before a lot
of vested interests are set up.

p. rowley, U. Toronto