Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.tv.da
Subject: Re: DoD monies well spent??
Message-ID: <1012@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Dec-83 01:43:47 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1012
Posted: Thu Dec  8 01:43:47 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 07:05:51 EST
References: <506@linus.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 28

The issue of DoD monies being spent raises another issue related to this
-- namely the ethics of persons involved with government sponsored
research (like DARPA).

In my software engineering class someone raised this question to a
representative from SofTech who was there to talk about testing software
systems.  One which was mentioned was the Ada compiler and its future
use in weapons systems.

As a person who will soon be entering the job market who is not thrilled
about the arms race but is mainly interested in the type of
communications research that only DARPA does, I would tend to say that
DARPA sponsored research is not weapons research.  One must make the
distinction between DEFENSE and OFFENSE.  A packet switch network that
operates in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust is not an OFFENSIVE
weapon.  However, an MX missile warhead IS an OFFENSIVE weapon.  The
fine line, I guess, is drawn at the Ada software which may be
controlling the MX missile's guidance system.  Then it is up to the
individual to decide whether or not he feels he is compromising his
principles to be working on something that plays a direct role in
nuclear war.  But generally, DARPA monies go to research of the former
type of development.  I tell myself this when I consider places to work,
and console myself that I won't actually be designing anything that will
actually kill people.

--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
gds%mit-eddie@mit-mc           (arpa)