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.politics,net.tv.da
Subject: Space industry *YES*, space-based ABM *NO*
Message-ID: <2979@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 02:19:42 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.2979
Posted: Tue Dec 20 02:19:42 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Dec-83 03:05:17 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 35

The "High Frontier, What Scientists Can Do" article used that latest, and
apparently incorrect, meaning of "High Frontier"-- referring to a space-based
ABM system.  This use was apparent from the article, but I guess readers
latched on to the "High Frontier" tag and used their own meaning for it.

To avoid further confusion, I won't use the term, but instead use "space
industry" and "space-based ABM" to refer to particular projects.  It is
the latter that many people, including (apparently) Mr. Wheeler and myself,
object to and suggest a boycott of, for all the reasons given (small chance
of furthering the exploration of space, large chance for destabilizing the
arms balance on earth, great cost, technical vulnerability, ...).

I'm all for a healthy space industry and if Reagan's space station project
is aimed that way, I'll support it, even if there are military uses.  My hope
is that once the capitalistic spirit latches onto the possibilities (and 
profits) of space, there will be such a huge use of highly skilled talent that
space weapons research may be frozen out (who's got more weight? GM or the DoD?
I don't know, but I think it's close to a fair fight; as for GM, IBM, TRW, ...
vs. the DoD, I think my money would be on the former group-- there is anecdotal
evidence (eg. Heller's "Catch-22") that profit is more important than defense).
If money and manpower can be channelled into a new frontier (space) profitably,
then it won't go towards producing weapons to fight over already-claimed
territory (earth).  Note that the sea has not been explored this way, though.

I'd even be content to see large cost overruns on a space station.  Hell, I'd
even vote for paying the nuke companies NOT to build nukes, just as the US
pays its farmers not to grow things!  They've got a lot of bucks tied up in
machinery to make weapons, after all, and this must be seen as part of the
picture-- as a reason why some want to continue producing weapons.

So, Mr. Wheeler and I disagreed only on the meaning attached to "High
Frontier".  Now, having that cleared up, is there widespread support for a
boycott of work on a space-based anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system?

p. rowley, U. Toronto