Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: can.general,can.ai Subject: Re: Star Wars North Message-ID: <1510@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 17:34:28 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1510 Posted: Wed Apr 3 17:34:28 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 20:11:14 EST References: <890@ubc-vision.CDN> <6@aquila.UUCP> <409@water.UUCP> <5388@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 57 Summary: >Henry Spencer, as well as others, haven't answered my question. All this >``imperfect world'' discussion doesn't say anything. There is obviously >a trade off between concern for society and its defense. Too much concern >for the former means no defense, and too much for the latter means nothing >to defend. I would much rather debate the tradeoff than argue about whether >it exists. So tell me, where do you think Canada stands? The US? Japan? OK, you asked. [I still think can.politics is the better group for this discussion, but since you insist on keeping it here, here goes.] I think Canada should not at present be concerned with any trade-off between defence and society, since we pay far too little for each. We should be supporting research, especially the so-called "soft" sciences, very much more strongly than we are. The best defence is not to be attacked, and we (and the world) need to find other ways of avoiding being attacked than just to put up terrifying defences. Defence need not involve killing people -- it should mean that no-one tries to kill or subjugate us. We need to spend a great deal more on cultural things. Canada has been getting better in this respect over the last couple of decades, but we have a long way to go before public awareness is sufficient to support an indigenous Canadian culture in the presence of the strong US presence (in context of this discussion, consider it as supplying extra calcium to prevent strontium-90 poisoning from fallout). We need to spend more on conventional defence and on defence research, since that is the only way I can see of avoiding complete US domination, or of persuading a potential attacker that it wouldn't be worthwhile to follow through (but I don't mean acquiring our own nuclear deterrent). The need for defence research follows from the fact that our ships probably wouldn't last ten minutes in a Falklands type of war, and we don't have much ability to handle sophisticated weapons in any field. But I really think the biggest amount of money to be spent on defence research should be in peace psychology (ie conflict resolution and related sociological subjects). In summary, where we stand relative to the US and to Japan is -- nowhere, man. Where we should stand is in neither place. Lester Pearson showed us where we should be going, but we have lost the way. Remember that Pearson designed NATO as a three-pronged affair: military, cultural, and economic. The strength of the Atlantic Alliance was to depend on all three areas, and I think the failure of the Alliance is that the military leg of the tripod has been the only one seriously supported. It is the leg that should not be very necessary if the others were truly functional (I know, the Science Council exists, and funds Workshops and Advanced Study Institutes, but it's far from the cultural alliance Pearson had in mind). The West would be very strong if NATO functioned as Pearson hoped, and would probably spend a great deal less on military hardware, because it would be so strong otherwise. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt