Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watrose.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watrose!gwhawkins
From: gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: General research for/by the military.
Message-ID: <7421@watrose.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 11:25:53 EST
Article-I.D.: watrose.7421
Posted: Fri Apr  5 11:25:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 01:58:14 EST
References: <975@utcsri.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29

I would accept military funding, but I wouldn't accept it for building
SDI, or missiles of any kind (even though I would love to work on
high tech control systems).  The difference between these systems
and other military equipment is the dehumanizing aspect.  War is only
unthinkable to those who have experienced war.  What we are developing
today is a race of people who can accept war without thinking because
we don't have to actually pull a trigger.

Maybe I'm only denying "progress", but I think that there would be alot
less death involved (more violence, but less death and suffering) if
we all had to lineup facing each other with our bare hands in order to
wage war.

I think for now we would be much better off with a strong army/navy
than with an expensive SDI system.  If the opposition wants to 
Nuke us out of existence, thats fine because we'll be dead and they'll
be suffering.  If we have a strong ground based defense the only
thing the enemy can do is Nuke us which, I think/hope, is morally
unthinkable on both sides.

If Isreal relied on it's Bomb(s) the way the US does, we would have
had our third, fourth and fifth nuclear weapons go off in anger
by now.

		larry fast (Universty of Waterloo)
		broadcasting from exile

PS I know my arguements are terribly rational or well thought out, but
   then again, is war rational?