Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.research
Subject: Re: Star-Wars/Space Telescopes
Message-ID: <13300007@uiucdcsb>
Date: Thu, 28-Nov-85 00:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.13300007
Posted: Thu Nov 28 00:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Nov-85 03:56:43 EST
References: <384@ukc.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:ukc.UUCP:384:uiucdcsb:13300007:000:1120
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!grunwald    Nov 21 23:35:00 1985


I was under the impresssion that one of the current problems with SDI funding
is that there is too much of it at this time? The last I had heard, only 10%
of the allotted funds had been aportioned to research groups.

Recently, there was an announcement in some physics journal that indiciated
that several previously non-SDI funded projects had been moved to SDI funding
without the consent or enlightenment of the individuals on the grants. This
has apparently caused some ruckus in the physics world.

As for equating a lack of support for SDI to pro-soviet/unilateralism/anti-
americanism -- please, lets do better than this here. That's acceptable
paplum for the masses, but let us be a little more circumspect in our
arguements.
   I know of many people who support an effective defense system, but who
don't think that Grahams proposal will be effective. They feel that pouring
large sums of money into the project will not cure it, nor will it make our
country safe from attack, and that it attempts to offer a technical solution
to what is, after all, a political problem.

dirk grunwald
university of illinois