Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!space
From: COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA (Richard A. Cowan)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
Message-ID: <12173750832.41.COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 8-Jan-86 23:10:35 EST
Article-I.D.: XX.12173750832.41.COWAN
Posted: Wed Jan  8 23:10:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 05:11:54 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 79

In Space digest #48, Eugene Miya states:
> 3) No the space station has nothing to do with SDI.  It's a sitting
> duck, for one thing.  The plan is to make it another NASA Center
> like the other earth-based NASA Centers: interesting network domain
> problems for address: person@site.EARTH ..... :-)

When the space shuttle was developed, it also had "nothing to do with
SDI."  But it's used for SDI today.  Similarly, though the main
technical purpose of the space station is not SDI, it's naive to
assume that the space station won't be used for SDI in some fashion.
(This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to
fear the militarization of its use.)

It should be pointed out that the space station project does serve an
important political purpose that is related to SDI.  It provides an
exciting, humane technical project that can be used by aerospace
contractors such as Rockwell to attract enthusiastic, highly-skilled
technical personnel.

I would not find fault with this, except that these contractors often gloss
over their military activities when recruiting, stressing their space
station work, which may be a very small fraction of their activities.
People headed for military careers should know what they are getting into.
When the fostering of a set of expectations that employment in a certain
field will have great non-military benefit lures engineers into military
work, these engineers are being exploited.  I'm not saying the companies do
this maliciously; their advertising is deceptive because of marketing
considerations and wishful thinking.  (See the story about Peter Hagelstein
in "Star Warriors," by William J. Broad.)

In Aero/Astro this concern is particularly germane.  In 1978, 52% of the
Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineers worked on National Defense
projects, and 26% worked in space.  [Source: Robert DeGrasse, "Military
Expansion, Economic Decline", originally from the NSF]  As Brazilian
aircraft manufacturers capture the market for small agricultural planes in
the US, and as SDI gets rolling, that civilian fraction is declining.
Plus, little of the "exotic" or "elite" research is in the civilian
fraction.  Without the space station, a situation could develop where the
aerospace industry became 90% military dominated, a development most people
in that industry would rather not happen.  It's an unfortunate fact that in
the United States space projects serve the interests of military
contractors and vice versa, contributing to increased space militarization.

For that reason, I feel that Phil Karn (Digest #51) has every reason to
"wonder" about the L5 society, for even though it may take no position on
SDI, the group owes much of its vitality -- perhaps even its existance --
to the symbiotic relationship between space enthusiasts and the military.
When the US constructs a billion $$ Unified Space Command in Colorado
Springs, and sets up three separate divisions of space bureaucracy to give
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all a "piece of the action," there is
more reason to be concerned.  When groups like L5 promote certain
commercial uses of space that have been outmoded by cheaper, earth-based
methods, there is even more reason to be concerned.  And when a significant
fraction of L5 members see arms control as futile, and therefore want to
develop space so that when we go ahead with SDI and post-SDI systems and
eventually blow ourselves up, the human race will survive, there's even
reason to be a bit frightened.  Nuclear annihilation should not be "thinkable."

Finally, I hope that L5 members who believe in the organization will
promote open discussion of such issues despite the tendency for such groups
to avoid controversy and ignore potential problems.

-Rich Cowan (cowan@mit-xx)















-------