Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Space Station, SDI, L5, and the Militarization of Space
Message-ID: <6278@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Jan-86 12:56:08 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.6278
Posted: Fri Jan 10 12:56:08 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Jan-86 12:56:08 EST
References: <12173750832.41.COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 73

> 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...

If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military
applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization.
*All* technology has military applications.  (Case in point: possibly
the biggest advance in medicine in this century was wide-spectrum
antibiotics like penicillin.  The techniques needed for economical mass
production of penicillin were developed because of urgent military need
for it during WW2 -- the *first* major war in which disease was not the
#1 cause of death!)

> (This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to
> fear the militarization of its use.)

Militarizing the space station will be unusually difficult because of the
international involvement, much of which is firmly tied to the peaceful
nature of its mission.

> 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.

It is a well-known fact that a lot of space work has ridden on the coattails
of the military, right back to the V-2.  But this is no more a reason to
"wonder" about the L-5 Society than it is a reason to "wonder" about
penicillin.  The US space program, fortunately, got separated from the
military quite early on.  What is needed now is firm support for it --
through the L-5 Society, for example! -- so that NASA doesn't have to go
back to its military forefathers begging for pennies and political support.
Which is roughly what happened on the Shuttle, with the result that the
Shuttle's design got badly bent to meet USAF requirements.  If you want the
Space Station to stay non-military, then SUPPORT IT!!!

> ... 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...

Concerned about the intelligence and common sense of the specific members
of the groups who are promoting the ideas, yes.  But what has this to do
with the military aspect?

> 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."

So we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore the possibility?!?
The possibility that exists *regardless* of whether SDI and other such
systems go ahead or not?  And *regardless* of whether near-future arms
control efforts succeed or not?  That is hysteria, not rational thinking.
When somebody buys fire insurance on his home, we don't assume that he
intends to burn it down!

The biggest threat to your life, and mine, is those thousands of missiles
which are already in place and are *not* going to vanish completely in
any realistic future (although their numbers might decline considerably
if things go well).  Putting all our eggs in one basket is folly even if you
do believe that arms control will succeed and SDI will either (a) be stopped
or (b) be successful beyond its supporters' wildest dreams.  And not just
because of nuclear weapons, either.  There are other threats to our survival,
albeit less urgent ones.  Regardless of what develops in regard to SDI and
arms control, the human race would be safer if it were more spread out.
I don't expect our machine room to explode tomorrow, but we keep offsite
backups even so.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry