Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ucdavis!ucbvax!space
From: J.JPM@EPIC (Jim McGrath)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: NASA and SDI budgets
Message-ID: <12185272326.7.J.JPM@EPIC>
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 22:00:02 EST
Article-I.D.: EPIC.12185272326.7.J.JPM
Posted: Fri Feb 21 22:00:02 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 20:05:04 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 30


        From: J.JPM@EPIC 
        But it never will.  One of the reasons I think SDI is a good
        idea is that it is an excellent way to get funds for space
        activities...

    From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
    This is one of the reasons I think SDI is a sick idea.  It reduces
    NASA (along with much university research) to moral prostitution
    for its funding.

Your logic here is missing a couple of steps.  You can only make a
case for moral prostitution if you somehow think that defense research
is immoral (or you think that the law is neat and tidy - in which case
I don't think you know much about the law).  I happen to think defense
research is vital.  Furthermore, I disagree with the philosophy of the
current law, which forbids the military from sponsoring research
unless it is directly related to its mission.  I have no problem with
the military supporting, through research, fields that contribute to
the general health of science, technology, and industry, and thus
indirectly to defense.

You are perfectly entitled to you own feelings (a more accurate term
than thoughts) on this matter, but given this fundamental divergence
in beliefs you should be ready to recognize why other (indeed, most)
people will disagree.


Jim
-------