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!linus!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: NASA and SDI budgets
Message-ID: <11974@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Feb-86 01:43:22 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11974
Posted: Sun Feb 23 01:43:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 04:09:50 EST
References: <12185272326.7.J.JPM@EPIC>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 43


>>>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...       [J.JPM@EPIC]
>>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.       [Me]
>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.       [J.JPM@EPIC]

I do not think that defense research is immoral or that the law is
neat and tidy.  I am all in favor of the military supporting basic
and even not-so-basic research.

My objection is in tying NASA to SDI in any serious way.  NASA has
been non-partisan all these years, and I fear that SDI could damage
that.  In particular, SDI has numerous intelligent foes--in contrast
with anti-NASA idiots like W Mondale--and I do not want to see them
turn their sights on NASA.  Nor would I like to see NASA become a
guinea pig in future arms control talks.  And if xx% of NASA's budget
ends up coming from SDI money, and our next president kills SDI, xx%
of NASA's budget disappears.

I should point out that SDI is damaging the coziness of past defense/
academia relations very seriously.

If we can't support the space program for the sake of space itself,
then why bother?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720