Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!arcsun!rob
From: rob@arcsun.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Potshots
Message-ID: <186@arcsun.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Mar-87 11:33:25 EST
Article-I.D.: arcsun.186
Posted: Fri Mar  6 11:33:25 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Mar-87 07:56:50 EST
References: <206@fornax.uucp> <3063@watdcsu.UUCP> <241@pembina.alberta.UUCP> <891@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: Alberta Research Council, Calgary, Ab.
Lines: 17
Summary: There must be an expected return on military research

In article <891@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes:
> I too have no objections to accepting military money (I came to that
> conclusion when I realised, during the Vietnam war, that every cent spent
> from the military budget on "useless" unclassified research was a cent which
> couldn't be spent to drop napalm on a little Vietnamese child)...

Regardless of how one feels about money from the military, the above
rationalization is invalid. While the U.S. military (not its Canadian
equivalent, which has no money) is prone to spending untold billions on
research, it must believe that it is getting some return on its investment.
So if your "useless" research enables the army to save $X on potato peelers,
that money is freed up for more napalm.

Rob Aitken
{...ubc-vision,...alberta}!calgary!arcsun!rob

Disclaimer: I liked the rest of the article.