Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!UNC!UNCPJS From: UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET (Peter J. Schledorn) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics Subject: Re: defense spending Message-ID: <90040.1436.UNCPJS@UNC> Date: 9 Feb 90 14:36:00 GMT Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Reply-To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Lines: 13 Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway A fairly cynical answer to your question about defense spending priorities, though I think it contains a certain amount of truth: It's easier to get people steamed up to oppose defense cuts when cuts mean closed bases and thousands of lost jobs, than when they mean just cutbacks in a few relatively obscure weapon systems. Also, high-level military careers are made on these weapons, so it seems reasonable to assume that they would be lost or damaged with their cancellation. Yours for secure turf, Peter.