ruffwork@ihuxn.UUCP (Ruffwork) (11/27/83)
[] First, let me appoligize for this also being on net.tv.da, but the letter I am responding to left me little choice... In responce to the responce about not acceptting DARPA monies for reseach... ...(possibly a 'mild' flame)... Oh, come on!!! Do you realize how childish these reasions are (I'm sure you do...): > if I take the money, and give them something useless for > warefare, then I'm doing a public service... > > if I do it, somebody else will... These remind me of not reasons, but EXCUSES. ('minor' nazi war criminals used the last excuse many times to justify there envolvements...) I personally dont do ANYTHING that is involved with the military, but see NOTHING wrong with doing research using military monies IF (a BIG IF) the results are totally public domain, and under NO restrictions!!! ANYTHING could lead to military ends, but EVERYBODY gains from general, totally public domain, increases in knowledge!!! DAPRA, in funding this type of work, takes the chance that it will have no 'pratical' military value; this is not defrauding them (as the first excuse suggests...). I will say that we, as a professional group (CS and EE), should not accept any research monies that are tied to restricted, or 'obvious' military research (missle guidance systems, for instance...). Sorry again for this also being on net.tv.da, but I felt that it had to be said... ...ihnp4!ihuxn!ruffwork ...ihnp4!inam1!ruffwork []
eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (12/10/83)
#R:tty3b:-25700:uiuccsb:11000083:000:1958 uiuccsb!eich Dec 9 20:35:00 1983 >/***** uiuccsb:net.politics / tty3b!mjk / 8:26 am Dec 7, 1983 */ >I know that 'everything is military related'; that's what happens >when you run a war economy, as we do in the U.S. But there's an >important message in explicitly refusing to work directly for the >military and stating WHY you are refusing the job. Furthermore, >that's not unilateral disarmament. It's taking direct action to help >slow down the arms race. This is nonsense. One could as easily say that we run an automobile economy because the degree of interdependency is such that almost all economic sectors supply goods and services, directly or indirectly, to the auto manufacturers. Defense spending as a percentage of GNP has declined almost without interruption for the past thirty years from around 8 percent in the '50's to 5 and a half under Carter. And strategic nuclear spending, which averages a 2-3 percent of government spending, declined to 9 billion in FY 1979. This is mainly due to Macnamara's unilateral freeze of deployed land based missiles in 1967; programs such as Trident offset this, of course. Unilateral disarmament/direct action is a distinction without a difference. The effect of all scientists who do defense work suddenly changing to non-defense would be assuredly unilateral and ultimately disarming. Until it becomes conceivable for Soviet scientists to freely quit military work, tty3b!mjk's "direct action" amounts to support for unilateral disarmament. Finally, some of your friends may be doing defense work in bad conscience, but might there not be some who can make a positive defense of their work, but who offer only rationalizations to you because they know your views and think it more politic to offer pragmatic rationales? It doesn't sound too perspicacious to assume that all of the respondents to your undoubted cajolery are artless, weak, and half-hearted because their responses are. They may just be avoiding a flame.