peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/07/83)
Re articles on "High Frontier, What Scientists Can Do" (HFWSCD): The first article, in response to a suggestion that scientists desist from accepting DoD money as an indication of their feelings on the nuclear arms race, suggested that more widespread agreement might be achieved on a moratorium on High-Frontier systems. Excerpts from a Toronto Globe and Mail article were provided to set the context for this suggestion. Henry Spencer picked a relatively minor point from the excerpts to lambaste. That is the contention that if billions proposed for High Frontier R&D were NOT spent that they would go to "lovable" projects such as planetary exploration. In that article, he used very strong terms to describe the people that suggest such tradeoffs. Though I *agree* with his objection, I posted an article objecting to the short-sightedness and tunnel-vision of such an argument, in light of all the other, more important, considerations such as the destabilizing effect of such systems. I was drawn into the fray tho, and suggested that if HF research went ahead, much manpower would be drawn from already-funded research (in gov't and industry), based on the staffing demands predicted by DoD officials. I still believe this is a distinct possibility. The amount of money required is also undeniably large. But there are other points, some of which Henry raised and some of which he didn't: > Scientists are supposedly in business to do exactly this kind of work: > get the facts and never mind the preconceptions. But the HFWSCD plea > is just the other way around, arguing from preconceptions that any try > at producing facts is inappropriate. Facts aren't free. Even DoD officials say a HF R&D program will cost a great deal of money, as currently envisioned. It is common sense to see whether those facts are worth the effort. > Understand, I am not *totally* > opposed to the HFWSCD effort -- it would be a major mistake to make a > big, expensive, hard-to-change commitment when we don't know whether > we could make it work -- but a more modest commitment to getting the > facts is both important and urgent. HFWSCD is not making any attempt > to distinguish between the two, since the calls for funding cutoffs > and refusal to participate make no mention of the distinction. A moratorium on HF development as opposed to basic research related to HF, which I believe is in the spirit of these comments, might work. However, modest research related to HF has been going on for years. It appears that the DoD now thinks that a massive program is needed for further results. This is understandable as space deployment and large-scale power generation in space seem to be big problems, and the problems that need to be solved. This, however, ignores the point of whether we want HF systems at all. > To sum up, turn it the other way around: Are you so certain that it > *won't* work that you are willing to boycott something that just might > be the salvation of our civilization? If you *are* that certain -- just > what basis do you have for that certainty, when even the experts are > hotly debating the point? We need to *know*. If it doesn't work, then a lot of money and manpower will have been wasted. I am more afraid, though, of the prospect of a successful HF system. As has been recently mentioned in this group, the imminent launch of a HF system by one side is a pretty good reason for a first strike by the other side. Either that or a large numerical increase in offensive weapons to overwhelm the HF defences. It was exactly these prospects that the ABM treaty was signed to avoid. Why pursue such a destabilizing course, in violation of treaty? Some areas present tough questions for scientists (e.g. should genetic engineering research be done?) which can be argued either way. I tend to favour the pursuit of knowledge, but, as the fellow from MIT said in the excerpts, "this is crazy". p. rowley, U. Toronto