banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) (04/05/85)
> However, we would like to know, of all those people who have posted > anti-SDI articles, how many of them would accept money from the military at > all, never mind the SDI money. Speaking for myself, I *have* accepted money from the military when I worked for a consulting company. However, I will point out the the contracts did not involve weapons development or even anything remotely connected to weapons. The point is: I personally see nothing wrong with military money *if* it is spent in such a way which improves our security...and our security is *not* improved by encouraging paranoia amongst Soviets (which seems to be the Reagan administration point of view). > These people should argue against military money in itself, and should > not limit the argument to pros and cons of SDI. As far as I'm concerned the (immediate) issue is (to quote Martin Taylor from a previous submission) Canadian participation in "aggressive militarization". SDI is the current "battleground" for that issue. However, to simply discard SDI doesn't solve the problem of the arms race (at a more general level) and how do we achieve and maintain peace (at a more general level still). I repeat that I would be very interested to hear other people's views on "defense-protected build-down" (Barkenbus and Weinberg, October, 1984; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Referring to Martin Taylor again: > But I really think the biggest amount of money to be spent on defence > research should be in peace psychology (ie conflict resolution and > related sociological subjects). 100% agreed! The Harvard Nuclear Study Group points out that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (funded through the Department of Defense) has an annual budget of less than the cost of *one* F-16! Generally, the only things which do get funded seem to be those which keep the arms race going. Of course, its not in the interest of the "military/industrial complex" to have it otherwise. And responding to Martin Taylor re: unfriendly aliens and avoiding self annihilation (from a discussion on can/ai) Any threat which mutually threatens both parties should do the trick. A classic example which was pointed out in the film "The Edge of History" is the eradication of smallpox...that required cooperation of the Soviets as well as Western nations. As for the threat of self-annihilation, that's something I've wondered about alot. One person I talked to suggested that our evolution has supplied a good ability to respond to threats perceived directly by our senses...sticking a hand on the stove, somebody holding a gun to your head. We are not so well equipped, however, to deal with threats which are more abstract...the dangers of smoking, the need for seat belts, and the threat of nuclear war. I think the large impact of TV shows such as "The Day After" and "Threads" is caused by this very fact...they bring the threat directly to our senses. Another possible reason why the threat of annihilation doesn't seem so vividly apparent to people is that it gets clouded by other "threats" which are easier for us to grasp...such as the threat of an enemy. The "threat of the Soviets" is indeed great...I'm not implying that its not. However, it is easier for us to grasp than the relatively new and unfamiliar threat of self-annihilation and therefore, for many people, it receives higher priority. ...I hope we don't actually have to experience it to finally give it the credit it is due! Al Banner
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/08/85)
In article <909@ubc-vision.CDN> version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN ubc-cs!ubc-vision!banner banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner) writes: >................................................................and our >security is *not* improved by encouraging paranoia amongst Soviets (which >seems to be the Reagan administration point of view). Undoubtedly phrases such as "evil empire" have rather troubling connotations associated with them. However, I personally find it extremely difficult to trust a government that does not trust its own people. J.B. Robinson
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (04/08/85)
> One person I talked to suggested that our evolution has supplied a > good ability to respond to threats perceived directly by our > senses...sticking a hand on the stove, somebody holding a gun to your head. > We are not so well equipped, however, to deal with threats which are more > abstract...the dangers of smoking, the need for seat belts, and the threat > of nuclear war. I think the large impact of TV shows such as "The Day > After" and "Threads" is caused by this very fact...they bring the threat > directly to our senses. > > Another possible reason why the threat of annihilation doesn't seem so > vividly apparent to people is that it gets clouded by other "threats" which > are easier for us to grasp...such as the threat of an enemy. The "threat > of the Soviets" is indeed great...I'm not implying that its not. However, > it is easier for us to grasp than the relatively new and unfamiliar threat > of self-annihilation and therefore, for many people, it receives higher > priority. > I'd like to congratulate you, Al, on your insight. I have much the same views. While I have in times past been responsible for the design of some weapons, I take much greater pride in the work I've done on SARSAT, (Search And Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking). This is a system that was designed to save lives, and is succeeding in doing just that. The nice thing about it is that it is a project that was a joint effort by Canada, the U.S., France, and the U.S.S.R. What we need to remember is our priorities as human beings. I believe in free enterprise. But it is not something that I would wish to kill anyone about. Most systems of government in the world today can be made to work by honest people. Not all people are honest, however. So can we not say; A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PEOPLE WHO RUN IT! It is also true that people are pretty much the same the world over. The fears we have of the Soviets are pretty much the same as the fears they have of us. We get very little opportunity to talk with each other. This can only be overcome by extensive communication. How many of you people out there would like to see a TV channel devoted to political discussion, (and perhaps other programming), between nations. This to be broadcast to as many countries as possible, especially the super powers. (Yes, I know, "dream on fella!") but in principle is it or isn't it a good idea? Mail your replies and I will keep count and post a summary to the net barring unforseen circumstances. Cheers, Fred Williams, (utcs!mnetor!motv29!fred)