mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) (03/28/85)
Canada should decline the invitation from the United
States to participate in the Strategic Defense Initiative
(SDI), for the following reasons:
- It is a destabilizing project leading to further
acceleration of the arms race.
- Canadian participation will destroy any credibility we
may have left as an honest broker on the international
stage.
- The goals of the SDI violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Mis-
sile treaty.
- We cannot afford it.
- Canadian participation would lead to the militarization
of the Canadian scientific research community. This point is
worth emphasizing. Many Canadian scientists, who may, in
the public mind, be seen as beneficiaries of the research
dollars that would flow from a commitment to SDI research,
are adamantly opposed to the militarization of science. We
have chosen to live, work and teach in Canada precisely
because Canadian science, although not well-funded, is at
least not subservient to military research as it is in the
United States.
- SDI is an inefficient and wasteful way to pursue job-
creation. Weapons research and development has been
compared, in its economic impact, with digging an enormous
hole in the ground and filling it in again. It has little
spinoff benefit to the industrial and consumer economy. The
economic multiplier effects are minimal compared with other
activities. Using lasers, particle beams and computers to
dig the hole does not change that fact! The United States'
economy is now overheated because of massive military expen-
ditures. It appears however that, fundamentally, that econ-
omy is in decline. In 1984 the United States' current
account balance of payments deficit was $101,600,000,000.
It is now a net debtor nation. Is this the economic perfor-
mance we want to emulate?
Instead of SDI and military research we should concen-
trate our efforts on developing a humane technology,
oriented at the consumer market and at the enormous problems
we face in manpower training, health, education, resource
management and manufacturing technology. These are areas
that have high economic multipliers, generate meaningful
employment and wealth, and at the same time do not threaten
our survival.
As professionals we must speak up and let the
decision makers know our feelings, loud and clear.chris@aquila.UUCP (chris) (03/29/85)
Canada should support its NATO allies and the United States in its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) for the following reasons: - SDI is a research project and as such is not destabilizing. Actual deployment of defensive systems would be destabilizing, unless both sides deployed roughly equivalent systems at the same time. However, after an effective defense system is deployed, greater stability should result. The possibility of war started by belligerent nations with nuclear weapons or the potential for creating them (examples: Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Brazil, South Korea, or South Africa) then escalating into general war would be greatly lessened. - Canada is a member of NATO, and NATO has approved the SDI research. - The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty does not disallow research and development of anti-ballistic missiles or other defensive systems. - militarization of scientific research is not an automatic result of SDI. Research dollars will flow into SDI-related work; this may imply less dollars for other work, but not a militarization of that work. Less dollars for other work is lamentable, but defence may be more important to more people. - all defence spending is a 'waste'; in this imperfect world, however, every nation must spend money on defence to survive. SDI is NOT a job creation scheme; neither is feeding and clothing our regular armed forces! Solely economic arguments for SDI are rightfully suspect. - nuclear weapons threaten our survival; anything that lessens that threat is worth pursuing. Instead of targetting Russian children, SDI proposes to target Russian missles. > As professionals we must speak up and let the > decision makers know our feelings, loud and clear. You just heard my opinions.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/30/85)
I don't think it's the militarization of science that is the problem
with the SDI "offer". In my view, militarization is necessary except
in an ideal world in which we have no need to worry about aggressors.
What bothers me about it is that it is aggressive militarization. I
have worked for DND all my working life, and have felt that I have been
doing something useful, precisely because Canada's armed forces were
used always for what I believe to be good purposes -- mainly UN Peacekeeping.
I worry greatly about our getting tied into the US offensive military
buildup, and I don't know what my position would be if the Defence
Research labs got involved in Star Wars.
But you should make a clear distinction between the kind of anti-military
feeling that the US behaviour in VietNam induced and the need for the
kind of military role that Canada has played (and I hope will continue
to play). We can do without the Americans running roughshod over the
world (and us, if we don't look after our own territory); we can't do
without our own military, much as most of us would like to. And our
military needs the best that science can offer.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmtrggoebel@water.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) (03/30/85)
I think it's important to acknowledge the question of how SDI will
affect research, and AI research in particular. However, I also
think that Alan Mackworth has suggested that we can debate something
very simple before we start to rationalize ``defense'' research: a
focus on benefits to society from the economic and cultural is not
unreasonable. As many people have observed, the Japanese fifth
generation project seeks to provide the tools for transition to an
information society. This includes lots of things like improving
quality of life, improving the the production and delivery of good and
services, and providing better access to knowledge of all kinds.
I would like to see those who have defended defense research on the basis
of our ``imperfect world'' try their hand at explaining why these goals
are not more important?
Randy Goebel
Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1
UUCP: {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!watmath!water!rggoebel
CSNET: rggoebel%water@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: rggoebel%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpacdshaw@watrose.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/31/85)
Although this doesn't relate directly to star wars, I think the goal of the Japanese in the fifth generation project is not entirely a "nice" one. The major goal of Japanese Industry and (by extension and policy) the Japanese Government for the last 20 years has been commercial domination of free- market countries. It is clear from their domestic BUY JAPANESE policies that they are not really interested in fair (foreign) competetion except where they have no control over it. The Fifth Generation project may indeed find a new way to distribute goods, but the major goal is to acheive a technical domination of the US & Canada, and by virtue of that domination, extend their economic influence substantially. The US, on the other hand, is interested in commercial and military domination of the world. Their motives are clear, however, and the US can't be accused nearly so effectively of not being fair to its trading partners. Now which Strategic Initiative will you support ?? Japan's Strategic Commercial one ? Or the more-obviously-threatening US version? Put that in yer pipe & smoke it! Chris Shaw University of Waterloo
nixon@utai.UUCP (Brian Nixon) (03/31/85)
Chris is concerned with the "possibility of war started by belligerent nations" with nuclear capacity or potential, and includes Israel in a list of such nations. Calling Israel "belligerent" ignores the fact that the state has been under attack since its establishment in 1948. Also, the fact that Israel has put some of Iraq's nuclear capacity out of commission has been omitted. Brian Nixon.
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (04/01/85)
In article <890@ubc-vision.CDN> mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) writes: > - Canadian participation will destroy any credibility we > may have left as an honest broker on the international > stage. Not true. Canada is a part of NATO, and as such should take part in NATO projects (next you'll be telling me we should get out of NATO). > - SDI is an inefficient and wasteful way to pursue job- > creation. Weapons research and development has been > compared, in its economic impact, with digging an enormous > hole in the ground and filling it in again. It has little > spinoff benefit to the industrial and consumer economy. The > economic multiplier effects are minimal compared with other > activities. Using lasers, particle beams and computers to > dig the hole does not change that fact! The United States' > economy is now overheated because of massive military expen- > ditures. It appears however that, fundamentally, that econ- > omy is in decline. In 1984 the United States' current > account balance of payments deficit was $101,600,000,000. > It is now a net debtor nation. Is this the economic perfor- > mance we want to emulate? I am not saying that SDI is the greatest way to pursue job-creation, but it is a delusion to say that it does not have an economic impact. Just how did you figure that ``multiplier effects are minimal''. As I remember from my Econ courses, multiplier effect stems from the fact that money circulates in the eonomy, and spending by one person results in income by another, and hence further spending. Well, SDI money would not just be thrown away; it would be spent on salaries, equipment and materials. Purchases of each one of these result in income to somebody else (scientists, technicians, computer companies, ...) who will once again spend the money for a further multiplier effect. There IS a significant economic impact from significant spending, regardless of whether it's for the military or not. > Instead of SDI and military research we should concen- > trate our efforts on developing a humane technology, > oriented at the consumer market and at the enormous problems > we face in manpower training, health, education, resource > management and manufacturing technology. These are areas > that have high economic multipliers, generate meaningful > employment and wealth, and at the same time do not threaten > our survival. An admirable thought (especially the ``meaningful jobs'' part). However, the Russians DO threaten our survival, too, and we can't quite ignore them. > As professionals we must speak up and let the > decision makers know our feelings, loud and clear. I'm only a student, but you heard mine. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/01/85)
While calling Israel "belligerent" is pushing things rather far, one
should recognize that Israel is one of the few (so far) nations which
has both nuclear weaponry and a serious possibility of getting into
sufficiently dire straits to consider using it. The one major reassuring
note is Israel's considerable non-nuclear combat superiority over its
hostile neighbors.
We can only hope that the fragile peace in the Middle East gets a bit
less fragile. The prospect of Israel having to choose between its own
destruction and starting even a local nuclear war is most unsettling.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/01/85)
> ...focus on benefits to society from the economic and cultural is not > unreasonable. As many people have observed, the Japanese fifth > generation project seeks to provide the tools for transition to an > information society. This includes lots of things like improving > quality of life, improving the the production and delivery of good and > services, and providing better access to knowledge of all kinds. > I would like to see those who have defended defense research on the basis > of our ``imperfect world'' try their hand at explaining why these goals > are not more important? Any consideration of economic and cultural benefits assumes that you will survive and remain free long enough to be interested. Given an imperfect world, this cannot be taken for granted. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/01/85)
> > - Canadian participation will destroy any credibility we > > may have left as an honest broker on the international > > stage. > Not true. Canada is a part of NATO, and as such should take part in > NATO projects (next you'll be telling me we should get out of NATO). Canada cannot be an honest broker BECAUSE we are in NATO. And personally I DO think we should be out of NATO. We don't pull our weight and we could get into the position of being an honest broker. What I really object to is the rhetoric about this only being a research project which has no bearing on actually building anything. THIS IS A LOAD OF HORSE-****!! It stems from the idea that technology is completely unbiased and neutral. If this is just a research project that's being done forthehellofit, wy do it at all. (I realise that this sort of rationalization hasn't hit the net yet I'm just fed up of hearing it touted in the other media that run our minds.) larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile
mnh@utcsri.UUCP (Mark N. Hume) (04/01/85)
> > Canada should support its NATO allies and the United States > in its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) for the following reasons: > > - SDI is a research project and as such is not destabilizing. > > - The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty does not disallow research and development > of anti-ballistic missiles or other defensive systems. On the contrary, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty outlaws not only development but testing as well. Any serious thought that SDI could be *only* a research project and thus not violate the ABM treaty is beyond reason, for research without testing is in this case almost impossible (and in fact, testing has already been carried out). Remember, the Manhatten project was *only* a research project! Another thing that dismays me is how the United States can support both the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the SDI. SDI means that the US is not assured of destruction if it launches an offencive attack, which is clearly contrary to MAD. If the US has SDI and the USSR does not, how can the USSR feel safe from nuclear attack as MAD suggests (although I think MAD is insane anyway)? Who was it that said " the best defence is a good offence ". This can be turned around to read "the *best* defence (read SDI) creates the climate for a good offence (first strike? , the willingness to enter into conflict in other areas of the world (eg. mid east)? )". And finally, in this imperfect world, has any complex system worked perfectly? Thus can SDI ever work perfectly, and if it doesn't, then all the USSR has to do is build up enough to make that small imperfection into a large nuclear disaster. Its easier to overwhelm an intricate system than it is to make it work. -- Mark N. Hume
wbell@utcs.UUCP (Warren Bell) (04/02/85)
Distribution:can Organization: University of Toronto - General Purpose UNIX Keywords: In article <402@utai.UUCP> nixon@utai.UUCP (Brian Nixon) writes: >Chris is concerned with the "possibility of war started by belligerent nations" >with nuclear capacity or potential, and includes Israel in a list of such >nations. Calling Israel "belligerent" ignores the fact that the state >has been under attack since its establishment in 1948. Also, the fact >that Israel has put some of Iraq's nuclear capacity out of commission has >been omitted. > >Brian Nixon. I also can't believe that he didn't include Libya in his list of belligerent nations!! Warren Bell -- ---- University of Toronto Computing Services Warren Bell UUCP: {cbosgd,decvax,harpo,ihnp4,utcsri,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!wbell BITNET: wbell at utoronto
rggoebel@water.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) (04/02/85)
Henry Spencer, as well as others, haven't answered my question. All this ``imperfect world'' discussion doesn't say anything. There is obviously a trade off between concern for society and its defense. Too much concern for the former means no defense, and too much for the latter means nothing to defend. I would much rather debate the tradeoff than argue about whether it exists. So tell me, where do you think Canada stands? The US? Japan?
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/03/85)
I agree with Alan's original comments. Some brief comments on other remarks: I haven't seen anything to suggest that "NATO has approved of the SDI". Events generally in Nato on the other side of the atlantic (e.g. over disposition of cruise missiles) indicate that most Nato participants are less willing to cosy up to the US administration than is Canada. Statistics indicate that $ for $, military expenditures result in fewer new jobs per dollar spent than any other significant area of economic activity. The reason in short is that most of the money goes into high-tech devices rather than into salaries/pay for ordinary people. Of course, the better-paid classes of engineers, technicians and scientists do pretty well out of military expenditures. Not only is the SDI destablizing, but it is clearly contrary to the terms of the 1972 ABM Treaty. This treaty banned the development of new anti-ballistic-missile systems which are sea-based, space-based, or mobile-land-based, precisely because new systems of those kinds tend to undermine the 'balance of power' that has prevailed (imperfectly). I don't think anyone with technical knowledge any longer seriously believes that the SDI has any chance of making nuclear weapons "obsolete" as President Reagan originally said it would; so the virtually inevitable consequence will be just another upward spiral of the arms race. Julian Davies
gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/03/85)
The idea that the future of humanity would be in the control of complex AI systems is rather appealing. Using the good ol' GIGO rule, the computers would eventually decide to blow us out of existence (after all they will be programmed by/as military minds). This would kill most "higher" forms of life on earth leaving the lowliest of amoebas (sp?) to start evolution all over again. Maybe nature wouldn't make the mistake of inventing man this time. have a nice day (if we live that long) larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/03/85)
> Henry Spencer, as well as others, haven't answered my question. We can only answer the questions that you ask. > All this > ``imperfect world'' discussion doesn't say anything. There is obviously > a trade off between concern for society and its defense. Too much concern > for the former means no defense, and too much for the latter means nothing > to defend. I would much rather debate the tradeoff than argue about whether > it exists. Sure sounded like you were arguing against its existence. Glad to hear otherwise. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/04/85)
>Henry Spencer, as well as others, haven't answered my question. All this >``imperfect world'' discussion doesn't say anything. There is obviously >a trade off between concern for society and its defense. Too much concern >for the former means no defense, and too much for the latter means nothing >to defend. I would much rather debate the tradeoff than argue about whether >it exists. So tell me, where do you think Canada stands? The US? Japan? OK, you asked. [I still think can.politics is the better group for this discussion, but since you insist on keeping it here, here goes.] I think Canada should not at present be concerned with any trade-off between defence and society, since we pay far too little for each. We should be supporting research, especially the so-called "soft" sciences, very much more strongly than we are. The best defence is not to be attacked, and we (and the world) need to find other ways of avoiding being attacked than just to put up terrifying defences. Defence need not involve killing people -- it should mean that no-one tries to kill or subjugate us. We need to spend a great deal more on cultural things. Canada has been getting better in this respect over the last couple of decades, but we have a long way to go before public awareness is sufficient to support an indigenous Canadian culture in the presence of the strong US presence (in context of this discussion, consider it as supplying extra calcium to prevent strontium-90 poisoning from fallout). We need to spend more on conventional defence and on defence research, since that is the only way I can see of avoiding complete US domination, or of persuading a potential attacker that it wouldn't be worthwhile to follow through (but I don't mean acquiring our own nuclear deterrent). The need for defence research follows from the fact that our ships probably wouldn't last ten minutes in a Falklands type of war, and we don't have much ability to handle sophisticated weapons in any field. 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). In summary, where we stand relative to the US and to Japan is -- nowhere, man. Where we should stand is in neither place. Lester Pearson showed us where we should be going, but we have lost the way. Remember that Pearson designed NATO as a three-pronged affair: military, cultural, and economic. The strength of the Atlantic Alliance was to depend on all three areas, and I think the failure of the Alliance is that the military leg of the tripod has been the only one seriously supported. It is the leg that should not be very necessary if the others were truly functional (I know, the Science Council exists, and funds Workshops and Advanced Study Institutes, but it's far from the cultural alliance Pearson had in mind). The West would be very strong if NATO functioned as Pearson hoped, and would probably spend a great deal less on military hardware, because it would be so strong otherwise. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt