eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman) (04/02/85)
In article <890@ubc-vision.CDN> mack@ubc-vision.CDN (Alan Mackworth) writes: > > 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. Possibly. According to President Reagan it may eventually lead to complete elimination of nuclear weapons. > > - Canadian participation will destroy any credibility we > may have left as an honest broker on the international > stage. I suppose that an 'honest broker' nation by this definition is a country that does no research (or, God forbid, development) by/for the military. What has Switzerland ever accomplished as an 'honest broker' nation? I know, they have a lot of conferences, discussions, headquarters, etc. But they are no more effective then the U.N. (with headquarters in the warmonger's country U.S.) Does being an 'honest broker' mean that Comrade Gorbachev & President Reagan are both going to shake our Prime Minister's hand and praise him for impartiality? Personally, I would prefer my chosen country to be vibrant and alive and aware as opposed to being an 'honest broker' nation in the mold of some neutral European country in the 1930's. > > - The goals of the SDI violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Mis- > sile treaty. Does the treaty forbid the development of a new computer language or even a laser? Do we not continue work in the genetic labs in spite of the treaty (with more than just 2 co-signers) that forbid the deployment of bacteriological and chemical weapon systems? > > - We cannot afford it. What is it exactly that we cannot afford? Is it the research that may be used in SDI or any other research? What we cannot afford is to fall behind in the pace of the research, specifically in computer science, because that would mean stagnation. Somehow Japan has managed to find $800M plus for development of the fifth generation computers. Can we not afford some money for research in the same area? I am sure that most computer scientists would support the idea of additional research. So what is the problem? The fact that the money comes from the military and that the fruits of research will be used by the military as well as by civilians (why did we invent radios or cars -- the military uses them)? It is interesting to note that the scientists here in the West have an opportunity, if they so desire, to reject to work for the military. How noble! I know that the best scientists in the Soviet Union are working for their military because the state gives them three choices: 1) Work where the state tells them to work OR 2) Work where they can. (e.g. a lot of openings for street cleaners) OR 3) To get imprisoned for being a parasite (i.e. no job). > ... > SDI research 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? From what I hear on the news, Canada is certainly not a nation that spends a large portion of its GNP on various projects related to the military. Yet, Canada this year has its largest budget deficit in its history. Canada's budget deficit may not have as many zeroes, but that is a matter of scale, for the Canadian government is seriously (and justifiably) concerned about the problem. I think that the economic performance of the U.S. would want to be emulated by all the countries in the world (and not just Canada), ESPECIALLY over the last four years. > 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. Absolutely. As soon as the Soviets see what an ideal society we have created, they will certainly follow our example and will also concentrate on generating meaningful employment and wealth for the masses [ :-) ]. > > As professionals we must speak up and let the > decision makers know our feelings, loud and clear. Amen! The intent of my reply was not an attempt to trivialize or dismiss the issues raised by Alan Mackworth. I have attempted to present an alternative point of view on what can be considered to be the biggest & most important dilemma of the century. Yes, there are other and better ways to spend the taxpayers money rather than for military purposes. However, we must face the fact that there are two mutually hostile superpowers on this planet of ours. Canada may choose to sit on the fence (I prefer the analogy of the ostrich and the sand) and do only a token amount of research, or it may decide to join in development of new technologies. I do not believe that Canada can choose to be 'noble' at the expense of the U.S. and enjoy its protection. And if Canada does not want to become (or remain?) a nation that relies on export of its natural resources and tranquil neutrality, then it should take the opportunity to expand the boundaries of knowledge. I don't believe that any scientist should choose his/her projects on the basis of whether or not the military will find a way to use it. Let's face it, most of the discoveries in physics, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science have found and will continue to find applications in both military and civilian sectors of the economy. Limiting research to 'safe' areas will only serve to stifle science and allow very limited progress.