peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (12/20/83)
The "High Frontier, What Scientists Can Do" article used that latest, and apparently incorrect, meaning of "High Frontier"-- referring to a space-based ABM system. This use was apparent from the article, but I guess readers latched on to the "High Frontier" tag and used their own meaning for it. To avoid further confusion, I won't use the term, but instead use "space industry" and "space-based ABM" to refer to particular projects. It is the latter that many people, including (apparently) Mr. Wheeler and myself, object to and suggest a boycott of, for all the reasons given (small chance of furthering the exploration of space, large chance for destabilizing the arms balance on earth, great cost, technical vulnerability, ...). I'm all for a healthy space industry and if Reagan's space station project is aimed that way, I'll support it, even if there are military uses. My hope is that once the capitalistic spirit latches onto the possibilities (and profits) of space, there will be such a huge use of highly skilled talent that space weapons research may be frozen out (who's got more weight? GM or the DoD? I don't know, but I think it's close to a fair fight; as for GM, IBM, TRW, ... vs. the DoD, I think my money would be on the former group-- there is anecdotal evidence (eg. Heller's "Catch-22") that profit is more important than defense). If money and manpower can be channelled into a new frontier (space) profitably, then it won't go towards producing weapons to fight over already-claimed territory (earth). Note that the sea has not been explored this way, though. I'd even be content to see large cost overruns on a space station. Hell, I'd even vote for paying the nuke companies NOT to build nukes, just as the US pays its farmers not to grow things! They've got a lot of bucks tied up in machinery to make weapons, after all, and this must be seen as part of the picture-- as a reason why some want to continue producing weapons. So, Mr. Wheeler and I disagreed only on the meaning attached to "High Frontier". Now, having that cleared up, is there widespread support for a boycott of work on a space-based anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system? p. rowley, U. Toronto
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/21/83)
Space-based industry is probably vital to the long-term survival of
civilization, which is why it is SO important to stop the deployment
of space-based weapons. Anything in space is terribly vulnerable,
and deliberate sabotage or attack makes possible peaceful space stations
poor places to live and work. Space weaponry seems to be incompatible
with the use of space for the benefit of mankind (or even for the
benefit of the USA). It's of no great benefit to say that the technological
spinoff from the weapon program will be useful for later space colonization,
because by then it will be too late to colonize space. We should be doing
that NOW.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt