franka@tekcad.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-284600:tekcad:14100001:000:1371
tekcad!franka Dec 4 08:09:00 1983
I totally agree that the "high frontier" strategy is destabilizing
and that a moritorium on working on the system is worthwhile (for those of
you that don't understand how it can be destabilizing, here's a possible
scenario.
1) US develops high energy lasers/projectile systems for space
basing
2) Soviets see us planning a launch and decide that if we get the
system up they will have no deterrent against US invasion
3) Soviets think that this is their last chance and maybe they'll
get lucky and launch a pre-emptive strike (if not this, then
EVERY space shuttle mission will have a good chance of being
blown out of the sky)
4) KA-BOOM!!!)
The only drawback with such a moritorium is that one never knows what
given scientific research is going to be used for. High energy lasers have
other applications (e.g., fusion, waste disposal, tunneling for mines, etc.).
Even outside work has its drawbacks. Do the oscilliscopes which my company
makes aid and abet the manufacture of such systems? Should I brand such work
immoral? If one could give clear guidelines one could make a choice, but clear
guidelines are for a much simpler world than the one in which we live. Sigh.
From the truly menacing,
/- -\ but usually underestimated,
<-> Frank Adrian
(tektronix!tekcad!franka)