COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA (Richard A. Cowan) (01/09/86)
In Space digest #48, Eugene Miya states: > 3) No the space station has nothing to do with SDI. It's a sitting > duck, for one thing. The plan is to make it another NASA Center > like the other earth-based NASA Centers: interesting network domain > problems for address: person@site.EARTH ..... :-) When the space shuttle was developed, it also had "nothing to do with SDI." But it's used for SDI today. Similarly, though the main technical purpose of the space station is not SDI, it's naive to assume that the space station won't be used for SDI in some fashion. (This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to fear the militarization of its use.) It should be pointed out that the space station project does serve an important political purpose that is related to SDI. It provides an exciting, humane technical project that can be used by aerospace contractors such as Rockwell to attract enthusiastic, highly-skilled technical personnel. I would not find fault with this, except that these contractors often gloss over their military activities when recruiting, stressing their space station work, which may be a very small fraction of their activities. People headed for military careers should know what they are getting into. When the fostering of a set of expectations that employment in a certain field will have great non-military benefit lures engineers into military work, these engineers are being exploited. I'm not saying the companies do this maliciously; their advertising is deceptive because of marketing considerations and wishful thinking. (See the story about Peter Hagelstein in "Star Warriors," by William J. Broad.) In Aero/Astro this concern is particularly germane. In 1978, 52% of the Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineers worked on National Defense projects, and 26% worked in space. [Source: Robert DeGrasse, "Military Expansion, Economic Decline", originally from the NSF] As Brazilian aircraft manufacturers capture the market for small agricultural planes in the US, and as SDI gets rolling, that civilian fraction is declining. Plus, little of the "exotic" or "elite" research is in the civilian fraction. Without the space station, a situation could develop where the aerospace industry became 90% military dominated, a development most people in that industry would rather not happen. It's an unfortunate fact that in the United States space projects serve the interests of military contractors and vice versa, contributing to increased space militarization. For that reason, I feel that Phil Karn (Digest #51) has every reason to "wonder" about the L5 society, for even though it may take no position on SDI, the group owes much of its vitality -- perhaps even its existance -- to the symbiotic relationship between space enthusiasts and the military. When the US constructs a billion $$ Unified Space Command in Colorado Springs, and sets up three separate divisions of space bureaucracy to give the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all a "piece of the action," there is more reason to be concerned. When groups like L5 promote certain commercial uses of space that have been outmoded by cheaper, earth-based methods, there is even more reason to be concerned. And when a significant fraction of L5 members see arms control as futile, and therefore want to develop space so that when we go ahead with SDI and post-SDI systems and eventually blow ourselves up, the human race will survive, there's even reason to be a bit frightened. Nuclear annihilation should not be "thinkable." Finally, I hope that L5 members who believe in the organization will promote open discussion of such issues despite the tendency for such groups to avoid controversy and ignore potential problems. -Rich Cowan (cowan@mit-xx) -------
space@ucbvax.UUCP (01/10/86)
> Nuclear annihilation should be unthinkable.
I agree, but not everybody thinks that way. Until they do, we have to
defend ourselves, either by an offensive system of deterrence, or a
defensive system like SDI. Unfortunately, it's easier to invent new
weapons than to alter the way people think.
L5 is interested in space colonization, and some members feel the SDI
program will help get large, cheap launch systems built that can be
used for other purposes besides SDI. Others beleive the SDI weapons
would make it too easy to destroy anything in orbit, including space
stations. I think L5 leaders are trying to moderate the SDI debate
so that the other subjects L5 members are interested in will survive,
instead of having L5 split up into pro and con factions.henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/10/86)
> When the space shuttle was developed, it also had "nothing to do with > SDI." But it's used for SDI today. Similarly, though the main > technical purpose of the space station is not SDI, it's naive to > assume that the space station won't be used for SDI in some fashion... If we're going to hesitate about things because of possible military applications, we might as well give up on technological civilization. *All* technology has military applications. (Case in point: possibly the biggest advance in medicine in this century was wide-spectrum antibiotics like penicillin. The techniques needed for economical mass production of penicillin were developed because of urgent military need for it during WW2 -- the *first* major war in which disease was not the #1 cause of death!) > (This is not a reason to oppose the space station, but a reason to > fear the militarization of its use.) Militarizing the space station will be unusually difficult because of the international involvement, much of which is firmly tied to the peaceful nature of its mission. > For that reason, I feel that Phil Karn (Digest #51) has every reason to > "wonder" about the L5 society, for even though it may take no position on > SDI, the group owes much of its vitality -- perhaps even its existance -- > to the symbiotic relationship between space enthusiasts and the military. It is a well-known fact that a lot of space work has ridden on the coattails of the military, right back to the V-2. But this is no more a reason to "wonder" about the L-5 Society than it is a reason to "wonder" about penicillin. The US space program, fortunately, got separated from the military quite early on. What is needed now is firm support for it -- through the L-5 Society, for example! -- so that NASA doesn't have to go back to its military forefathers begging for pennies and political support. Which is roughly what happened on the Shuttle, with the result that the Shuttle's design got badly bent to meet USAF requirements. If you want the Space Station to stay non-military, then SUPPORT IT!!! > ... When groups like L5 promote certain > commercial uses of space that have been outmoded by cheaper, earth-based > methods, there is even more reason to be concerned... Concerned about the intelligence and common sense of the specific members of the groups who are promoting the ideas, yes. But what has this to do with the military aspect? > And when a significant > fraction of L5 members see arms control as futile, and therefore want to > develop space so that when we go ahead with SDI and post-SDI systems and > eventually blow ourselves up, the human race will survive, there's even > reason to be a bit frightened. Nuclear annihilation should not be > "thinkable." So we should hide our heads in the sand and ignore the possibility?!? The possibility that exists *regardless* of whether SDI and other such systems go ahead or not? And *regardless* of whether near-future arms control efforts succeed or not? That is hysteria, not rational thinking. When somebody buys fire insurance on his home, we don't assume that he intends to burn it down! The biggest threat to your life, and mine, is those thousands of missiles which are already in place and are *not* going to vanish completely in any realistic future (although their numbers might decline considerably if things go well). Putting all our eggs in one basket is folly even if you do believe that arms control will succeed and SDI will either (a) be stopped or (b) be successful beyond its supporters' wildest dreams. And not just because of nuclear weapons, either. There are other threats to our survival, albeit less urgent ones. Regardless of what develops in regard to SDI and arms control, the human race would be safer if it were more spread out. I don't expect our machine room to explode tomorrow, but we keep offsite backups even so. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry