🚀 go-pugleaf

Got me...I'll work harder at the facts.

I still stand by the point that weapons research can be (and in my opinion, 
at least, IS as far as SDI is concerned) destabilizing.

Lots of people are poorly informed, blinded by misconceptions and
prejudices, or simply have radically different perspectives which may not
appear logical to us.  Some of those people may be in decision-making
positions.  And some of those people are undoubtably Soviets (not just the
Americans we pick on all the time).  It seems to me that we should be
careful not to provide fuel for the belief that there is a threat of a
first-strike by "our side"...however misinformed that belief may be.  SDI
seems to be open to that interpretation.

Regarding sums of money in the order of trillions of dollars...

Here in B.C., foresters are grubbing around for a paltry sum of 5 or 6
hundred million for reforestation...did they get it?...nope...and that's
peanuts compared to a trillion!  (Of course, they DID get part of it)  A
trillion dollars is alot of money and would go a long way to addressing some
of the world's other problems.  Unless it gets freed up from "defense"
spending we won't be able to get on with the next battle of having it spent
on other appropriate causes and not wasted...one "battle" at a time.  As
long as we "trust" the Soviets enough to conduct business with them and meet
across bargaining tables, then there must be a less expensive alternative
than building this massive defensive system.  How about something such as a
"defense-protected build-down" (October, 1984; Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists for those who may not be familiar with it).  It may not be a
perfect alternative but neither is SDI.  (I would be very interested to hear
what other people feel about that approach)

Regarding "peace through strength" versus "peace through goodwill":

There is another alternative; peace through fear.  Fear of self
annihilation.  The use of "superordinate goals" for conflict resolution has
been well demonstrated (see "Reducing Intergroup Conflict", pages 454 to 474
in B.H. Raven and J.Z. Rubin (1976), "Social Psychology: People in Groups"
published by Wiley & Sons, New York...don't mistake me...I am NOT a
psychologist, but what they had to say made sense to me).  Fear of
extinction could be used as a superordinate goal...it is a threat to all and
it is in the mutual interest to cooperate to do something about it.  The
point of superordinate goals is that "peace through fear" would encourage
the *gradual* development of "peace through goodwill".  I think that SDI is
evidence of the fear.  We need to convince people that "peace through
strength" will not work indefinitely ON A GLOBAL SCALE.

The bottom line is what should the scientific community do?...

Prior to the last American election, Congressman Les AuCoin (Bulletin, 
November'84) said "The views of the scientific community carry considerable 
weight with the American people in these matters.  These views need to 
be expressed clearly, firmly and promptly."  He was referring to support for
Walter Mondale and not for Reagan...let's all be optimistic and hope that we
can be more effective in convincing our government than they were of
convincing the American people.


					Al Banner