 |
 |
Editor:
Columnist Kaye Patchett believes that the university is tacitly making a decision to "make it easier to kill large numbers of people" by accepting over $12 million for optical research ("Improving weapons inconsistent with positive change," Oct. 30). Ms. Patchett also implies that any education, research, or manufacturing that may directly or indirectly have military application requires us to espouse the idea "that it's quite OK to work on devices intended to kill human beings ... " and that we have decided to " ... go ahead and have [wars]" for their technological benefits.
She admits that her emotional (even Biblical) arguments deliberately overlook the immeasurable advancements in science and medicine that are the surprise results of all kinds of research, not just military. Has she also considered the unforeseen military applications of technology developed in all kinds of more benevolent fields? It seems that she might have us halt research in optics, communications, aeronautics, physics, materials science - the list of fields that could potentially yield military applications reads like the UA general catalog.
Ms. Patchett, I invite you to reconsider your thesis that improving weapons is inconsistent with positive change. Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that positive change must often be imposed by force - by superior technology, brave men and women, and governments with the moral resolve to use them.
Koichi Takagi
systems engineering Senior
Sgt., United States Marine Corps
|
|
|