 |
 |
Editor:
Regarding Ms. Patchett's column ("Improving weapons inconsistent with positive change," Oct. 30), I must say I am shocked that a SENIOR at an American institute of higher education would be so naive, immature, and downright out-of-touch as to write (let alone publish) the piece as it appeared.
Yes Kaye, killing is against the code of every major religion. Yes Kaye, war is an unsightly blight on human nature, but guess what - it IS part of human nature. On the day that everyone is as enlightened, good, and aware as you are, there will be no war. Until then, the entire human experience proves one thing over and over; the people most prepared and willing to wage a war win a war, and the rest become extinct. If you want to live in a country that is on the leading edge in society (e.g. can fund research instead of letting science fend for itself), you will have to accept the fact that the country will spend billions to maintain a state-of-the-art military, and most technical research will relate to that militarism. Go through your history books sometime with a fine-toothed comb and look at how much "stuff" is military in origin, and I think you'll be surprised to learn that it's only in the last 20 or so years that war has stopped being the engine of society and business has started. Should we uninvent everything the military ever funded?? I think the length of that list would surprise you. What specifically is being funded? Nobody reading your piece would know, since you hint at some new doomsday missile to "kill large numbers of people" - wrong! It's for 'smart weapons' designed to strike specific targets and kill FEWER of the bystanders.
So do better research to avoid contradicting your own ends, and grow up. The world isn't perfect (in that same book with Ten Commandments, not "guidelines," it also talks about 'original sin' and its effects. We're back to that better research thing again, aren't we Kaye?)
Joseph A. Carmody
mechanical engineering graduate student
|
|
|