From: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Pres Debate & military spending
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:53:39 GMT
Reply-To: ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com (Mark Ricci - CATS)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

carlosn@hue.Princeton.EDU.commodore.com writes:
>In yesterday's presidential debate all three candidates agreed that if we are  
>to cut defense spending, we better start retraining and retooling so that money  
>is not wasted and jobs are not lost.  Perot in partiuclar said that the  
>conversion from military hardware should be to some other high technology... it  
>is hard to convert from potato chips to computer chips in time of war  
>(paraphrase)  Well, we all know (at least those of us who read these groups)  
>that one of the technologies that is most closely related to the military is  
>space.  It is time to get the word out.  We have to let the next administration  
>know that one of the most logical (and probably easiest) transformations would  
>be from military hardware to space hardware.  In fact many of the people  
>working on one are working on the other

Transforming the defense contractors into space contractors, which many of 
them are anyway, is no transformation at all.  You're simply substituting one
government nipple for another.  The companies need to get away from the 
government, not latch onto another part.

>The possibilities are there... spy-technology to remote sensing, hypersonic  
>research to civilian aircraft, etc.  All these seem painfully obvious, in fact  
>almost too ovbious to be brought up.  But the fact is that it is not really  
>happening, defense workers are loosing their jobs, and the space budget is  
>going down.  Take a recent example, to save jobs Bush agreed to sell F15 to  
>Saudi Arabia, a highly contraversial decision.  How about if to save those same  
>jobs the same money had been used for a space program tha M-D might be involved  
>in.  Some of the money goes to retraining, some to the actual project.  It  
>sounds logical, but it is not being done.  

The transformation should be for these high-tech firms to produce high-tech 
products that the marketplace wants, not just the federal government.  This is
how the expertise and the training they have can be put to the best use for 
them and for us.  Making space doodads instead of military doodads is not the 
solution no more than selling weapons for the sake of keeping defense workers 
employed in key states is. 

This is not to say that they shouldn't make space doodads.  They should, and
there'd be a market outside the Beltway if the government didn't consider space
closed to private concerns.  Nevertheless, to remain dependent on the goverment
is a sure prescription for disaster.

>It is time to move, or we will loose our chance to rip the benefits of the much  
>talked about 'peace dividend.'

When you have a $400 billion deficit and a $4 trillion debt, there is no 
peace dividend, just bills due.

Mark
-- 
===============================================================================
 Mark Ricci - CATS          | Four candidates are on the ballot in al l 50  
 Commodore Applications and | states, yet only three are invited to debate.
 Technical Support          | 
 ricci@cbmvax.commodore.com |    Why are they scared of the Libertarians?
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space