Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob
From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Star Wars, Computers and Doomsday Machines
Message-ID: <353@pedsgd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Nov-85 13:34:46 EST
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.353
Posted: Tue Nov 12 13:34:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Nov-85 21:43:30 EST
References: <343@whuts.UUCP> <7800666@inmet.UUCP> <797@whuxl.UUCP> <798@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 28

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <798@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
{ a bunch of stuff about computers and SDI ending with ... }
>By the year 1990 is there any programmer willing to stake
>the future of the world on a computer?
>I think programmers should do all in their power to point out
>that idea is *extremely* dangerous!
>        "Peace in the World, 
>                  or the World in Pieces!"
>     tim sevener whuxn!orb
>    

Tim;

Currently this decision is in the hands of Ronald Reagan; I think
maybe I *would* prefer a comupter. Actually, as a  pacifist/realist
I like nuclear weapons of the MAD variety. They are frightening
enough that even the powers that be are afraid they wont survive.
The part that bothers me about SDI is that when Reagan says everybody
will be safe, I think he means everbody *important* anyway. This is
the true danger of SDI.

Bob Weiler
of the MAD