COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	defens[w84,jmc]		In defense of defense
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
defens[w84,jmc]		In defense of defense

	It is now 38 years since the end of World War II, the last time
the U.S. had to devote its main efforts to defense.  In the meantime,
there have been numerous alarms and lesser wars.  The overall effect,
however, has been like repeated cries of "wolf".  The public, including
Congress and the academic community, has become bored and increasingly
disinclined to the expense and sacrifices required to maintain a military
establishment.  We have grown captious, and minor annoyances with
defense requirements and minor mistakes on the part of the defense
establishment have been exaggerated into major issues, at least in
some quarters.

	All this is inevitable and has happened repeatedly in the past.
The solution that is always adopted is professionalize defense.  Some
people are paid to make it their career, and the rest of us grumblingly
pay our taxes, while the professionals grumble that we aren't paying
enough.

	Unfortunately, the problem is worse than it has been in the
past for two reasons.  The first is the existence of nuclear weapons.
I can be brief, because everyone is familiar with the fact that
our country can be damaged within hours worse than any country has suffered over
years of war.


	The second problem is the existence of the Soviet Union and of
communism.  Were it not for this, I believe the problem of nuclear
weapons would be solved by international agreement along the lines
advocated by the various peace movements.  The interaction of communist
ideology, Russian nationalism, and a pervasively quasi-feudal
empire has produced a dangerous power whose behavior is unpredictable
in the long run, even with the best intelligence.  Every succession
crisis in the Soviet Union carries with it the danger of a nuclear
Napoleon.

	In view of this, the United States and its allies require
a policy of preparedness that can be maintained indefinitely.
We must pursue such agreements as turn out to be possible with the
Soviet Union, but fundamentally we must rely on ourselves.
Unfortunately, because after World War II the U.S. was so dominant
industrially and militarily, the so-called alliance developed
a dangerous dependence on the U.S. that probably cannot be sustained.

	The academic and scientific communities have many things to
think about, and defense is only one of them.  This causes inevitable
strains in our relation with the Defense Department, whose job it is
to think about defense all the time.  Nevertheless, it's ourselves
who are being defended, and we should co-operate with them, while
maintaining our independence and our other interests.

	This view would be more readily accepted but for another
problem.  There is a substantial body of opinion in the world and
at Stanford that regards the U.S. as the villain in world affairs.
This opinion tends to convert strains in the relations between the
academic and defense communities into arguments for complete
non-co-operation.  They have achieved important successes at
Stanford, e.g. the abolition of ROTC.

	Finally, ordinary politics enters into it.  This is an
election year, and the outs tend to exaggerate their differences
with the ins and claim that Government policies, even policies
with which they have substantially agreed in Congress, are leading
the nation to an immediate disaster that can only be averted by
electing them.

	All these phenomena need to be overcome in order that Stanford
scientists and engineers can do their part in keeping the country
safe, and, incidentally, can pursue their scientific goals with
help from the Defense Department.