92 



cannot wait for new science to be created and then try to apply it to 

 the military; rather, they have to engage in basic science itself." 



So you had a striking turnaround in the space of 10 years from 

 everyone being afraid of military control of basic science to scien- 

 tists actually advocating military funding of basic science. 



But the dilemma has always been one of Government supporting 

 scientific research with somehow not controlling the activities of 

 the scientists. We have to leave them free to do their own thing; 

 they are the best judges of what to do, and so forth. And, of course, 

 that is a dilemma we have never solved. 



Now we find the same phenomenon occurring, of course, in the 

 labs that the University of California manages, Los Alamos, and 

 Livermore, and also in the JPL, which is run by NASA, a contro- 

 versy over the mix of how much of the research done there is civil- 

 ian, how much of it is military, and is it healthy to have too much 

 military, and so forth and so on. I don't think we are ever going to 

 get away from that problem as long as we in the United States 

 maintain a separation of the civilian and the military. 



Some people would say that is really a sentimental hjqjocrisy, 

 that there really isn't any separation any more between the civil- 

 ian and the military areas; we have a war economy or a military 

 industrial complex or whatever. 



Well, it is true, certainly, that we have many links between uni- 

 versities and the Defense Department, corporations and the De- 

 fense Department, and so forth and so on. That is all true. That is 

 inevitable and necessary in an age of continuous technological rev- 

 olution. 



However much we may muddy the waters, I do not think we 

 should give up that distinction we have between the civilian and 

 the military in American society. It is what sets us apart from the 

 Soviet Union and, to a lesser degree, from countries like France, 

 where they have a space program. They have one space program. It 

 is run at the top level in part by military men. Everything they do, 

 they think in terms not only of basic research and applied science 

 for civilian goals but also for their military goals. 



And so you have, ultimately, in the case of the Soviet Union, a 

 totalitarian system, and we don't believe in that, and so, even 

 though we introduce inefficiencies into our system and muddy the 

 waters, nevertheless, if we do away with or if we try to streamline 

 the operation, say, of the space program by combining military and 

 civilian space activities, we are sacrificing the values that this 

 country stands for. 



So, as awkward as it is to have two space programs, I am in 

 favor of preserving that. Just one example. The Soviet Union 

 simply lies about what it does and gets away with it. They say, "Oh, 

 our space program is civilian. We are interested in the peaceful 

 conquest of the cosmos." Well, who knows how much of it is mili- 

 tary? Fifty, sixty, ninety percent? And they simply lie about that 

 and say their program is all civilian. 



We admit the fact that we have a military space program, sepa- 

 rate it off from our civilian program, and get all kinds of propagan- 

 da and flak thrown at us from not only the East bloc but also the 

 Third World countries, because we are honest about what we do 

 and the Soviets lie. 



