0 OPINION 4 Saturday, March 27, 1982. University robotics: The The Michigan Daily military link 140 By John Schloerb George Gamota, new director of the Univer- sity's Institute of Science and Technology, has made his presence on campus felt in a big way. Fresh from his tenure as a director of research at the Department of Defense and skilled in the ways of the Pentagon, Gamota has been in- strumental in helping University researchers reap the benefits of the military's financial bounty.. Since his arrival last summer, Gamota has worked to direct more of the University's research to military needs. One of his handiest tools thus far has been the University's Center on Robotics and Integrated Manufacturing. Gamota, if successful in his efforts, may help turn CRIM's future focus from its industrial manufacturing potential toward providing a haven for military innovation. CRIM'S PRIMARY function is to design ad- vanced automation technologies popularly known as "robotics." These technologies in- clude computer-programmed flexible machines that can work in industrial jobs with more precision-and less chance of going on strike-than volatile human workers. Many believe the results of CRIM research will lead o a new industrial revolution. I But what is also revolutionary about CRIM's function is its potential for serving military en- ds. Gamota has worked hard to provide defense funds for the center. Earlier this year, the University sent a three-year, $7.3 million proposal for robotics research to the Air Force. If accepted, this proposal would hike military research at the University by a whopping 200 percent and would account for 70 percent of CRIM's budget. If the proposal goes through, CRIM's~ future research will likely be dangerously oriented toward its most impor-. tant patron-the military. Industries and universities have frequently relied on government support in the develop- ment of new technologies. But the Air Force now seems more interested than ever in providing support for some innovative robots of its own. CURRENTLY, THE Air Force is asking for $215.2 million in the 1983 fiscal year for a manufacturing technology program. The Pen- tagon is offering such support to industry, however, for a very specific reason-to place "the nation on a wartime footing when required," as, reported in a recent edition of Ayiation Week and Space Technology magazine. What specifically does the military hope to get out of robotics? The Air Force is par- ticularly interested;in building flexible robots for producing things in limited numbers-such as small "batches" of bombers or missiles. These flexible robots could be reprogrammed telligence that would duplicate the sense and thought processes of humans. Such robots could be adapted to make independent decisions. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE could be ap- plied in jets with on-board computers or in command and control systems to automatically respond to enemy threats. As Col. Clarence Gardner of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research has said, "The artificial intelligence techniques in manufacturing and battlefield management are very similar." The military applications of artificial in- telligence continue. Artificial intelligence and improved sensor capabilities are likely to ad- vance new "smart" missiles, some of which will be able to distinguish between targets, destroying what .they are specifically programmed to destroy. With this advanced sensory technology missiles can actually "see" their targets, much as the new robots will "see.'' Ann Arbor's Environmental Research In- stitute in Michigan is a leader in the develop- ment of such sensor systems. ERIM was for- med to take on the bulk of University projects banned in 1972 by Regents guidelines restric- ting classified research "any specific purpose of which is to destroy human life." Now-ERIM seems ready to play a large role in CRIM research-ERIM -President William Brown currently is a member of the CRIM Technical Steering Committee. TIMES CERTAINLY are changing. Ten years ago, classified research advancing destructive technologies was moved off cam- pus. Today, unclassified research, apparently destined to build bombs and bomb buildings, is not only accepted but encouraged as a way to pull the University and the state out of their economic doldrums. Promoters of military-sponsored research often claim it is "basic research,'' whose ap- plications-military or ,otherwise-are im- possible to predict. But the line between basic research and research applied to a, military end is more imaginary than real in the case of robots. For example, the Commerce Department recently showed interest in controlling information from government-financed machine tool research for national security reasons. "That's very applied (research). We use robots for making nuclear weapons," Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration Bogdan Denysyk said recently. Will robots designed by University scientists build nuclear weapons? Nobody has a straight answer for now. But isn't the likelihood cer- tainly increased by asking the Air, Force to fund CRIM? al Gamota discusses military research with students. to do different jobs each day, unlike current robots that can do only one task. The Air Force also hopes to do research into visual and tactile sensors and artificial in- 0 Schloerb is a Residential College. sophomore in the Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Stewart Vol. XCII, No. 139 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 0 9 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Working on the budget -RESIDENT seems determined to rewrite the record books with his proposed budget. But for the record, almost everyone now agrees that his budget amounts to unsound fiscal policy. President Reagan's budget has been criticized by nearly everyone from liberal congressmen to conservative business leaders. Budget projections of a record peacetime buildup of U.S. armed forces. coupled with a recrd deficit exceeding $100 billion have provoked bipartisan revolt. Not only Democrats, but Republicans are now calling for budget alternatives. The deficits must be pared down, they argue. Even budget director David Stockman is said to be leaning in that direction. It is all too obvious that Reagan's budget has no chance of passing through Congress unscathed. It is equally apparent that the only logical areas for cutting are the defense allocations and the three-year tax cut, enacted last year. . Reagan, however, has made it clear that the tax cut plan and the military budget lie on sacred ground-there will be no compromise. In his intransigen- ce, Reagan has ignored opposition and stuck to a budget policy that amounts to an overblown reaction to the Russian threat and a high stakes gam- ble on supply-side economics. As a candidate, Reagan chastised Democrats for trying to solve the coun- try's problems by throwing money at them. But, ironically, his current defense spending proposals do much the same thing. Reagan is throwing money at the Pentagon faster than the military planners can spend it. Congressional leaders from both parties have indicated their willingness to forego political squab- bling and work on a compromise. They are ready to tackle military spen- ding and the deficit and attempt to tame the Reagan budget. Now it is time the president acknowledges his budget needs work-and starts working. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: No security with the arms race I r 7 WELA7r 7m Alts~n*A! sA-' .,. To the Daily: Must America secure rights and liberties by "keeping pace with and pushing ahead of the Russians" in the arms race? I and others in . the peace movement think that we need not and should not. But Scott Sovereign makes an eloquent' case for doing so in his letter (Daily, March 15). His argumen- ts for an arms race deserve serious answers. We in the peace movement are concerned, like Sovereign, about American security. Many of us, including myself, agree that we should defend our country with arms if we are invaded. We are anti-militarist, but not anti- military. The question is rather this-does pursuit of the arms race, especially the nuclear arms race, increase our security and make us stronger? Sovereign assumes that it does. He refers to the old Roman- adage, "If you desire peace, prepare for war." But this is absolute nuclear non- sense. Nuclear weapons and the nuclear arms race threaten all that we wish to secure with utter annihilation. Sovereign rightly observes that new weapons make warfare deadlier than it ever has been. If he knew how much so he might be less en'thusiastic about its continued development. There could be no winner of a nuclear war; nothing worth preserving could be preserved by one. Nuclear weapons provide no defense, because they cannot be used without national suicide. The frightening thing about the arms race is that it makes this unimaginable horror an in- creasingly likely possibility. Development of new, more ac- curate, less detectable weapons systems increases the-ability of each side to destroy the other in a surprise attack or "limited" war. We are told that this will never happen, that the weapons are merely "deterrehts." But our government has already of- ficially abandoned the policy of deterrence, and high officials speak openly of "theatre" nuclear wars and the like. Sovereign says that he would gladly lay down his life to preser- ve America. I would not for a moment question his right to do this; in fact, I will second his resolution. What I deny is his or anyone's right to take everyone else along with him. That is what nuclear war would involve. -Justin Schwartz March 22 40 /. ..AI 0 Oversimplifyingfacts Who 's the fascist? To the Daily: Concerning the Daily's article on simple solutions to women's problems (Daily, March 24), I agree with Julie Engebrecht's general idea of the need for more female representation in the University faculty. I also agree that the history department's decision not to offer a course in women's history this coming fall term has several negative aspec- ts. I would like to point out, however, that Engebrecht is mistaken in assuming that historians only tend to focus on most of the time such events are the culminating result of pressures or influences from society's conditions or groups. Nevertheless, valuable historical research has been done on individual groups or movements explaining their' im- portance to society. These studies have been done not only on women's history, but on all forms of oppressed segments of society such as blacks, hispanics, etc. One wonders in reading Engebrecht's article, especially when such a gross generalization To the Daily: I am writing in response to Prof. T. M. Dunn's letter (Daily, March 18) regarding the Daily editorial on defense-sponsorgl and genocide. It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to associate the Daily's editorial with espousing fascism. It comes as no surprise that Prof. Dunn should wish to further