weapons of defense 
[10] the question of whether military force can be used ethically is one of the oldest and most difficult in history. to me, hitler and world war ii are sufficient proof that maintaining a strong u. s. military force is a moral act.
[11] some of my best friends disagree. to them, the ends do not justify the means. i asked one friend, who is a quaker, what the u. s. should have done about hitler. his response: "i don’t know. but i believe we should have found an alternative other than force."
[12] that is an intellectually honest position, but to me not persuasive. on the whole, i feel the world is a better place if the u.s. has rocket fuel (cordant), defense electronics (litton), and seasprite naval helicopters (kaman), than if we don’t.

防御武器：
军事力量能否被合乎道义地使用是历史上最古老的也是最困难的道德问题之一。对我来说，希特勒和二战足以证明美国保持强大的军事力量是道德的行为。
我的一些最好的朋友不同意这个观点。他们认为，目的正当并不能证明手段正当。我问一位教友派信徒的朋友，对希特勒这样的人美国应该怎么办。他说：“我不知道。但我相信我们应该找到另一种办法，而不是暴力。”
这是一个理智的诚实态度，但对我没有说服力。总的来说，我觉得如果美国有考顿公司生产的火箭燃料、利顿公司的电子防御系统和卡曼公司的海军用海怪直升机，这个世界会比我们没有这些武器更好一些。
power sources
[13] nuclear power is another issue that people feel strongly about. in the wake of chernobyl and three mile island, i can’t argue that it’s wrong to be concerned about the safety of nuclear plants. and yet, i believe people forget the hundreds of injuries and the massive pollution caused by oil-and coal-fueled electrical generating plants. nuclear power, at least potentially, is a less polluting energy source than most of its competitors.
[14] the green so of cutting hack on energy use strikes me as misguided. economic opportunity and social justice are much easier to achieve in an expanding economy. and an expanding economy virtually requires abundant energy.
[15] alcohol, to some people, is the worst villain. and yet, when the nation tried to ban alcohol during prohibition, the experiment proved a failure. i can’t resist adding that moderate drinkers have much lower death rates from heart attack than teetotalers.