The title of this paper is misleading: it implies that the paper is about the social responsibilities of those who possess technical knowledge about computers and are involved in war research. The paper does not address this issue. Instead, it describes the lack of information or active discussion about ethical and moral issues. The authors also point out strongly that it is a well-hidden fact that a great deal of computer research in the US is defense-oriented.

The authors detail clearly and with adequate examples just how important computing research is to the military. They point out where moral issues arise in several different contexts. They ask, for instance, whether a My Lai–type massacre by runaway robots would lessen the responsibility of the humans in charge. Another question is whether the availability of a “smart” weapon provides a temptation to attack in a questionable situation. These good questions, however, do not address the issue of how a computing profesional can deal with the dilemma. Can the professional protest? Can you foresee before you take a job that you will be asked to do something immoral? Should the moral issue be your problem? Perhaps these issues are more the problem of the politician who asks for and funds the research, the institution which hopes to profit from the work, or the public which votes on government policy.

Teaching computer science students to understand the applications of their studies and skills is laudable. Giving them insight into the character of the work they will do, the atmosphere of the workplace, and the consequences of decisions they might make is very important. The authors go a long way in describing how this can be done as part of an undergraduate curriculum for computer scientists. Actually, courses covering the social dilemmas arising from the use of computers are needed in nontechnical as well as technical curricula.

The paper is well written, contains many examples of the potential use of computers by the military, and poses some interesting moral questions. It falls short on answering or even raising the ethical question of what a professional can and should do when the product of his or her efforts is used for a less-than-moral objective.