[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：
    
    軍事力量能否被合乎道義地使用是歷史上最古老的也是最困難的道德問題之一。對我來說，希特勒和二戰(zhàn)足以證明美國保持強(qiáng)大的軍事力量是道德的行為。

    我的一些最好的朋友不同意這個觀點(diǎn)。他們認(rèn)為，目的正當(dāng)并不能證明手段正當(dāng)。我問一位教友派信徒的朋友，對希特勒這樣的人美國應(yīng)該怎么辦。他說：“我不知道。但我相信我們應(yīng)該找到另一種辦法，而不是暴力。”

    這是一個理智的誠實(shí)態(tài)度，但對我沒有說服力。總的來說，我覺得如果美國有考頓公司生產(chǎn)的火箭燃料、利頓公司的電子防御系統(tǒng)和卡曼公司的海軍用海怪直升機(jī)，這個世界會比我們沒有這些武器更好一些。

    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.

    [16] There are no liquor stocks I want to own presently. But at the right price, I would own one.

    動力源：

    核動力是另外一個引起人們強(qiáng)烈關(guān)注的問題。由于切爾諾貝利和三哩島事件，我不能說考慮核電廠的安全是錯誤的。但是我想人們忘記了由用石油和煤作燃料的發(fā)電廠引起的成百上千種傷害和大量的污染。與其大多數(shù)競爭者相比，核動力至少從潛在能力上考慮是一種污染較小的能源。
    
    我看這種減少能源使用的“綠色”解決方法是誤入歧途。經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的良機(jī)和社會的公正在一個正在增長的經(jīng)濟(jì)中實(shí)現(xiàn)起來要容易得多。而一個正在發(fā)展增長的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)際上是需要豐富的能源的。

    對某些人來說，酒是個最壞的東西。但當(dāng)國家試圖禁酒時，結(jié)果總是歸于失敗。我忍不住要附帶補(bǔ)充一句：適度的飲酒者比完全禁酒者心臟病死亡率要低得多。

    我現(xiàn)在還不想買什么酒類股。但一旦價位合適，我是會買一種的。