"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -- Daniel Webster, 1834.

National security is an issue that inflames emotions and makes or breaks political careers.

An important component in the defeat of the last three Democratic Presidential candidates was the perception that they were "soft" on defense.

Last week's Newsweek informs us that global glasnost peacemaker and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has been sending $300 million worth of military supplies into Afghanistan monthly since his February "pull out."

At the same time, our Congress is debating the fate of the B-2 "Stealth" bomber, not wanting to send the peaceful Mr. Gorbachev the wrong signal; presumably, this signal would be that we are prepared to defend ourselves.

Besides, the suddenly budget conscious members of Congress exclaim, the B-2 is expensive -- Why, it costs as much as . . . a month in Afghanistan.

But, I hear you ask, these decisions are made by a few in the halls of power. What difference does it make to me, a Penn State student rarely called upon by the President to consult in such decisions?

The defense process affects many students because of what Dwight Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex." This complex is the network of companies that supply products to the military.

Why would someone decide to work in the defense area? A few may seek out employment in the complex out of a belief that Webster was right.

Many scientists and engineers are drawn to the technical challenges involved in defense work. This work stretches our current knowledge and technologies to their limits, and in stretching, extends them.

Taking part in this extension is an extremely interesting and rewarding experience for most technically trained people.

The extension of many types of technologies is such an expensive process that only the government has enough money to fund it. Thus, if you wish to work in those particular areas, you are forced into the complex.

Why do some people choose to avoid the complex? Some may be true pacifists, an honorable and always deeply held belief.

Others, very different from pacifists, may believe that the democratic countries are in no danger, that we have no enemies, and that all this talk about defense is somehow a subversive plot by those horrible Republicans. We will not explore the depths of these peoples' folly.

Others cannot stand the constant, continual flow of red tape and paper pushing that accompanies each defense project. Still others dislike the uncertainty that comes with every project facing the whims of elected officials who may be more concerned about how many projects they can get into their districts than about which projects are most beneficial to the country.

Though I respect the decision of those who would avoid working in the defense industry, they must consider the ramifications of their choice. The biggest problem someone in any field seeking to totally avoid any possible connection with the defense industry will have is -- finding a job.

Does your publishing company print military manuals as well as best sellers? Does your fabric factory turn out uniforms as well as high fashion suits?

Do the memory chips you make go into rocket guidance systems as well as into computers and microwave ovens? Do the food products your company makes go to feed soldiers? Is your medical instrument company a subsidy of a company that owns another company that is a defense contractor?

The U.S. government is the single largest consumer in the country, with its enterprises taking nearly 15 percent of the Gross National Product in 1985. Anyone trying to avoid any connection with it will find their employment opportunities severely limited.

"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches . . . we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." -- Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940.

I believe much of the current confusion about U.S. defense policy can be traced to the passing of the last generation who has lived through a period when the liberty of America was not taken for granted.

We who did not live through World War II have no idea what it feels like to be truly threatened. Churchill's words were spoken by a man who simply did not know if his country, and all the values he held dear, could survive another twelve months.

After the surprise at Pearl Harbor in 1941, Americans felt that they were fighting for their very survival as a nation, just as the Britons, French, Poles, Chinese and others had felt for several years.

This was a horrible time, and certainly no one wishes it to be repeated. However, the feeling of danger and yes, of fear, gave Americans at that time a healthy skepticism about the rest of the world we have since been steadily losing.

Whether or not you decide to work in the military-industrial complex, remember that liberty historically has occupied only brief periods between long passages of tyranny and slavery.

The B-2 bombers of today cost more than the muskets of 1776 but they perform exactly the same function: They secure our liberty against those who would take it from us.