New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 03:34pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3367 of 3371)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- becq-cookiess0 (1)

In 3353: rshowalter 5/6/01 10:55am "Cast of characters -- gisterme .. " I wrote this, and repeat it here:

I believe that this thread has been influential, and that it will be. I'm the only person on the thread using his own name. How can one know that anyone on this thread speaks with any authority, or has any of the connections claimed? This is an essential point. If one knew that one or more among certain key posters on this thread were significant personages, or spoke reliably, that would greatly raise the credibility and value of this thread . Here are some of these key posters:

.. becq , cookiess0 , almarst_ , disbelief , or gisterme

Are these people "really significant?" At one level, their significance rests, quite apart from identities, on what they say here.

At another level, the significance of what is said (both when reasonable things are said, and when mistakes are made) hinges on questions of credibility and identity. I'm going to facilitate staff work that I believe may be occuring using this thread by listing the postings of beckq , aka cookeiss0 -- a person who has worked hard on this thread, and said interesting things. On the basis of consistency realtionships - I think of beckq and cookiess0 who say they are the same person, as a stand-in for William J. Clinton . The poster denies being Clinton, and I half believe him. It is intersting, to me, to think of him as "pseudo-Clinton" --- a standin for Clinton. I don't know whether this poster is Clinton, but suspect that he expresses views that Clinton might well share, and shows reasoning processes, and negotiating patterns, that Clinton may also use.

"If you look at these beckq - cookiess0 postings, you'll see that they are written by a person who works as hard as a professional, claims to be a very well connected professional, and may be one. I've been very proud to interact with him, whoever he is.

I first met "beckq -- cookiess0" , after some prompting from another poster who seemed impressed with who he was, on a NYT poetry forum, under the name of willy_nilly willy_nilly "Favorite Poetry" 9/23/00 10:43am ..... and then later, by appointment, and with some enthusiastic, much appreciated encouragement, on this forum, where I stated my core suggestion in 266-269. Here are the "beckq" postings from that same day. Mine intersperse with his.

270: beckq 9/25/00 9:19am ..... 276: beckq 9/25/00 1:55pm
277: beckq 9/25/00 1:58pm ..... 278: beckq 9/25/00 1:59pm
279: rshowalt 9/25/00 3:50pm ..... 281: beckq 9/25/00 4:08pm

282: beckq 9/25/00 4:10pm

"The utilization of a first strike option allows for the extended detterence options. less we follow the Indians view-and let people get knocked off each month because their 'no first use' has left them with a hand tied behind its back."

rshowalter - 03:35pm May 6, 2001 EST (#3368 of 3371)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Cast of characters -- becq-cookiess0 (2)

284: beckq 9/25/00 4:22pm ..... 285: beckq 9/25/00 4:24pm
287: beckq 9/25/00 4:25pm ..... 289: beckq 9/25/00 4:27pm
290: beckq 9/25/00 4:28pm
292: beckq 9/25/00 4:31pm .. responded to my .... "But we use the "option" of a first strike routinely in our patterns of discussion" ... with this

"Indeed America does. It does so in a measured way so as to indicate resolve toward a particular matter. This was done post 49-prior to 49 your correct the threat was with impunity-after 49 it became slightly more flexible. Americas position aknowledges that nuclear weapons exist and that they are far more a political tool then a military one.

293: beckq 9/25/00 4:31pm ..... 295: beckq 9/25/00 4:33pm
297: beckq 9/25/00 4:47pm ..... 298: beckq 9/25/00 4:50pm
301: beckq 9/25/00 5:03pm .....

I ended this conversation of the 25th with 3 postings: 302-304: rshowalt 9/25/00 5:15pm ... :

"If anybody has any evidence at all that a "graded" use of nuclear power actually works, I'd like to hear it. I think you're toying with tactics that would destroy the world.

"Have you ever checked? Could you check? Do you know anybody who might conveivably check? How?

"Unless you have answers here, you're in a morally indefensible, logically indefensible position, and you've put the United States, and the world, in grave danger.

"It would be safer, to remove nuclear weapons, and remove that danger.

"If you don't pause here, and think about what you're doing, you ought to.

"I'd be grateful for a chance to come before you, or one or more of your representatives, and explain, in detail, with documentation and ways to check, how dangerous this situation is. Especially if a good reporter, and a videotape record, were there so what was said was clear.

"Some mistakes have been made, and you and I weren't very old when they were made. They can be fixed. A lot of things would improve if this were done. They are American mistakes, and Americans, and American leaders, have to fix them. "

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense