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 - 05:34pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8062 of 8070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Here is a summary of this thread, largely following one set out on July 27 in Issue of the Week: Missile Defense and Arms Cuts with a few modifications for context, and for the time that has passed since.

The New York Times -- Science -- Missile Defense forum is a large, ongoing effort with 8060 postings. Here are excerpts.

MD7211 jimmyz211a 7/19/01 10:27am . . "doesn't understand why missile defense should be a threat toward Russia" to see why, one can trace the extensive comments of almarst , the MD thread's "Putin stand-in" in

MD6837-6839 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:13am

Here is the multipart directory of directories -- Cast of characters -- a " PUTIN STAND-IN" -- almarstel2001 (1-10) MD4389 rshowalter 5/31/01 2:51pm

The dialog contains good reasons for Russia's concern, but also contains a KEY concession for nuclear and total military accomodation. Even full disarmament might be possible (on the "dry run" basis of this thread) but things are "mutually dependent."

Directory-linked lists of distinguished efforts, usually long postings, sometimes interesting references, by almarst_2001: MD4644-4650 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:15am

And a change-clarification in negotiating position in MD4651 rshowalter 6/9/01 7:32am

There's been much work since.

rshowalter - 05:35pm Aug 23, 2001 EST (#8063 of 8070)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

The summary in MD6839 rshowalter 7/10/01 10:14am reads in part

I've done extensive summaries of this thread, with links in the Guardian Talk thread Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror , starting at #151 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/160

(#207) http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/218 includes this:

" The NYT forums have now reinstalled a search function, after a long time -- and it seems to be the same one the Guardian uses, with search page lengths the same as in these TALK threads. (the search function has recently been removed -- I 'm glad we had it while we did.)

" The NYT Missile Defense thread is being extensively used, and discussion and controversy are continuing. Main contributers are:

" almarst_2001 , previously almarstel2001 , who, since March 5 has acted as a "Putin stand-in" , and shows extensive connections to literature, and to Russian government ways of thought.

" gisterme , who since May 2nd has acted as a "Senior Bush administration advisor stand in" who shows some plausible connections to the Bush administration.

" Posters ( beckq , cookies, descripto ) who, according to the dialog, are the same poster. I'd interpret these people as "stand-ins" for former President Clinton since August 2000.

" Me, and Dawn Riley, who have been arguing for improved communication, and as much nuclear disarmament as possible within the imperatives of military balances, since September 25, 2000

Counting search pages, for characters, gives some sense of the participation. HERE ARE THE NUMBR OF SEARCH PAGES FOR THESE POSTERS (as of July 10 ) (search pages normally include the first lines of about 15 postings.)

Putin stand-in, Almarst --- 66 search pages.

Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme ----- 59 search pages

Clinton stand-in, beckq, cookies2, descripto ----- 7 search pages

Dawn Riley - - - - 115 search pages

Robert Showalter - - - - 166 search pages (saturated)

I've contributed the most words to the MD thread, and Dawn the most citations and the most connection to the news.

But the involvement of the "stand-ins" has been very extensive, too, represents an enormous work committment on thier part, and their postings are, I think, very impressive. The involvement of these "stand-ins" continues.

I believe that their work has assisted in the focusing of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about how to make contact with each other before.

The NYT- Science- Missile Defense thread is an ongoing attempt to show that internet usages can be a format for negotiation and communication, between staffed organizations, capable of handling more complexity, with more clarity and more complete memory, than could happen otherwise.

I believe that is something relatively new, and useful. I feel that progress is being made, and that impasses that were intractable before may be more tractable now.

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense