Hello, BenHochstedler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just thought we'd talk about the alleged Strauss quote on the Operation Plowshare page. The book you provided does not give a supporting reference for this specific "in february.." quote allegedly said by Strauss. For quotes on wikipedia it is important to have the original, especially for one as important as this.

I am willing to help you search for this alleged quote "in february...", but I have never found the actual thing. Only others alleging he said this. If we can find the very earliest publishing of this alleged quote we might be able to (A)find Strauss himself saying this or (B) find that it was entirely fabricated/has no real substance to stand on. Ping me/write something on my talk page, if you wish to respond. Boundarylayer (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes sense Boundarylayer. Where have you searched for it so far? The book I referenced starts the sentence with "As Strauss noted in February...". The preceding paragraph references the commission's "semiannual report to Congress in January 1958". Other mentions of Strauss making statements in Feb 1958 or hearings being held are on p 447, and 474 it seems. p.474's quotation: Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Control and Reduction of Armaments, Feb. 28-April 17, 1958, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958) pp.1336-64. I can't find that available online. Unless you can find it, looks like someone would need to go to the Library of Congress and pull up a physical copy of that to confirm the quote. Until then, what's the proper way to add this primary reference as the suspected reference?

Any luck with the Library of Congress? I took the liberty to add your reference for you. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Ultimately my skepticism that he said this is derived from reading many accounts of the scientists who, as far as I can tell, seem to have genuinely believed that humanitarian and economically competitive uses were possible. Strauss' quote on the other hand, while it may indeed someday be corroborated, appears to go against the considerable work these men put into that aim. Some of them spent years working on these applications and some still do with Project PACER, so for it all to be one grand conspiracy to generate an atmosphere accepting of further nuclear weapons testing seems to go against the grain of the evidence. Evidence that includes the greater pursuit of peaceful applications in the USSR. In saying that however, there obviously is overlap in design codes for peaceful nuclear explosive devices and nuclear weapons, so it goes without saying that it was "dual-use" technology, but for it all to have been a ruse, as a cloak to conceal further weapons testing? My incredulity is very high to say the least.

It would be like saying that the local metal-mine down the road is pursuing chemical explosive rock-fracturing merely because they want to clandestinely use the data to further the development of offensive high explosive munitions.

While sure, the chemistry and effects data derived from peaceful rock blasting has most definitely found its way into actual military explosives and applications, to say this is the only reason why a company uses explosives in blasting, is just down-right preposterous. They do it because it's cheaper than alternatives plain and simple and the explosives used are as cheap as possible, not the most militarily significant high-density explosives used in military warheads etc.

In any case, I hope you receive this in good health,

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed followup, Boundarylayer. I haven't been to DC since we discussed this, so no progress there. I appreciate your explanation, and better understand the significance of the quote. I might return to DC within a couple years to visit family, but until then there isn't much I can do.

Peace to you,

BenHochstedler (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting family is always a fun decision to make! I just hope that you'll take a spin into the library when you get there. Perhaps Strauss did say it to convince "hawks" of supporting the notion for military reasons. I wouldn't put that past him. Though I am also skeptical that he ever said such a thing.

In any case, stay safe till then, all will be revealed in time

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mennonite, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the information Walter. I appreciate it! :-) BenHochstedler (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]