Carol Cohn, Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,

Signs 12:4 (1987), 687-718.

Defence intellectuals - usually men, use the concept of deterrence to explain
why it is safe to have weapons of a kind and number it is not safe to use. Often
rational, technocratic - create theory the informs, legitimises American nuclear
strategic practice.
Lots of good, powerful critique of ideas of rationality in Western culture.
Development of a technostrategic language that reflects and shapes American
nuclear strategic project. Feminists concerned about nuclear weaponry, nuclear
war need to give careful attention to this - whom it allows us to communicate
with, what it allows us to think/say.
Often highly abstracted - removed from sense of horror, urgency, moral
outrage. Bland - clean bombs. Collateral damage, countervalue attacks
against civilian targets - shoe factories. Nuclear strategists often
conventionalise nuclear policy, seeing things in terms of historical
conventional logic about what you can target, how many civilian deaths there
will be.
Language - kilotonnage, MIRVs (multiple missiles), Peacekeepr missiles
described as damage limitation weapons (and they are, in the sense that there
is always a bigger bomb. Surgical strikes. Minimise any discussion of the
impact on human bodies.
Weirdly, Cohn sitting in on the conference- totally justified in thinking about the
(slightly reductionist) phallic language used surrounding nuclear warheads,
missiles, penetrators, etc.
But not about their own inadequacies, etc. Military has always done this
extensively - Air Force Magazine, France naming bomb craters after women.
Not why they use phallic imagery - how it functions? Repeated phrase about
patting the missile - appropriating military/explosive power for their own, but
also rendering it harmless - docile (you pat that which you find small, cute,
harmless - dogs, babies, etc. Remove its destructive power.
Limited nuclear war as a pissing contest - not just a competition for manhood,
but also a way of diminishing the contest and its outcomes - boyish mischief
rather than destructive war.
Countries that dont support American nuclear strategy - virgins that dont put
out. Metaphors of patriarchal bargaining applied to nuclear weapons. Threaten
to break your sons arm to stop him from watching so much TV - thats
deterrence, according to a lecturer - actually reveals disproportionate use of

force by the US to achieve ones goal. Not competing needs/discussion - just

who has the bigger stick. US as father.
Domesticity - silos, the christmas tree farm, a bus that delivers bombs, PAL,
BAMBI, the shopping list, cookie cutter - not just distancing, but also taming
nuclear weapons - making them less threatening.
Male birth (girl birth = dud) rife throughout the Manhattan project. Many, many
examples.
Acronyms - also serves to make talking about nuclear war fun, slipping off the
tongue. Arcane, technical language - gives privilege, alluring. Few know, and
those who do are powerful. You can rub elbows with them, perhaps even be
one yourself.
Gives sense of mastery over technology - its all under control. The more
conversations you have in this language, the less frightened by nuclear war.
Allows you to ignorethe immediate effect of nuclear war on people, refocus
things in terms of strategic targets. Offers distance, control, escape.

What the Soviets can do -> quickly becomes questions of what they intend to
do.
Worst case scenarios - huge resources necessary to prevent them from
happening.
Is the nuclear triad (launch silos, air-delivered, submarines) necessary, given
that submarines offer an impossible-to-counter ability to fire missiles back?
Especially given that the first two legs draw massive attacks to the American
mainland.

If you speak English (not techno-strategic jargon)- they respond to you as if

youre simpleminded/ignorant. Drives people into this language game. Gives
you access to new options in conversation etc., but also closes stuff off strategic stability instead of peace. Removes them from reality - and even the
reality is mostly based in game theory. Less worse off still means millions
dead.
Feminist critique - what is the reference point? Who/what is the subject here?
Usually white men/weapons.

Language becomes a complete body of knowledge, that can exclude other human - concerns.

Seductions of technostrategic discourse remain great - can even beat them at

their own game? Dangerous, though - good nukes vs bad nukes, rather than
nukes or no nukes. There is a set of culturally grounded and acceptable
metaphors that allow people to think the unthinkable. Transforms the way
people think.

Does the language articulate the criteria and reasoning strategies on which
these decisions are made? Possibly not - ideological curtain/gloss.

Contrast the cultural/behavioural biases with the rational nature of

technostrategic discourse.

Need to deconstruct/reconstruct this discourse.