Discussion

Here is a summary of the discussion on Friday that Professor Jackson asked me to post. If you have anything you want to add or correct please do so.

Greg: weapons are useless and irrational for a democracy
Rebecca: Not completely irrational because you have to continue to have weapons
Autumn: nuclear strategic people are rational to have because you have to defend against possible attack. Look at possible events that could happen- based on what if
Titus: not rational to have the amount we have – article’s point is that community is structured and limited to language they use, isolated group talking about issues- few individuals
Rachel: nuclear warfare is not likely so only a few people use the language. Language is necessary for dealing with issue
Ian: have to realize what you are doing. Need to focus on death that occurs.
Sarah: language doesn’t need to change- subject is the missiles- way of thinking that needs to be changed
Caitlin: the language is transformative, not additive
Supriya: language is practical, efficient- they are doing the mechanics
Travis: author is paranoid- trying to be rational- abstract topic
Lauren L.: job needs to be less technical- they dehumanize what they are discussing and letting subject be missiles- the language should be less abstract
Megan: hard to be utilitarian when you consider people you will be hurting- easier to decide if you don’t consider them
Stephan: they aren’t totally oblivious to the human aspects
Ashley: should think about moral/ethical problems- they are in a game world
Tom: point is to try to win nuclear war- hard to think about situation when it is occurring- feminism applies to everything without masculinity
Lauren S.: jargon is not positive, people discussing it are men
Claire: men are involved because of male dominance of other- jargon is necessary to understand and humanize actions
Emily: jargon is not helpful- easier for men to get into field because of the terms used, men and women can’t relate under those terms
James: jargon is useful because they can understand what they are talking about- it is used to simplify
Gunperi: jargon shouldn’t be used because of moral ethical aspects- trying to ease minds to what they are doing
Sam: jargon is good- people wouldn’t understand technical, military terms- so they use the jargon- author takes language out of context
Erica: at first she didn’t understand-she had to become accustomed to the language to conform. Many phrases taken out of context- no purposeful intent to exclude women, just evolved.

Megan: bureaucracy inhibits discussion of peaceful aspects
Sarah: other people have job to talk about peace and there can’t be dialogue because they have different language
Megan: not fault of war people that peace people don’t have jargon
Titus: do we want discussion be about missiles, or actually prove we are acting for greater good- language has negative effect on policy
Rachel: language is defense mechanism because they still have to realize consequences, useful to help them have conversations about it without “freaking out”
Ashley: language makes it easier to push the button
Gunperi: leaders put defense people into position, leaders are forcing people to do this
Titus: structure and ideology not language is most important- people looking at it scientifically has effect on policy makers- if we changed the way defense people thought, we would change policy
Lauren L.: Cat’s Cradle- person doesn’t care what research leads to- destroys universe
Megan: technological development doesn’t initially have negative intentions but rather positive intentions
Greg: technology (nuclear weapons) invalidate previous technological innovation
Titus: bombs have greater reach than internet- people should care more about people than bombs
Caitlin- we still need nuclear weapons to counter the weapons of others
Nate- strategic planners are only ones talking about this- there is a dual voice since President (civilian) has ultimate say
Titus: if we didn’t have such threatening capabilities other countries wouldn’t need weapons- should make deals with countries to limit total weapons
Tom: mathematical models govern thinking about other side’s intentions – USSR had phallic language as well
Ashley: if both exchange nuclear weapons total annihilation so that’s not wise- we tell other countries to get rid of weapons but we have the most
Stephan: when there are huge stockpiles countries won’t use them because they will get bombed by an opposing force
Titus: do we want to live under fear of other nations all the time? If you have a gun you are more likely to use it even if everyone has one
Autumn: can’t get rid of technology because someone would rebuild it- if we tried to get rid of weapons someone else would recognize vulnerability and attack us
James: others won’t destroy weapons just because we do
Caitlin- weapons give countries a voice