reflection week eight - rants on disarming, oblivious feminists, and necessary jargon

I thought that Friday's discussion, once it got going, went really well. It had a somewhat slow start; not only was it a little confusing at first, but sometimes you don't want to argue with the person before you. Though it was a good concept (as the other 'snake' was) since everyone had to participate in the discussion, I thought that once it was open so that anyone could speak after each person, we brought up much more substantive points. It is sometimes difficult to be forced to comment on something; the activity that I preferred was the one in which each person had to speak but they did so by raising their hand and responding to what was said before them - when they chose to participate. Regardless of the method, there were several ideas however that I completely disagree with and would like to take advantage of this blog to refute.

First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.

Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...

Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.