When a person thinks of the destruction that occurs when a nuclear weapon is used, they focus solely on the pain that it inflects on the humans that the weapons are used against. However, by reading this article a person can gain insight into the language that frequents defense intellectual’s conversations. They choose to ignore the impact on human life by using words like “clean bombs”, “collateral damage”, and “surgically clean strikes”. This choice also allows room for a more humorous atmosphere filled with sexual innuendos and lightens the conversation to no longer focus on the loss of human lives. Some of the metaphors used are more apparent than others, such as the discussion of “vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight rations, soft lay downs, deep penetration, and the comparative advantages of protracted versus spasm attacks”. However comical it may seem to use such blatant comparisons, it has an advantage over solely looking at in a humanitarian …show more content…
We have concrete evidence that shows people simplifying and stripping away the humanity of the act of nuclear war. If the conversation is allowed to continue in this way, then the future will be extremely unpredictable, based more in either how our policy makers feel on that day or whether their pride feels at all threatened by the presence of other strong masculine players. Personally, I am made uncomfortable by this thought process, and while it is important to explore disagreeable situations we must also remind ourselves of what lies at the core of the diluted vocabulary. Specifically, in the affairs discussed in the authors article it is vital that we constantly remind ourselves what the new language translates to, and that taking away emotion from the words does not take away the pain someone can