[The following article is reprinted from the September 1992 issue of 
the War Research Info Service, a quarterly newsletter for campus 
peace activists (Copyright 1992, University Conversion Project).  The 
theme of this special issue (Volume 2, #1) is ÒMasculinity and War/ 
Feminism and Non-Violence.Ó    For a sample issue, please send $3 to 
University Conversion Project, Box 748, Cambridge, MA  02142.  To 
subscribe, please send $25/yr.  Or call (617)  354-9363  for more 
information.]


White Men in Ties Discussing Missile Size
By Carol Cohn


	Feminists have often suggested that an important aspect of the 
arms race is phallic worship; that Òmissile envyÓ is a significant 
motivating force in the nuclear build-up.  I have always found this 
an uncomfortably reductionist explanation, and so I hoped that 
observing nuclear strategy discussions, would yield a more complex 
analysis.  But still, I was curious about the extent to which I might 
find a sexual subtext in the defense professionalsÕ discourse.  I was 
not prepared for what I found.
	I think I had naively imagined myself as a feminist spy in the 
house of deathÑthat I would need to sneak around and eavesdrop on 
what men said in unguarded moments, that I would need all my 
subtlety and cunning to unearth whatever sexual imagery might be 
underneath how they thought and spoke.  I had naively believed 
that these men would have cleaned up their acts.  Not that a feminist 
critique would have changed how they thought, but that it might 
have changed at least how they spoke in public.  Or, if it hadnÕt come 
that far, I thought that at least at some point in a long talk about 
Òpenetration aids,Ó someone would suddenly look up, slightly 
embarrassed to be caught in such blatant confirmation of feminist 
analyses of WhatÕs Going On Here.
	Of course, I was wrong.  There was no evidence that feminist 
critiques had ever reached the ears, much less the minds, of these 
men.  American military dependence on nuclear weapons was 
explained as Òirresistible, because you get more bang for the buck.Ó  
Another lecturer solemnly and scientifically announced Òto disarm is 
to get rid of all your stuff. . . .  A professorÕs explanation of why the 
MX missile is to be placed in the silos of the newest Minuteman 
missiles, instead of replacing the older, less accurate ones, was 
Òbecause theyÕre in the nicest holeÑyouÕre not going to take the nicest 
missile you have and put it in a crummy hole.Ó  Other lecturers were 
filled with discussion of vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight 
ratios, soft lay downs, deep penetration, and the comparative 
advantages of protracted vs. spasm attacksÑwhat one military 
adviser to the National Security Council has called Òreleasing 70 to 80 
percent of our megatonnage in one orgasmic whump.Ó  There was 
serious concern about the need to harden our silos, and the need to 
Òface it, the Russians are a little harder than we are.Ó  Disbelieving 
glances would occasionally pass between me and my one ally in the 
summer program, a former nun, but no one else seemed to notice.
	But, if the imagery is transparent, its significance may be less 
so.  The temptation is to draw some conclusions about the defense 
intellectuals themselves Ñ about Òwhat theyÕre really  talking about,Ó 
or their motivations.  But the temptation is worth resisting.  
Individual motivations cannot necessarily be read directly from 
imagery; the imagery does not originate in these particular 
individuals, but in a broader cultural context.
Òvertical erector launchers, thrust-to-weight ratios, soft lay downs, 
deep penetrationÓ
	Sexual imagery has, of course, been a part of the world of 
warfare since long before nuclear weapons were even a gleam in a 
physicistÕs eye.  The history of the atomic bomb project itself is rife 
with overt images of competitive male sexuality, as is the discourse 
of the early nuclear physicists, strategists, and SAC commanders.  
Both the military itself and the arms manufacturers are constantly 
exploiting the phallic imagery and promise of sexual domination that 
their weapons so conveniently suggest.  A quick glance at the 
publications that constitute some of the research sources for defense 
intellectuals makes the depth and pervasiveness of the imagery 
evident.
	Air Force magazineÕs advertisements for new weapons, for 
example, rival Playboy as a catalog of menÕs sexual anxieties and 
fantasies.  Consider the following from the June 1985 issue:  
Emblazoned in bold letters across the top of a two page 
advertisement for the AV-8B Harrier IIÑÒSpeak Softly and Carry a 
Big Stick.Ó  The copy below boasts Òan exceptional thrust to weight 
ratio,Ó and Òvectored thrust capability that makes the . . . unique 
rapid response possible.Ó  And then, just in case weÕve failed to get 
the message, the last line reminds us, ÒJust the sort of ÔBig StickÕ 
Teddy Roosevelt had in mind way back in 1901.Ó
	Another, truly extraordinary, source of phallic imagery is to be 
found in descriptions of nuclear blasts themselves.  I offer only one, 
by journalist William Laurence, who was brought bu the Air Force to 
witness the Nagasaki bombing.
Then, just when it appeared as though the thing had settled down in 
to a  state of permanence, there came shooting out of the top of a 
giant  mushroom that increased the size of the pillar to a total of 
45,000 feet.  The  mushroom top was even more alive than the pillar, 
seething and boiling in a  white fury of creamy foam,  sizzling 
upward and then descending earthward,  a thousand geysers rolled 
into one.  It kept struggling in breaking the bonds  that held it down.
	Given the degree to which it suffuses their world, that defense 
intellectuals themselves use a lot of sexual imagery is not especially 
surprising.  Nor is it, by itself, grounds for imputing motivation.  For 
me, the interesting issue is not so much the imageryÕs 
psychodynamic origins, as its function: how does it serve to make it 
possible for strategic planners and other defense intellectuals to do 
their macabre work?  How does it function in their construction of a 
work-world that feels tenable?  A couple of stories suggest the 
complexity.
	At one point a group of us took a Òfield tripÓ to the New London 
Navy base where nuclear submarines are homeported, and to the 
General Dynamics Electric Boat boatyards, where a new Trident 
submarine was being constructed.  The Òhigh pointÓ of the trip was a 
tour of a nuclear powered submarine.  A few at a time, we descended 
into the long, sleek tube in which men and a nuclear reactor are 
encased underwater for months at a time.  We squeezed through 
hatches, along neon-lit passages so narrow that we had to press our 
backs to the walls for anyone to get by.  We passed the cramped 
ÒracksÓ where men sleep and the red and white signs warning of 
radioactive materials.  When we finally reached the part of the sub 
where the missiles are housed, an officer turned with a grin and 
asked if we wanted to stick our hands through a hole to Òpat the mis-
sile.Ó  Pat the missile?  	
	The image arose again in the next week, when a lecturer 
scornfully pronounced that the only real reason for deploying Cruise 
and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe was Òso that our allies 
can pat them.Ó  Some months later, another group of us went to be 
briefed at NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command).  
On the way back, the Air National Guard plane we were on went to 
refuel at Offut Air Force Base, the Strategic Air Command headquar-
ters near Omaha, Nebraska.  When word leaked out that our landing 
was being delayed because the new B-1 bomber was in the area, the 
plane became charged with a tangible excitement that can only be 
described as sexual.  The excitement built as we flew in our holding 
pattern, people craning their necks to try to catch a glimpse of the B-
1 in the skies, and climaxed as we touched down on the runway and 
hurtled past the magnificently monstrous piece of machinery.  When 
I returned to the center, a man who was unable to go said to me 
enviously, ÒI hear you got to pat a B-1.Ó
	What is all this Òpatting?Ó  What are men doing when they ÒpatÓ 
these high-tech phalluses?  Think about what else men patÑwomenÕs 
asses.  Patting is an assertion of intimacy, sexual possession, 
affectionate domination.  The thrill and pleasure of Òpatting the 
missileÓ is the proximity of all that phallic power, vicariously 
appropriating it as oneÕs own.
	If the predilection for patting phallic objects indicates 
something of the homoerotic excitement held by the language, it also 
has another side. Patting isn't just an act of sexual intimacy.  It is also 
what is done to small children, and the pet dog.  The creatures one 
pats are small, cute, harmlessÑnot terrifyingly destructive.  Pat it, 
and its lethality disappears.
	Much of the sexual imagery I heard was rife with the sort of 
ambiguity suggested by Òpatting the missiles.Ó  The imagery could be 
construed as a deadly serious display of the connections between 
masculine sexuality and the arms race.  At the same time, it can also 
be a way of minimizing the seriousness of militarist endeavors, of 
denying their deadly consequences.  A former DOD target analyst, 
telling me why plans for Òlimited nuclear warÓ were ridiculous, said, 
ÒLook, you gotta understand that itÕs a pissing contest Ñ you gotta 
expect them to use everything theyÕve got.Ó  What does this image 
say?  Most obviously, that this is all about competition for manhood, 
and thus there is tremendous danger.   But, the image  also says the 
whole thing isnÕt   very serious Ñ ItÕs just what little boys or drunk 
men do, and thereÕs never any important outcome in those contests. 
[This article is excerpted from a 1986 manuscript, which was later 
made into an article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.  Carol Cohn 
was at Harvard, and is now a Professor of Political Science at the 
University of Hawaii in Honolulu.]