Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Toscano, Aaron, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of English

Resources and Daily Activities

  • Dr. Toscano’s Homepage
  • ENGL 2116-083: Introduction to Technical Communication
    • ENGL 2116 sec. 083 Major Assignments (Summer 2020)
      • Final Portfolio Requirements
      • Oral Presentations
    • June 11th: Continue with I, Robot
    • June 15th: Ethics and Perspective Discussion
      • Ethical Dilemmas for Homework
      • Ethical Dilemmas to Ponder
      • Mapping Our Personal Ethics
    • June 16th: More on Ethics
    • June 1st: Effective Documents for Users
    • June 2nd: Final Project and Research Discussion
      • Epistemology and Other Fun Research Ideas
      • Making Résumés and Cover Letters Better
      • Research
    • June 3rd: Technology in a Social Context
    • June 8th: Information Design and Visuals
    • June 9th: Proposals, Marketing, and Rhetoric
    • May 18th: Introduction to the course
    • May 19th: Critical Technological Awareness
    • May 20th: Audience, Purpose, and General Introduction
    • May 21st: Résumé Stuff
      • Making Résumés and Cover Letters More Effective
      • Peter Profit’s Cover Letter
    • May 25th: More Resume Stuff
    • May 26th: Plain Language and Prose Revision
      • Euphemisms
      • Prose Practice for Next Class
      • Prose Revision Assignment
      • Revising Prose: Efficiency, Accuracy, and Good
      • Sentence Clarity
    • May 27th: More on Plain Language
    • May 28th: Review Prose Revision
  • ENGL 4182/5182: Information Design & Digital Publishing
    • August 21st: Introduction to the Course
      • Rhetorical Principles of Information Design
    • August 28th: Introduction to Information Design
      • Prejudice and Rhetoric
      • Robin Williams’s Principles of Design
    • Classmates Webpages (Fall 2017)
    • December 4th: Presentations
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4182/5182 (Fall 2017)
    • November 13th: More on Color
      • Designing with Color
      • Important Images
    • November 20th: Extra-Textual Elements
    • November 27th: Presentation/Portfolio Workshop
    • November 6th: In Living Color
    • October 16th: Type Fever
      • Typography
    • October 23rd: More on Type
    • October 2nd: MIDTERM FUN!!!
    • October 30th: Working with Graphics
      • Beerknurd Calendar 2018
    • September 11th: Talking about Design without Using “Thingy”
      • Theory, theory, practice
    • September 18th: The Whole Document
    • September 25th: Page Design
  • ENGL 4183/5183: Editing with Digital Technologies
    • Efficiency in Writing Reviews
    • February 17th: Verb is the Word!
    • February 24th: Coordination and Subordination
      • A Practical Editing Situation
    • February 3rd: I’m in Love with the Shape of You(r Sentences)
    • January 20th: Introduction to the Course
    • January 27th: Rhetoric, Words, and Composing
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4183/5183 (Spring 2021)
  • ENGL 4275: Rhetoric of Technology
    • April 13th: Authorities in Science and Technology
    • April 15th: Articles on Violence in Video Games
    • April 20th: Presentations
    • April 6th: Technology in the home
    • April 8th: Writing Discussion
    • Assignments for ENGL 4275
    • February 10th: Religion of Technology Part 3 of 3
    • February 12th: Is Love a Technology?
    • February 17th: Technology and Gender
    • February 19th: Technology and Expediency
    • February 24th: Semester Review
    • February 3rd: Religion of Technology Part 1 of 3
    • February 5th: Religion of Technology Part 2 of 3
    • January 13th: Technology and Meaning, a Humanist perspective
    • January 15th: Technology and Democracy
    • January 22nd: The Politics of Technology
    • January 27th: Discussion on Writing as Thinking
    • January 29th: Technology and Postmodernism
    • January 8th: Introduction to the Course
    • March 11th: Writing and Other Fun
    • March 16th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 1 of 2
    • March 18th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 2 of 2
    • March 23rd: Inception (2010)
    • March 25th: Writing and Reflecting Discussion
    • March 30th & April 1st: Count Zero
    • March 9th: William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984)
  • ENGL 4750-090 & ENGL 5050-092 Video Games & Culture
    • Assignments for Video Games & Culture
    • August 25th: Introduction to the Course
    • November 10th: Aggression & Addiction
    • November 3rd: Moral Panics and Health Risks
    • October 13th: Narrative, ludology, f(r)iction
    • October 20th: Serious Games
    • October 27: Risky Business?
    • October 6th: Hyperreality
    • September 1st: History of Video Games
    • September 22nd: Video Game Aesthetics
    • September 29th: (sub)Cultures and Video Games
    • September 8th: Defining Video Games and Critical Theory Introduction
      • Marxism for Video Game Analysis
      • Postmodernism for Video Game Analysis
  • ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory
    • April 13th: Umberto Eco & Jean Baudrillard
    • April 20th: Moving Forward on Theory
    • April 27th: Last Day of Class
    • April 6th: Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition
      • What is Postmodernism?
    • February 10th: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine [Rhetoric]
      • Oratory and Argument Analysis
    • February 17th: Knoblauch on Magical and Ontological Rhetoric
    • February 24th: Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method
    • February 3rd: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Books 2 and 3
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 2
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 3
    • January 13th: Introduction to Class
    • January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1
    • March 16th: Friedrich Nietzsche
    • March 23rd: Mythologies and Meaning of Meaning (part 2)
    • March 30th: Derrida’s (refusal to have) Positions
    • March 9th: Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women
    • Rhetorical Theory Assignments
  • LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127
    • August 21st: Introduction to Class
    • August 23rd: Humanistic Approach to Science Fiction
    • August 26th: Robots and Zombies
    • August 28th: Futurism, an Introduction
    • August 30th: R. A. Lafferty “Slow Tuesday Night” (1965)
    • December 2nd: Technological Augmentation
    • December 4th: Posthumanism
    • November 11th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2)
    • November 13th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2 con’t)
    • November 18th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 1)
      • More Questions than Answers
    • November 1st: Games Reality Plays (part II)
    • November 20th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 2)
    • November 6th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 1)
    • October 14th: More Autonomous Fun
    • October 16th: Autonomous Conclusion
    • October 21st: Sci Fi in the Domestic Sphere
    • October 23rd: Social Aphasia
    • October 25th: Dust in the Wind
    • October 28th: Gender Liminality and Roles
    • October 2nd: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • October 30th: Games Reality Plays (part I)
    • October 9th: Approaching Autonomous
      • Analyzing Prose in Autonomous
    • September 11th: The Time Machine
    • September 16th: The Alien Other
    • September 18th: Post-apocalyptic Worlds
    • September 20th: Dystopian Visions
    • September 23rd: World’s Beyond
    • September 25th: Gender Studies and Science Fiction
    • September 30th: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • September 4th: Science Fiction and Social Breakdown
      • More on Ellison
      • More on Forster
    • September 9th: The Time Machine
  • LBST 2213/HTAS 2100: Science, Technology, and Society
    • December 10th: Violence in Video Games
    • December 15th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view
    • December 1st: COVID-19 facial covering rhetoric
    • December 3rd: COVID-19 Transmission and Pandemics
    • December 8th: 500-word Essay
    • November 10th: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 27-end
    • November 12th: Frankenstein (1818) Preface-Ch. 8
    • November 17th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 9-Ch. 16
    • November 19th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 17-Ch. 24
    • November 3rd: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 1-17
    • November 5th: Planet of the Apes (1964) Ch. 18-26
    • October 13th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 5 and 6
    • October 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • October 1st: The Golem at Large Introduction & Ch. 1
    • October 22nd: The Time Machine
    • October 29th: H.G. Wells and Adaptations
    • October 6th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology) Ch. 2
    • October 8th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 3 & 4
    • September 10th: Science and Technology, a Humanistic Approach
    • September 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 2
    • September 17th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 3 and 4
    • September 22nd: Collins & Pinch Ch. 5 & 6
    • September 24th: Collins & Pinch Ch. 7 & Conclusion
    • September 29th: Test 1
    • September 8th: Introduction to Class
  • New Media: Gender, Culture, Technology (Spring 2021)
    • February 16: Misunderstanding the Internet
    • February 23rd: Our Public Sphere and the Media
    • February 2nd: Introduction to Cultural Studies
    • January 26th: Introduction to New Media
    • Major Assignments for New Media (Spring 2021)
  • Science Fiction in American Culture (Summer I–2020)
    • Assignments for Science Fiction in American Culture
    • Cultural Studies and Science Fiction Films
    • June 10th: Interstellar and Exploration themes
    • June 11th: Bicentennial Man
    • June 15th: I’m Only Human…Or am I?
    • June 16th: Wall-E and Environment
    • June 17th: Wall-E (2008) and Technology
    • June 18th: Interactivity in Video Games
    • June 1st: Firefly (2002) and Myth
    • June 2nd: “Johnny Mnemonic”
    • June 3rd: “New Rose Hotel”
    • June 4th: “Burning Chrome”
    • June 8th: Conformity and Monotony
    • June 9th: Cultural Constructions of Beauty
    • May 18th: Introduction to Class
    • May 19th: American Culture, an Introduction
    • May 20th: The Matrix
    • May 21st: Gender and Science Fiction
    • May 25th: Goals for I, Robot
    • May 26th: Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot
    • May 27th: Hackers and Slackers
    • May 30th: Inception
  • Teaching Portfolio
  • Topics for Analysis
    • American Culture, an Introduction
    • Feminism, An Introduction
    • Frankenstein Part I
    • Frankenstein Part II
    • Futurism Introduction
    • Langdon Winner Summary: The Politics of Technology
    • Marxist Theory (cultural analysis)
    • Oral Presentations
    • Our Public Sphere
    • Postmodernism Introduction
    • Protesting Confederate Place
    • Punctuation Refresher
    • QT, the Existential Robot
    • Religion of Technology Discussion
    • Rhetoric, an Introduction
      • Analyzing the Culture of Technical Writer Ads
      • Rhetoric of Technology
      • Visual Culture
      • Visual Perception
      • Visual Perception, Culture, and Rhetoric
      • Visual Rhetoric
      • Visuals for Technical Communication
      • World War I Propaganda
    • The Great I, Robot Discussion
      • I, Robot Short Essay Topics
    • The Rhetoric of Video Games: A Cultural Perspective
      • Civilization, an Analysis
    • The Sopranos
    • Why Science Fiction?
    • Zombies and Consumption Satire

Contact Me

Office: Fretwell 280F
Phone: 704.687.0613
Email: atoscano@uncc.edu
LBST 2213/HTAS 2100: Science, Technology, and Society » October 1st: The Golem at Large Introduction & Ch. 1

October 1st: The Golem at Large Introduction & Ch. 1

Announcements

  • Test 1 is due by 11:00 pm–do this on Canvas
  • If you’re interested in looking out into space, check out More Galaxies!!!
  • Collins & Pinch’s second Golem book–Technology

Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large: Technology

Preface and Introduction

  • p. 1: Excerpt from the first volume in The Golem Series—“The personality of science is neither that of a chivalrous knight not pitiless juggernaut.”
    What do they mean by the “personality” of science? Isn’t science just facts? Do facts have personalities?
  • p. 2: Definition of technology—application of science.
    • Broadly speaking, however, technologies are tools humans (and only rarely other species) create.
    • Are instinctual tools—mud nests, burrows, bee hives, etc.—the same as technologies when we consider technologies as social constructions?
  • p. 3: “Scientific and technological debates seem to be much more simple and straightforward when viewed from a distance.”
  • p. 3-4: “[Collins & Pinch] present [technology] as a human endeavor rather than a superhuman feat.”
    • Remember, even superheroes aren’t perfect. Collins & Pinch–and humanistic analyses of science and technology–want citizens to recognize that science and technology are open to the same shortcomings that all human activity (re)presents.
    • This doesn’t mean all science is wrong and all technologies are failures. Critically aware citizens shouldn’t expect perfection and should scrutinize too-good-to-be true statements from authorities.
    • For instance, what can $1 Billion do for cancer research?
      • The Optimist
        *Cure all cancer
        *Continue current cancer research
        *Increase funding for overlooked cancer
      • The Pessimist
        *Nothing
        *Profits for pharmaceuticals
        *Almost nothing…cure little cancer
        *Get misused by cancer researchers
  • p. 5: Commonly, we see “failures of technology…as failures of human organization, not science.”
    • That view is the antithesis to a humanistic approach to technology.
    • That doesn’t mean humans are never to blame for nefarious activities. It simply means we usually hold technologies and science up as perfect and humans flawed, thus, blaming the users. As we’ll see, it’s more complicated than that.
  • p. 5: “[T]echnology becomes more reliable as our experience grows and our abilities develop.” That is a prevailing belief, related to the assumption that all technology will improve in the future. Our culture believes that.
  • p. 6: “Since all human activity takes place within society, all science and technology has society at its centre.”
  • p. 7: Democracy and Technology—Who’s allowed expertise when it comes to technology?
  • p. 8: Goal for the book and Science, Technology, and Society, in general: “…to understand how to handle science and technology in a democratic society and resist the temptation to lurch from technocracy to populism.”

More on technocracy and populism. Science and technology are often seen as individual endeavors. Guglielmo Marconi in his lab or Thomas Edison and his team at Menlo Park. History often gives us the portrait of the lone inventor myth. Science and technology are rarely individual efforts, and they are never developed in a vacuum that isolates scientists and engineers from social forces. Although we can’t ignore the private funding that goes into scientific and technological discoveries, society drives research and development (R&D).

The problem that we seem to be running into with populism and science and technology is that many believe if they don’t agree with a science, they can say “I don’t believe that” and ignore the facts experts present. Going back to Asimov’s “The Cult of Ignorance,” we also remember that the public’s right to know requires the public to be informed. When populism en masse rejects established, credentialed scientific authorities, we have an alarming situation where conviction supersedes scientific theories and laws that are tested, retested, and used for expert opinion. We shouldn’t relinquish democratic oversight for government R&D, but we can’t be silent while the uninformed try to deny scientific claims.

You may never be able to make decisions about a new product’s development, but, as a member of a hi-tech society, you drive the demand for products. There’s no survey that you fill out, and there’s no focus group that we all attend. Ideology drives much of the demand for certain products. Let’s recap from earlier what values lead to what technologies:

  • Values: freedom of speech, privacy, mobility
    Technologies: Internet, network security, e-mail
  • Values: defense, trade routes, economy
    Technologies: satellites, aircraft carriers, nuclear wepons

As mentioned before, it’s probably more accurate to say hegemonic forces drive the development of science and technology. Let’s move onto war technologies and two (in)famous missiles that caught our attention in late-1990 and early-1992–The Patriot Missile and the Scud.

Chapter 1: “A Clean Kill?: The Role of Patriot in the [First] Gulf War”

We’re moving into more philosophical discussions of technology. Specifically, we’re going to be discussing what’s called the rhetoric of technology. The rhetoric of technology doesn’t focus on how a technology is physically constructed; instead, it considers how meaning is embedded into the technology. Technologies are both physically and rhetorically constructed. The artifact or device or tool is put to use; however, the idea of the technology is constructed through complex discourses and a priori assumptions.

We’ve talked about this before, but it bears repeating: All of us have assumptions about technology. One prevailing—pretty close to universal—belief is that technology will advance, will do more. Does that mean it will be better? That is a question best left to ethical discussions regarding what “better” means. We will consider those questions, but, before moving onto a discussion about how meaning was affixed to the Patriot anti-missile missile during the First Gulf War, let’s first consider a set of technologies from the 20th Century.

What do the following have in common?

Internet, machine gun, satellites,* Interstate Highway System, Hummer, microwave ovens,** and nylon

Four Things to Take Away from Ch. 1

  1. Myth of science and technology: If we just had enough data, we could end debate and definitively draw conclusions for controversial science and technology. Human (re)presentation of that data will mean interpretation. There is no direct translation of technical subjects to “everyday language.”
  2. It’s difficult to build consensus when so much is in doubt.
  3. Technologies aren’t perfect. To work out the issues, you need time. We can’t create a system to predict everything. {This point has MAJOR implications for so-called Artificial Intelligence.}
  4. Technological imagination is part of the rhetoric of technology even if what’s imagined is not feasible. There are many reasons why a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or Star Wars) anti-ballistic-missile system is far fetched, but the idea is out there, and that can motivate citizens. Technology as well as our beliefs in technology are political.

Questions to start us off

  1. Why worry, why study the Patriot or past technology in general after the war was won?
  2. What might keep people interested in the debate on whether or not the Patriot worked? Don’t just focus on the technical. Draw conclusions based on political, social, and cultural aspects.

The Scene: the Patriot anti-missile Missile in the Theater of War

  • p. 10-11: “It may be that the military ineffectiveness of the Scud was due to the success of Patriot. It may be that irrespective of its military effectiveness, Patriot played an important role in keeping Israel out of the war.”
  • p. 11: “Though there are firm opinions on both sides, we still do not know whether the anti-missile missile stopped Scuds from hitting Israel, stopped them from hitting Saudi Arabia, or failed to stop them at all.”
  • p. 12: “The estimated efficacy of the Patriot missile in shooting down Scuds varies from around 100 per cent to around 0 per cent; some said every Scud warhead engaged was destroyed, some said not a single one was hit.”

Let’s decipher these quotations. It relates to “experimenter’s regress” in that we aren’t sure what the outcome should be because we don’t have reliable experiments. Were the Scuds ineffective? Were the Patriots (the missiles, not the cheaters) effective? Were they effective enough, at least, as a symbol to keep Israel out of the war? Although the scale isn’t comparable—serious damage and loss of life—this issue relates to Eddington’s observations. Ultimately, bending of light occurs according to Einsteinian physics, but Eddington had observations that supported both Einsteinian and Newtonian physics. There is probably evidence for some Patriots destroying, diverging, or demoting Scud missiles. Also, there’s evidence and high probability that the Scuds weren’t very accurate, limiting their potential to inflict greater damage.

  • p. 13: “[t]he problem of measurement is hard to solve; we do not, and cannot have, a clean scientific kill.”

Patriot Success in the Eye of the Beholder

Note on War…much like the disagreements you have with significant others, “the first casualty of war is truth,” and Collins & Pinch go on to mention “a principal weapon of war is lies” (p. 13). If you want to explore questions of reality and meaning(lessness), enroll in a rhetoric class I teach, or register for a variety of philosophy classes. Alternatively, the Cure has a wonderful explanation of the precarious nature of truth in the song “This is a Lie.” Always remember, though, just as “wartime claims about success of the missile reflect the demands of war rather than the demands of truth” (Collins & Pinch, p. 13), many, in fact, all wartime claims have rhetorical meanings. After all, there’s no speech act devoid of rhetoric—wartime speech especially.

  • p. 13-14: Usefulness of the terms “destroyed” and “intercepted”
  • p. 24: “President Bush’s forty-one out of forty-two, and the US Army’s forty-five out of forty-seven referred to ‘interception’ not destruction.”
    Mission accomplished, right?
  • p. 30-31: “interception says nothing about destruction, damage, or diversion.”
  • p. 26: Belief that the success would lead to the SDI or Star Wars program is unfounded by some. After all, as Peter D. Zimmerman points out, “A strategic defense system…will probably get it right some time around the second or third nuclear war.”{Watchman reference: If Dr. Manhattan stops 99% of the Soviets’ nuclear missiles…}

Regardless of intention, claiming Patriot missiles intercepted Scud missiles has the rhetorical effect of “Patriots destroyed Scud missiles.” This is especially true when consuming sound bite media.

  • p. 21: “anti-missile defensive systems will always be fighting the last war and evasive measures that cannot be anticipated will always defeat the defensive umbrella.”
    • What are the implications of the above statement? Think about the problems of anticipating situations for other systems (i.e., levees, pipelines, dams, bridges, etc.)?

      Hoover Dam, June 2016.
  • p. 14: Raytheon had a chance to build their ethos (and market share) by showing the Patriot was effective. Additionally, “the proof of an anti-missile missile on the battlefield gives a boost to the prospect of whole new weapons systems.”
  • p. 22: Robert Stein of Raytheon claims the Patriot was a success.
  • p. 23: Criteria for success list…is rhetorical. If you want to support the Patriot, focus on the criteria (or a criterion) that bolsters your claim. Remember, CNN, even though they have 24-hour coverage, is broadcasting sound bites and repeating video of the war.
  • p. 24: Ted Postol wanted “to prevent Patriot gaining the sort of false reputation which would justify further expenditure on an anti-missile technology which, he believes, is bound to fail.”
  • p. 27-28: Even after British SAS (Special Air Service) supposedly dismantled or destroyed the mobile Scud launchers on 26 January 1991, “other accounts say that thirteen Scuds fell on Israel between 28 January and 25 February.”

Syllogism: Deduction Patriot’s Efficacy in Saudi Arabia
Major Premise: Patriots must fire in order to intercept Scuds.
Minor Premise 1: Patriot anti-missile defense malfunctioned and wasn’t deployed.
Conclusion: Therefore, we cannot claim the Patriot Missile Defense was effective in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s let the above sink in for a moment. No, this isn’t in the reading and being in class will be the best way to fully understand the point. Is that the only conclusion you can think of?

“Proof” of Patriot Efficacy by Deduction

p. 30: We aren’t given the fine details of the Postol-Stein debate, but Collins & Pinch note Stein’s reference to the destruction of Tactical Ballistic Missiles (TBMs) during Iran-Iraq War. Stein points out that TBMs caused major destruction during that war, but this war had “relatively low loss of life and minimal damage in Israel.” He attributes this to the Patriot.

Syllogism: Deduction Proving Patriot’s Efficacy
Major Premise: TBMs caused lots of death and destruction during the Iran-Iraq War.
Minor Premise 1: Anti-missile defenses stop TBMs.
Minor Premise 2: The Patriot Missile Defense was used in Isreal during the Gulf War.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Patriot Missile Defense stopped death and destruction in Isreal during the Gulf War.

The above isn’t what Collins & Pinch claim exactly, but it shows how one might use intuition, like QT, to conclude what the benefits of the Patriot are—100% truth.

Conclusion: Mission Accomplished?

Ch. 1 goes into lots more detail regarding the engineering and deployment of the Scud and Patriot missiles. We don’t need to go over those in such detail, but it is important to remember that there remain questions regarding the effectiveness of both the Scud and Patriot. Apparently, both missiles were adapted and modified from their original purposes. That alone could raise lingering doubt as to the efficacy of either. Finally, and we’ll see more of this in Chapter 3, it would be irresponsible to conclude an experiment or demonstration would be comparable to action carried out under the fog of war.

  • p. 34: “[W]e do not know how efficient [the Iraqis] were at launching fully functioning missiles in the first place….they were forced to use mobile launchers.”
  • p. 35: GAO report: “there is no way to conclusively determine how many targets the Patriot killed or failed to kill.”
  • p. 37: Important conclusion for Collins & Pinch. They don’t claim the Patriot was successful or unsuccessful; instead, they present their findings to show “[i]n the evidence of the experts one sees a yearning for science in place of messy wartime reports: ‘direct and valid scientific data’ could put an end to this untidy debate.”

What steps could one take to figure out whether or not the Patriot succeeded—then or now? In other words, how would you construct the tests? Alternatively, how might you “fix” the Patriot? It’s perfectly fine to speculate on technological improvements. These missiles run on software.

REMEMBER: The Patriot only can destroy a missile it knows how to find. Knowing the Scud missile’s trajectory only helps if the Scud follows that trajectory.

Technical Details of Both Missiles (time permitting)

Below are some key issues that need to be considered in the context of firing these missiles. Many factors could affect the missiles’ performances.

  • p. 16: “Patriot was originally designed to shoot down aircraft rather than missiles.”
  • p. 18: “Patriot has to be pointed toward its potential impact point before launch.”
  • p. 19: “[T]he time window for an effective detonation [of the Patriot] is very short.”
  • p. 20: “[The Scud or Al-Husayn] had a tendency to break into pieces during its descent through the atmosphere….The Iraqis had inadvertently designed a missile with decoy warheads capable of making the equivalent of evasive manoeuvres!”

Think Critically about These Chapters

As I’ve mentioned before, this course strives to get you to have more questions than answers and that means asking more informed questions about science and technology. You aren’t just learning about Patriot and Scud missiles in this chapter; you’re learning to think about the rhetoric of technology. Consider the following questions inspired by the chapter.

  1. What meaning is conveyed by reports of the Patriot’s success?
  2. Alternatively, what meaning is conveyed by reports of the Patriot’s failure?
  3. What assumptions does the audience have about technologies?
  4. What conclusions will the audience draw or be likely to support based on reports of technologies (e.g., the “success of Patriot)?

That last question is important to break down further. One concludes or argues in support of their perspective based on a priori assumptions and goals. For instance, Postol was deeply concerned that reports of the Patriot’s success would lead the public to support R&D into anti-Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Therefore, he argues from a particular perspective and will accentuate the ideas that show the Patriot isn’t effective. He’s not lying or purposely being deceitful. However, he has an agenda and will use the evidence that supports his perspective.

Below is a list of a priori assumptions that Postol has:

  • Technologies, especially military technologies, excite imaginations.
  • SDI is a bad technology to pursue.
  • Citizens (circa 1990) fear nuclear war.
  • SDI and other anti-missile systems convey the promise of defending against nuclear missiles.

Below is a list of assumptions that Postol had after Patriot was deployed:

  • The reports of Patriot success were inflated.
  • His estimates, culled from the Army’s own estimates, show the Patriot had no effect on the Scuds.
  • Raytheon and others were going to use the Patriot’s assumed success to push for getting funding for developing more anti-missile systems.

Next Class

Keep up with the syllabus reading. For Tuesday, 10/06, read Ch. 2. If you haven’t done so already, do TEST 1 on Canvas BEFORE 10/01 at 11:00 pm. Also, post your weekly reflection on Canvas by 11:00 pm on Friday, 10/02.


*Although you might be able to find evidence—even straight from NASA (Rosenthal [July 1965], “The International Geophysical Year,” pp. 15-16)—that satellites were pursued for scientific purposes, there is overwhelming evidence that satellite technology was developed with military purposes in mind. Once the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I in 1957, there’s no debate that this technology was pursued primarily for military purposes. When thinking about the rhetoric of technology, you mustn’t fall victim to the intentionality fallacy: Just because someone, such as an author or engineer, claims his or her intention for the novel or technology was for different reasons doesn’t mean they’re the last word. They, too, are products of the cultures from which they come, and their pursuits are mediated by culture. Technology, like literature, isn’t created in a vacuum devoid of external influence. See more on “History of GPS.” Want more? Here’s a source to comb through: RAND Corporation. Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship. 1946.
**Raytheon. They made the Patriot and the first microwave oven.

Skip to toolbar
  • Log In