Abstract

This is a philosophical examination of arms race dynamics. It focuses on the impact of nuclear arms technology upon US-Soviet relations in order to explore the more general relationship between weapon technologies and international politics. My point of departure is the current debate over the role of technological "push" versus that of political "pull" in the conduct of the rivalry. Looking at our usual ways of contrasting technology and politics, I suggest these distinct modes of human action have become interwoven. The current arms race is perhaps exemplary of their merger. Using Heidegger's thesis that the "essence" of modern technology consists in a reduction of the world--and hence humanity as part of it--to the status of resource, I show that such a technological world view contains inherent political overtones in which man, just as nature, exists to be manipulated for other ends. Historically, these ends involve assuring the security of the state. Surveying Hobbes' political writings, I claim that the conceptual intertwining of politics and technology is his legacy to the Western political tradition. More generally, I hold that in the rise of the modern state system, political practice is transformed into a form of technological activity. Turning to contemporary weapon systems, I examine multiple warhead missiles (MIRVs) to demonstrate how our artifacts may embody political agendas. Here, Don Ihde's work on "human-machine relations" is employed, showing that weapons such as MIRV have become, effectively, the chief political representatives of each nation. This is possible since weapons possessors' intentions are interpreted directly from the technical capabilities of the weapon. Thus MIRV and other arms appear as "quasi-others" whose capacities "speak" louder than the stated intentions of either nation's leaders. The study concludes that as technologies embody political agendas--general postures, and, specific policies --so political decision-making is reduced to little more than a technical exercise in selecting or reacting to weapons regimes. Arms technologies thus become an integral part of a political technique seen as more powerful and effective than diplomacy