So, for my thesis I'm interested in looking at the ways in which the rhetoric of both national and personal security have evolved over the years. Specifically, I'm researching the WWII/Cold War origins through the present day's reality.
Arguably, I think the beginning of an American National security state can be located, at least partially, in the home front activities of World War II. Originally, I tried to find civilian letters regarding the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but nothing really stood out to me. When I found the letter from President Roosevelt to Dr. Oppenheimer, I had to start thinking about national security in different terms. I have mostly been thinking about Security as a particular kind of rhetoric, rather than a material good. Which, now that I think about it, is kind of ridiculous given the rhetoric of the Cold War. So much of the official language used from the 1940s through the 1980s was focused on the nuclear capabilities of the US and USSR. The nuclear bomb was the ultimate measure of US Security.
However, this letter shows a different side of that struggle. Obviously, during WWII, the US and Russia were allies, but there is still a marked focus on the presence of a universally known, but inexplicit enemy that was trying to undermine American authority. The difference, I think, lies in the demands for secrecy. It isn't that secrecy and suspicion of espionage was unique to WWII. Rather, this effort to secure the safety of the nation rested on the secrecy of Project Manhattan and the advantage of surprise that an atom bomb would provide. Conversely, in the Cold War, security relied on the universal understanding of mutually assured destruction. In a fairly short period of time, the attitude surrounding nuclear capabilities drastically changed. This, in turn, had a significant impact on the rhetoric of national security.
Arguably, I think the beginning of an American National security state can be located, at least partially, in the home front activities of World War II. Originally, I tried to find civilian letters regarding the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but nothing really stood out to me. When I found the letter from President Roosevelt to Dr. Oppenheimer, I had to start thinking about national security in different terms. I have mostly been thinking about Security as a particular kind of rhetoric, rather than a material good. Which, now that I think about it, is kind of ridiculous given the rhetoric of the Cold War. So much of the official language used from the 1940s through the 1980s was focused on the nuclear capabilities of the US and USSR. The nuclear bomb was the ultimate measure of US Security.
However, this letter shows a different side of that struggle. Obviously, during WWII, the US and Russia were allies, but there is still a marked focus on the presence of a universally known, but inexplicit enemy that was trying to undermine American authority. The difference, I think, lies in the demands for secrecy. It isn't that secrecy and suspicion of espionage was unique to WWII. Rather, this effort to secure the safety of the nation rested on the secrecy of Project Manhattan and the advantage of surprise that an atom bomb would provide. Conversely, in the Cold War, security relied on the universal understanding of mutually assured destruction. In a fairly short period of time, the attitude surrounding nuclear capabilities drastically changed. This, in turn, had a significant impact on the rhetoric of national security.
No comments:
Post a Comment