Globalization meets frankenstein? Reflections on terrorism, nuclearity, and global technopolitical discourse

History and Technology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-8

  Hecht, Gabrielle ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Cold War; Colonialism; Nuclear; Postcolonial; Technopolitics; Third World

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949364899     PISSN: 07341512     EISSN: 14772620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0734151022000042243     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Johnson, George. 2001. “Order of Magnitude: The Toll and the Technology.”. New York Times, 16 September Wk 3, my emphasis
2. Malone, Patrick M., 1993. The Skulking Way of War: Technology and Tactics among the New England Indians, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Edwards, Paul. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. For a more contemporary example, see the discussion of the Vietcong in
4. David Rieff, "There is no alternative to war." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/25/modernity/ index.html? (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/25/modernity/ index.html?)
5. Alien, Michael. 1996. “The Puzzle of Nazi Modernism: Modern Technology and Ideological Consensus in an SS Factory in Auschwitz,”. Technology and Culture, 37: 527–573.
6. Hecht, Gabrielle. 2002. “Rupture-talk in the Nuclear Age: Conjugating Colonial Power in Africa.”. Social Studies of Science, December forthcoming
7. Thomas Borstelmann. 1993. Apartheid's Reluctant Uncle: The United States ana Southern Africa in the Early CoId War, 7New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Cathcan, Brian. 1994. Test of Greatness: Britain's Struggle for the Atom Bomb, London: Murray.
9. Gowing, Margaret. 1974. Independence and Deterrence: Britain and Atomic Energy, 1945-1952, London: Macmillan Press.
10. Cawte, Alice. 1992. Atomic Australia, 1944-1990, 41Kensington: New South Wales University Press.
11. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. FaIk, Richard. 1997. “The Illegitimacy of the Non-Proliferation Regime,”. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, IV (1): 73–82.
13. Hashim, Ahmed. 1997. “Iraq: Profile of a Nuclear Addict,”. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, IV (1): 103–126. 116
14. Péan, Pierre. 1982. Lex Deux Bombes: Comment lu France a "donné" la bombe à Israel et à l'Irak, Paris: Fayard.
15. Klare, Michael T., 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America's Search for a New Foreign Policy, 1st ed., New York: Hill and Wang.
16. Abraham, Itty. 1998. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial State, 156London, New York: Zed Books, St. Martin's Press.
17. Perkovich, G., 1999. India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation, 7Berkeley: University of California Press.
18. Sessler, Andrew M., 2000. Countermeasures; A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned U.S. National Missile Defense System, UCS. See Gar]' Taubes, "Postol vs. the Pentagon: Missile Defense," Technology Review (April 2002). See also See also the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www, ucsusa.org/security/sec-home.html
19. Weinberg, Steven. 2002. “Can Missile Defense Work,”. NYAB, 2(XLIX) 14 February: 41–47. For an exceptionally clear argument about the political dangers of implementing National Missile Defense, see