Yes, You Can Be a Feminist and Still Support Nuclear Deterrence

Key Takeaways

• Cohn’s 1987 critique links deterrence language to masculine norms.
• Deterrence credited with preventing major power wars since 1945.
• Feminist IR theory offers critique but lacks alternative deterrence model.
• Supporting deterrence can align with feminist goal of preventing mass violence.
• Policy debate now includes feminist voices advocating nuclear stability.

Pulse Analysis

The legacy of Carol Cohn’s 1987 essay still reverberates in academic circles, where feminist scholars dissect the gendered rhetoric of nuclear strategy. By labeling deterrence discourse as "technostrategic" and masculine, Cohn highlighted how language can mask moral responsibility. Yet, her analysis stops at critique, offering no constructive framework for how states might achieve security without nuclear arsenals. This gap has left a vacuum in feminist contributions to strategic studies, prompting a reassessment of the discipline’s role in shaping policy.

Proponents of nuclear deterrence argue that the very existence of credible arsenals has deterred large‑scale wars for nearly eight decades. From the Cold War standoff to contemporary great‑power tensions, the threat of mutual annihilation has constrained leaders from escalating conflicts that could otherwise spiral into full‑scale war. Feminist scholars who prioritize the prevention of mass violence can therefore view deterrence as a tool that safeguards populations—especially women—who disproportionately suffer from wartime atrocities. By framing deterrence as a means to protect human security, the feminist agenda expands beyond critique to embrace pragmatic security measures.

The emerging discourse invites policymakers to incorporate feminist perspectives that recognize both the moral costs and strategic benefits of nuclear weapons. Rather than dismissing deterrence outright, feminist analysts can contribute to nuanced arms‑control negotiations, emphasizing risk reduction, transparency, and the humanitarian imperative to avoid nuclear exchange. This synthesis of gender‑aware analysis with realist strategy could reshape future treaties and defense postures, ensuring that security policies are both effective and aligned with broader goals of gender equity and human protection.