The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has always been a joke organization to me.

Not that everybody involved has been a joke–Albert Einstein was a member, for instance–but the premise that anybody who calls themselves an “Atomic Scientist” (many members are not scientists at all; Jerry Brown is the Chair) can lecture us about public policy is absurd.

This idea is based upon a fundamental fallacy: that competence or expertise in one subject is transferable to every subject. And since “atomic scientists” are among the smartest of the smart, we should listen to them about everything.

I have had the privilege to know quite a few brilliant scientists over the years, not because I am one, but because both my parents were astronomers (the highest average IQ field in the world) and hence I got to meet a ton of super-smart people, including Nobel Prize winners. Luck of the draw on my part.

Of the many things I learned is the fact that being smart and being wise are entirely different things. One of the smartest people I ever met is the biggest crank I ever met. Being smart doesn’t make you a crank, of course, but being smart can enable you to be a superior crank.

The Unabomber was incredibly smart, for instance. A mathematics prodigy.

All of this is a prelude to one of the most absurd stories I have read in a while. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists wants us to believe that what nuclear strategy need is more Queer people in nuclear strategy.

OTOH, from the article: “During this Pride Month, we would like Bulletin readers to understand that the visible representation and meaningful participation of queer people matters for nuclear policy outcomes.” Umm… pic.twitter.com/4peXaDsAKz

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) June 23, 2023

As you might imagine, the argument that Queerness and Queer people must be included in nuclear strategy–and here we are talking specifically about the strategy behind the way nuclear weapons are used in deterrence and, hopefully in no cases, employed on the battlefield–is pretty standard: Queer people in their Queerness have a unique perspective on the issues.

During this Pride Month, we would like Bulletin readers to understand that the visible representation and meaningful participation of queer people matters for nuclear policy outcomes. Discrimination against queer people can undermine nuclear security and increase nuclear risk. And queer theory can help change how nuclear practitioners, experts, and the public think about nuclear weapons.

It’s about people. Equity and inclusion for queer people is not just a box-ticking exercise in ethics and social justice; it is also essential for creating effective nuclear policy. Studies in psychology and behavioral science show that diverse teams examine assumptions and evidence more carefully, make fewer errors, discuss issues more constructively, and better exchange new ideas and knowledge.

When the stakes of making best-informed decisions are as high as they are with nuclear weapons, governments cannot afford to lose out on the human capital and innovation potential of queer people. Informed by their life experiences, queer people have specific skills to offer that are valuable in a policy and diplomacy context. LGBTQ+ people often must navigate being different from those around them; develop the ability to listen and empathize; and mobilize the skill and perseverance to make themselves heard.

Now I have no particular axe to grind when it comes to the potential strategic intelligence of any particular individual, Queer or not. It strikes me that the people with an aptitude for such matters are likely to be very unusual, and if there is some person who is simultaneously Queer and brilliant then it would make sense to consult them.

Having a modest amount of purely academic experience with strategic studies in graduate school, it always struck me that people who specialize in the field are occasionally queer in the conventional sense of being quite odd compared to most people. Contemplating the end of the world takes a peculiar mindset.

But Queerness as a necessary attribute? Uh, no. I

First and foremost, the description of Queer people outlined above is utterly ridiculous. I have yet to meet a “diplomatic” or “empathetic” Queer person. A quick look at any Pride parade shows that people who tend to consider themselves Queer, rather than simply homosexual, lack both diplomatic skills and empathy. In fact, their very adoption of Queerness as a characteristic, rather than simply having specific inclinations that are somewhat outside the norm, demonstrates a particular kind of narcissism.

As for homosexuals? I can assure you that the number of homosexuals involved in strategic studies is substantial. It may be that there was a significant prejudice against them in the 50s and into the 60s, but even then homosexuality was tolerated if the person was considered reliable and valuable. People just avoided the topic and expected people to be closeted, which may be unfair, but then again lots of people’s sexual proclivities were and remain behind closed doors.

I kinda wish they remained that way today, rather than being the subject of endless discussion and celebration. I really don’t want to know your sexual fetishes, regardless of your sexual orientation. Society was better off when everybody’s tastes were in the closet, gay, straight, or Queer. But I am an old man now.

Exclusion creates nuclear security risks.Exclusion and unfair treatment of queer individuals and other minorities by a homogenous, cis-heteronormative community of practitioners also creates vulnerabilities in nuclear decision making. Cis-heteronormativity is the automatic assumption that someone is heterosexual and identifies with the sex assigned to them at birth. It creates the idea that being heterosexual and cisgender is normal and natural, whereas being queer or trans is a deviation.

Now think about this for a second. Marinate in the concept.

Now think about the countries that have nuclear weapons and might present a threat to us.

Now name a Queer person with their finger on the button. I have news for you: heteronormativity is, in fact, a reality. The vast, vast majority of people in the world are heterosexuals, and as far as I can tell 100% of our adversaries who might use nukes are, in fact, pretty hostile to the idea of Queerness.

Putin? Kim? Whatever Ayatollah we will be dealing with?

Prioritizing Queerness in dealing with their threat seems a bit odd. And, I hate to tell you, Queerness and transgender identity are, in fact, not normal. That doesn’t make them despicable or immoral–one has to actually behave despicably or immorally, not just be a couple of standard deviations from the norm to qualify–but there is in fact nothing “normal” about being “Queer.”

Queer pretty much means abnormal, right? And “normal” is the range that is one deviation away from the mean. Just as it is not “normal” to be intelligent enough to be a physicist, it is not normal to be Queer. Claiming otherwise is fantasy.

What all arguments like these do is begin with the conclusion and work their way back to an argument, and as always these arguments are silly. The only reason why anyone pretends to buy them is that they, too, like the conclusions.

I am not a psychologist who would be in a position to judge whether somebody is both intelligent enough or mentally stable enough to determine whether a person belongs near nuclear policy, but my layman’s sense is that the kind of person we want making nuclear policy. I could be wrong about that, but probably not.

But even if the Venn diagram between who should be a nuclear strategist and those who consider themselves Queer overlap at some point, intentionally seeking them out for DEI reasons is absurd. In 70 years we have avoided nuclear war, and I like that record. Given what DEI has done to every other activity in human life–putting in place a bunch of petty tyrants who consider using the wrong pronouns “violence” and “genocide”–I would rather not start experimenting in their realm.

This is the sort of idiocy DEI creates: prioritizing the elevation of supposed “victims” over simple competence. It is corrosive, promotes narcissism, and actually inhibits social interaction. The last thing you need in a room full of nuclear strategists is people pussy-footing around worried about offending the delicate sensibilities of some analyst who worries about his pronouns or about whose luggage to steal on his next flight.

Queer theory: changing the narrative. Queer identity is also relevant for the nuclear field because it informs theories that aim to change how officials, experts, and the public think about nuclear weapons. Queer theory is a field of study, closely related to feminist theory, that examines sex- and gender-based norms. It shines a light on the harm done by nuclear weapons through uranium mining, nuclear tests, and the tax money spent on nuclear weapons ($60 billion annually in the United States) instead of on education, infrastructure, and welfare. The queer lens prioritizes the rights and well-being of people over the abstract idea of national security, and it challenges the mainstream understanding of nuclear weapons—questioning whether they truly deter nuclear war, stabilize geopolitics, and reduce the likelihood of conventional war. Queer theory asks: Who created these ideas? How are they being upheld? Whose interests do they serve? And whose experiences are being excluded?

Queer theory also identifies how the nuclear weapons discourse is gendered: Nuclear deterrence is associated with “rationality” and “security,” while disarmament and justice for nuclear weapon victims are coded as “emotion” and a lack of understanding of the “real” mechanics of security. The Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, a 19-year protest against the storage of US nuclear missiles in the United Kingdom, called attention to the gendered nature of nuclear weapons. The camp’s inhabitants—many lesbian—recognized that the same male-dominated power structures underpinned the oppression of women and nuclear armament. Their protests, often involving feminine-coded symbols like pictures of children, defined nuclear weapons by the existential threat they pose, instead of the protection they supposedly offer. From the queer perspective, the allegation of “derailing” substantive discussions through a non-traditional perspective on nuclear weapons is itself an attempt to exclude marginalized voices and reinforce the idea that nuclear weapons are a domain only for “serious” and “rational” (i.e. male) actors.

Yep, we want people who disdain rationality in charge of nukes.

Enough said.