Webster’s defines rhetoric as “the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people”. Ethos, logos, and pathos are each used in their own way to influence an audience, but often a combination of these techniques can be the most effective approach. The article from the New York Times, “As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’ Leaves Some Uneasy” shows this effect through several examples.
Though all are present throughout the article, the overwhelming approach is through ethos and effectively building the credibility of the article’s content. Almost every piece of information that is presented is linked either through a direct quote or a summary of the thoughts of an expert of the topic being discussed. With Nuclear Weapons Council directors, Pentagon heads, and Generals giving their opinions on nuclear weapons, one is inclined to trust what they read. When former head of Pentagon weapons testing Philip E. Coyle says, “I’m not a pacifist” (2016), but that the military is planning for an arsenal that is still far too big, then there may be a problem that needs to be examined. In terms of logos, the largest argument is economical. On one side of the debate, we are told that the refitting of old weapons is just cost-effective. New technologies and capabilities aren’t being added to the devices. They are just being refurbished with new plastic bits and wires that may wear over time. Counter-point, the new abilities to strategically and with incredible precision aim at a target hundreds of miles away and the creation of what the article calls “dial-a-yield” (this author prefers “choose-your-boom”) certainly sound like new technologies and capabilities. With the information that one class of these weapons alone would cost around $30 billion for only 1,000 units, something certainly seems wrong about