Read the assigned pages and handout for Summary. Read Hugh Gusterson’s essay on pages 463-65 in or access the essay from Links under Course Tools on the Toolbar. Write a one-paragraph summary (approx. 200 words) of the entire essay in Microsoft Word and include a Works Cited entry for your source. You should have a two-page document, the summary on page 1 and the Work Cited on page 2. Upload the document to the Dropbox. Purchase the answer to view it

In his essay “Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War,” Hugh Gusterson explores the changing dynamics of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico following the end of the Cold War. He highlights the continued existence of the lab despite the lack of a clear and imminent nuclear threat, and questions the role of nuclear weaponry in contemporary society. Gusterson argues that the lab has become a site of rituals, where scientists engage in elaborate ceremonies to justify their work and reinforce their own sense of purpose. These rituals, he argues, serve to maintain the perception of the lab’s relevance and importance. Gusterson also reflects on the personal experiences of the lab’s personnel and the conflicts they face, including issues of secrecy, accountability, and questions about the morality of their work. Through his analysis, Gusterson raises broader questions about the continued reliance on nuclear weapons and the justifications used within the scientific community to justify their existence. He concludes by suggesting that the lab’s rituals and continued existence are not only a reflection of the changing nature of warfare, but also a means for scientists to navigate and make sense of a post-Cold War world. Gusterson’s essay provides a thought-provoking exploration of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the complex moral and ethical landscape surrounding nuclear weapons.

Works Cited:
Gusterson, Hugh. “Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War.” In Critical Perspectives on the Nuclear Weapons Laboratory, edited by Craig Orr and Joseph Masco, 463-65. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.