Rhetorical Analysis On Kill Switches

Jonathan Zittrain opens his essay with the very case his argument is centered around; A battle resulting in the loss of weaponry, to those who are seeking to use it against us. His use of a real event is an effective way to keep the reader's attention in a rather complex issue. The reality and severity he presents is the key to how persuasive his case is throughout the essay. Through this essay, Zittrain makes a convincing statement, that we should consider implementing kill switches in military weaponry. He supports this position through, Addressing and understanding concerns with his proposed use of kill switches, his suggestion of multiple options regarding its implementation, the professional opinions of others, along with compelling appeals

Jonathan understands that a wrong move in a good-natured attempt to implement such kill switches could do more harm than good. With that reasoning, Zittrain proposes multiple implementation methods of kill switches. Including leaving kill switch operations to the United Nations, Leaving operations to the nation that owns the weapons, and leaving operations with the nation that made the weapons. Not only does he give a plethora of solutions to the operations of such switches, he also elaborates on how such kill switches would work; His example being a GPS limited missile. Zittrain’s continuous means to reassure and elaborate upon what he says is extremely successful in convincing

An example of his ability to use logic to support his argument is his reference to Apples kill switch, where he says “The theft of iPhones plummeted this year after Apple introduced a remote kill switch”(1), and “If this feature is worth putting in consumer devices, why not embed it in devices that can be so devastatingly repurposed -- including against their rightful owners at the Mosul Dam”(1). In this case, his comparison of its efficiency in iPhones makes the reader consider the potentials of a kill switches implementation. I believe his use of logic is always understandable and successful and his paper is without fallacies. Apart from his logic, Zittrain is also quick to use expert opinions to back his logic. An example being his elaborations on kill switches in missiles, where he says,“ At Least one foreign policy analyst has suggested incorporating GPS limitations”(1). While his use of expert opinion is acceptable, I do believe it would have been more useful if he either cited the sources name or cited more experts in other areas. These are singular instances of him utilizing such techniques in his writing, but his repeated use of the techniques and their effectiveness should be