The two quoted texts are arguing the atom bomb is a hierarchical technology, but for different reasons. I think it’s instructive to compare the two - because the reasons given in the classic aren’t addressed in the recent discussion. I’ve since looked up Langdon Winner and apparently he’s a well respected scholar. I’m glad I’m not punching down here, but I realize this also makes me sound really pompous.

Winner claims atomic weapons are a special case, and they are hierarchical because the internal social system for using them is hierarchical. His basis of criticizing technologies is based on their apparent or expected social effects, and not the conditions and requirements of their manufacture. This is obviously flawed, as the social effect of a new technology depends on the society that adopts it. A tomato harvester in the hands of an anarchist society would be open-source hardware, and the increased productivity would increase leisure time for everyone working in the field rather than the profits of a capitalist owner.

Blair claims that atomic weapons are an extreme example of a general case, where a weapon is hierarchical because its expense and complexity limits access and thus the focus of power to the few, regardless of its internal social system. While his focus was on military application, a tomato harvester would probably be close to neutral tool given this basis - it is a difficult but reasonable thing for a community of working people to manufacture, especially compared to the scale of expense and complexity of a nuclear bomb. For Blair, it is a spectrum of technology giving democracy or authoritarianism the edge in a fight, progressing from bicycle to battleship and beyond. His rubric doesn’t include the modern computer, which is both extremely complex and expensive to produce but also ubiquitous and inexpensive to own - and the mixed role digital technology has played in the struggle between authority and freedom. But I would argue Blair’s work is the better place to start the discussion.