the humanization of warfare Remarks from CALLINICUS by JBS Haldane
This is also a fascinating dive into Haldanes inter-war world-viewwhich includes some "problematic" content as usual (in addition to thecentral argument).
Atomic Power;
"We know very little about the structure of the atomand almost nothing about how to modify it. And the prospect of constructingsuch an apparatus seems to me to be so remote that, when some successor of mineis lecturing to a party spending a holiday on the moon, it will still be anunsolved (though not, I think, an ultimately insoluble) problem."
In fact we would break the atom within a few decades ofthis statement, go to the moon within 40 years, after the atom was cracked.
Blinding Gas;
"Lachrymatory gas was only once used under idealconditions—by the Germans in the Argonne in 1915. They captured a fairlyextensive French trench system and about 2,400 prisoners, almost all unwounded,but temporarily blind."
The Germans opened chemical warfare with blinding gas in1915. I did not know this. New weapons seem staggeringly effective at firstuse. The enemy hasn't even imagined any defence. After that, as we shallsee, the prizes tend to go to whomever can adapt fastest, not necessarily tothe first user.
Gassing the uneducated;
"Gases of the first group were used in cloudsdischarged from cylinders, some- times on a front of several miles.
They probably caused at least 20,000 casualties amongunprotected or inadequately protected British troops. At least a quarter ofthese died, and that very painfully, in many cases after a struggle for breathlasting several days.
On the other hand, of those who did not die almost allrecovered completely, and the symptoms of the few who became permanent invalidswere mainly nervous.
Apart, however, from the extreme terror and agitationproduced by the gassing of uneducated people, I regard the type of woundproduced by the average shells as, on the whole, more distressing than thepneumonia caused by chlorine or phosgene."
Just don't gas the 'uneducated' bro. This brings us intoHaldane being something of a 'special' kind of person. He was raisedexperimenting on both animals and himself and had a detached, and definitelynon-sacralised view of the human body.
German antisemitism;
"On the other hand, the German respirators were badto begin with; and later on were not so good as the British. This was,apparently, because the most competent physiologist in Germany with anyknowledge of breathing was a Jew. This fact was quite well known in Germanphysiological circles, but apparently his race prevented the militaryauthorities from employing him.
The result was that they were unable to follow up theirgas-attacks at all closely, but had to wait till the cloud had passed off, bywhich time resistance was again possible. That was how the Germans paid foranti-Semitism. It is very probable that it lost them the war, as never again,not even in March, 1918, had they as complete a gap in the Franco-BritishWestern front as during the first gas-attack in April, 1915."
I doubt it 'lost them the war' and I believe Haber was aJew so clearly they weren't that anti-semitic yet but I have not heardof this particular story before.
On Mustard Gas;
"Someone placed a drop of the liquid on the chair ofthe director of the British chemical warfare department. He ate his meals offthe mantelpiece for a month."
......
"Thus in April, 1918, Armentieres, the originalNorthern limit of the German attack in Flanders, was so heavily shelled with“mustard” that the gutters in the streets were reported to be running withit."
On fools holding back progress;
the Bayardists have nobbled a curious assortment ofallies in their so far successful attempt to prevent the humanization ofwarfare.
"Mustard gas kills one man for every forty it putsout of action; shells kill one for every three; but their god who compromisedwith high explosives has not yet found time to adapt himself to chemicalwarfare."
On the possibilities of 'Immune Infantry';
"On the other hand, some people are naturallyimmune. The American Army authorities made a systematic examination of thesusceptibility of large numbers of recruits. They found that there was a veryresistant class, comprising 20% of the white men tried, but no less than 80% ofthe negroes. This is intelligible, as the symptoms of mustard gas, blistering,and sun-burn are very similar, and negroes are pretty well immune tosunburn."
Future War by Haldane;
"One sees, then, the possibility of warfare onsomewhat the following lines:—
Heavy concentrations of artillery would keep an area saythirty miles in length and ten in depth continuously sprayed with mustard gas.
...
Suddenly, behind the usual barrage of high explosiveshells appears a line of tanks supported by negroes in gas-masks.
.....
In this way the side possessing a big superiority ofmustard gas should be in a position to advance two or three miles a day.
...
It seems, then, that mustard gas would enable an army togain ground with far less killed on either side than the methods used in thelate war, and would tend to establish a war of movement leading to a fairlyrapid' decision, as in the campaigns of the past.
It would not much upset the present balance of power,Germany's chemical industry being counterpoised by French negro troops. Indiansmay be expected to be nearly as immune as negroes."
The Morality of Chemical Warfare;
"I claim, then, that the use of mustard gas in waron the largest possible scale would render it less expensive of life andproperty, shorter, and more dependent on brains rather than numbers. We areoften told the exact opposite,
In one or two air-raids on other towns it seems probablethat the Germans were not far from out-stripping the capacities of the fire-brigades and producing very large conflagrations."
His aside into the ability of aerial bombing to produce'fire-storms', where the fire becomes so hot and vast it sucks in air like atornado and becomes highly self-sustaining, is a disturbing prefigurement ofthe next war.
Animal-Loving Soldiers;
"We have got to get over our distaste for scientificthought and scientific method. To take an example from the war, thephysiologists at the experimental ground at Porton, in Hampshire, hadconsiderable difficulty in working with a good many soldiers because the latterobjected so strongly to experiments on animals, and did not conceal theircontempt for people who performed them. And yet these soldiers would have hadno hesitation in shelling the horses of hostile gun-teams, and the vastmajority of them were in the habit of shooting animals for sport. "
The British being a race of animal-lovers who often haveno problem shooting animals is a neverending source of incoherent rage forHaldane.
Objections to Reason;
"One of the grounds given for objection to scienceis that science is responsible for such horrors as those of the late war. “Youscientific men (we are told) never think of the possible application of yourdiscoveries. You do not mind whether they are used to kill or to cure. Yourmethod of thinking, doubtless satisfactory when dealing with molecules andatoms, renders you insensible to the difference between right and wrong. And soyou devise the means of universal destruction,"
"..and I note that the people who make these remarksdo not refuse to travel by railway or motor-car, to use electric light, or toread mechanically printed newspapers. Nor do they install a well in theirback-gardens to enjoy drinking the richer water of a pre-scientific age, withits interesting and variegated fauna."
The Deadliness of scale vs the deadliness of weapons;
"Moreover, the Great War was the first since theSecond Punic War of the 3rd century B. C. between two great civilized nations,each fighting with all its might. This fact accounts for its ferocity. Moderntransport and hygiene made its scale possible; the weapons used merely servedto prolong it."
Fear of the Unknown;
"Now, terror of the unknown is thoroughly right andrational so long as we believe that the prince of this world is a malignantbeing. But it is not justifiable if we believe that the world is the expressionof a power friendly to our aspirations, or if we are atheists and hold that itis neutral and indifferent to human ideals."
I AM NOT A CRANK
"The views which I have expressed do not coexist inthe mind of any party leader or newspaper proprietor, and must therefore bethose of a crank. But until some stronger argument can be waged against themthan that they are unusual and unpleasant, there remains the possibility thatthey are true."
Haldanes vision of Future War, what would have actually happened?
Can we imagine a world where J.B.S. Haldane is givenenough power and support to make his vision of warfare a reality? What wouldhappen?
We begin with the mass development of Mustard Gas, sealedtanks and uniforms, the training of vast numbers of 'Immune Troops',(presumably black Africans with white officers), and we would assume,development of a wide range of other chemical weapons and delivery systems.
So, day one of combat; mass firing of chemical shellsbegins, ideally blocking off large areas of the battlefield. Then the 'ImmuneTroops' advance with sealed armour support, easily taking lines and targets,presumably making use of lesser or alternative chem weapons as and when theywould be useful.
Thats your first battle, if it goes well.
Of course even if it goes well, we know Mustard Gasremains horrible for a long time, so the battle zone will be very difficult foranyone other than Immune Troops to occupy. And if you advance non-immune troopsthrough it on trucks then how will you keep them supplied through the zone, andwhat if they need to retreat? They will have a chemical barrier to their rear.
And of course, following Haldanes plan, you are using largelycolonial troops to defend yourself, who may not agree completely with you onall points and who may be a bit ambivalent about entering chemical hell foryou.
And presuming this is a WW1/WW2 situation, you areprobably doing this in France, and the French may not be chuffed about youmelting and poisoning their lovely countryside.
Thats battle One. How do the enemy respond?
Presumably the enemy is Germany, and they are quite goodat chemistry, even without their Jews. (Though the loss of them will hurtthem).
They are also quite well-organised. Presumably they willbe shocked and terrified to begin with, but will adapt fast. This is assumingthey didn't have intelligence on your chemical weapons programme already andhave their own programme.
They will start work on, and improve, their own chemweapons and protective wear as quickly as possible.
This is the 'brains over brawn' warfare that Haldaneenvisions in which victory goes to whomever has the best tech and adapts mostquickly.
But, speaking from the West, where we certainly _think_we have the brains and our assumed enemies largely have the brawn, do even wewant to disconnect war so totally from the flesh it affects as to turn it intoa matter of competing technologies?
If Haldane is right, less people will die. Less of ourown people will die. (_If_ he is right.) But is this most-efficient form ofhyper-tech chemical warfare what we want to create?
(Of course your chem-war is also highly dependant onweather; wind direction, rain, perhaps temperature. And these conditions willbe known, so what happens if the enemy attacks with the wind. When the wind isblowing one direction they advance with chem-suit Immune Troops', when the windturns, you advance.)
Chem weapons would probably be most useful againstcivilians who have not already experienced them, and most useful when combinedwith surprise and some other method of attack. This provides a neat combinationwith incendiary bombing and the creation of a 'Firestorm'. Combining gas withbombs cripples the ability of a city to respond to spreading fires, making amass conflagration much easier to attain.
Is the natural tendency of technology in warfare to separatethe flesh of the people from the conduct of the war, up until some certainpoint when the burning and poisoning of all the people becomes the mainmaterial of the war?
Haldane thinks 'stupid' Chivalric wars are made deadlierprimarily by their scale and not by technology. That if WW1 had beenfought by spears and shields it would have been just as deadly, because of thenumber of men involved.
Trying to deal with Haldanes argument
Is not Conservatism at its most rational and reasonablewhen considering the development of new weapons and methods of war?
Are we not all the beneficiaries of the deep and innateconservatism and ritualisation of warfare by the stodgy midwits who make upmuch of the officer class?"
Could we say that short lethal but evaporating violencecould be more honourable than the soft, suffocating violence of ChemicalWarfare. Would you rather be gassed or shot? Would you rather gas others orshoot them?
War is not an experiment and is not predictable
There are few 'controlled elements'
Everyone is in a heightened state and is, essentially,not quite the person they are outside of war
War evolved, grows, changes and mutates in deepyunpredictable ways. Neither the people, the aims, the methods or the morals ofthose engaged in war are the same as they were at the beginning
this being the case, a highly conservative ritualisedview of war, while probably deeply inefficient, and essentially getting peoplekilled in the short to medium term, is actually pretty good for humanity as awhole in the long term and the larger scale
when we are in a war we want to adapt, kill and destroyas quickly and efficiently as possible, for our enemies death is our life
but looking at any particular arrangement of wars fromfar outside the time and place of their happening; we really want wars ingeneral to be stodgy, ritualised, uninventive, unimaginative, foolish and slow.
The slow stupidity of any particular war is agony andhorror for those fighting it, for their enemy is .. well the enemy, but forthose looking upon all war, and upon the future of the species and of lifeitself, the enemy is not the enemy but the enemy is the cunning, inventiveness,hunger and unpredictability of war itself, for it is a kaleidoscope-tiger,always shifting and trying to escape its cage.
