What do you think?
Rate this book
Can Science End War?
Free-roaming killer drones stalk the battlespace looking for organic targets. Human combatants are programmed to feel no pain. Highpower microwave beams detonate munitions, jam communications, and cook internal organs.
Is this vision of future war possible, or even inevitable? In this timely new book, Everett Carl Dolman examines the relationship between science and war. Historically, science has played an important role in ending wars – think of the part played by tanks in breaching trench warfare in the First World War, or atom bombs in hastening the Japanese surrender in the Second World War – but to date this has only increased the danger and destructiveness of future conflicts. Could science ever create the con-ditions of a permanent peace, either by making wars impossible to win, or so horrific that no one would ever fight? Ultimately, Dolman argues that science cannot, on its own, end war without also ending what it means to be human.
Is this vision of future war possible, or even inevitable? In this timely new book, Everett Carl Dolman examines the relationship between science and war. Historically, science has played an important role in ending wars – think of the part played by tanks in breaching trench warfare in the First World War, or atom bombs in hastening the Japanese surrender in the Second World War – but to date this has only increased the danger and destructiveness of future conflicts. Could science ever create the con-ditions of a permanent peace, either by making wars impossible to win, or so horrific that no one would ever fight? Ultimately, Dolman argues that science cannot, on its own, end war without also ending what it means to be human.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 11, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 11, 2020
A compelling if slightly odd short little book. Compelling because Dolman is author of the best book on strategic theory this century (Pure Strategy) and there are moments of deep insight. Odd, because I'm not entirely sure who the target audience is, or what the real purpose of the book is.
My guess to the last two questions is that if you had a really bright "science can solve all our problems" student who wanted to work on issues of war and strategy, this would be the ideal book for them. It marvels at and respects the scientific method, accords honour to great scientists, yet gently but clearly shows that no, politics and strategy are essential components of understanding and controlling war. Science can help assess and measure in places, but the big insights and meaning come from elsewhere.
Another core theme is the tension for scientists from taking the state's dollar to work on weapons of war. There are some useful discussions about the illusions we researchers tell ourselves about the value of 'blue-sky research' (aka being left alone to do whatever we think valuable that could end up creating horrors) against the ethical risks of accepting any funding source to help support our work - or simply putting state loyalty over broader ethical values.
I suspect the real audience of Dolman's book is probably himself as a 16 yr old who loved science yet ended up going to work for the US army. That's not a story I can really relate to, but I have a talented student this year who similarly wrestles with trying to apply their love of science to the study of war. I'm sure they'll love this book.
My guess to the last two questions is that if you had a really bright "science can solve all our problems" student who wanted to work on issues of war and strategy, this would be the ideal book for them. It marvels at and respects the scientific method, accords honour to great scientists, yet gently but clearly shows that no, politics and strategy are essential components of understanding and controlling war. Science can help assess and measure in places, but the big insights and meaning come from elsewhere.
Another core theme is the tension for scientists from taking the state's dollar to work on weapons of war. There are some useful discussions about the illusions we researchers tell ourselves about the value of 'blue-sky research' (aka being left alone to do whatever we think valuable that could end up creating horrors) against the ethical risks of accepting any funding source to help support our work - or simply putting state loyalty over broader ethical values.
I suspect the real audience of Dolman's book is probably himself as a 16 yr old who loved science yet ended up going to work for the US army. That's not a story I can really relate to, but I have a talented student this year who similarly wrestles with trying to apply their love of science to the study of war. I'm sure they'll love this book.
Displaying 1 of 1 review