{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_73730/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_73730","id":"gutenberg_73730","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73730","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Warfare","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Chemistry/Biochemistry","Chemical warfare","Gases, Asphyxiating and poisonous -- War use"],"text":"CALLINICUS\n\n                     A DEFENCE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE\n\n\n\n\n                         OTHER VOLUMES IN THE\n                      TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW SERIES\n\n\n  DAEDALUS, or Science and the Future\n      _By J. B. S. Haldane_\n\n  ICARUS, or The Future of Science\n      _By Bertrand Russell, F.R.S._\n\n\n  THE MONGOL IN OUR MIDST\n      _By F. G. Crookshank, M.D._\n\nNew light on Man and the Great Apes. _Fully Illustrated_\n\n\n   WIRELESS POSSIBILITIES\n      _By Prof. A. M. Low_\n\nWireless in war, crime, business, and pleasure. _With 4 Diagrams_\n\n\n  TANTALUS, or The Future of Man\n      _By F. C. S. Schiller_\n\nMan has still the primitive animal passions. He will destroy himself,\nunless....\n\n\n  THE PASSING OF THE PHANTOMS\n      _By Professor Patten_\n\nExperiments on animals\u2019 intelligence throw light on the evolution of\nmorals in men and animals.\n\n\n  LYSISTRATA, or Woman and the Future\n      _By Anthony M. Ludovici_\n\n\n  PERSEUS, or Of Dragons\n      _By H. F. Scott Stokes, M.A._\n\n\n  NARCISSUS, An Anatomy of Clothes\n      _By Gerald Heard_\n\n                        E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY\n\n\n\n\n                              CALLINICUS\n\n                     A DEFENCE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE\n\n\n                                  BY\n                           J. B. S. HALDANE\n\n               _Sir William Dunn Reader in Biochemistry,\n                         Cambridge University_\n\n                _Author of \u201cDaedalus or Science and the\n                            Future,\u201d etc._\n\n\n                            [Illustration]\n\n\n                               NEW YORK\n                        E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY\n                            681 FIFTH AVE.\n\n\n\n\n                            Copyright, 1925\n                       By E. P. DUTTON & COMPANY\n\n                         _All rights Reserved_\n\n\n                PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n                              CALLINICUS\n\n\nThe public mind has to a large extent reacted against the opinions\nimpressed on it during the war by official propaganda. Some of these\nhave been overcome by counter-propaganda in the Press and on the\nplatform; others have been dropped because they led to effects which,\nthough admirable during a war, were undesirable in peace-time. But,\nas chemical warfare will not assume importance until the outbreak of\nthe next serious war, and figures on the programme of no party, people\nstill think about it as they were told to think by the newspapers\nduring the Great War.\n\nNow, I am to some extent a chemist, so I can no more be expected to be\nimpartial in my estimate of the value of chemistry than a politician\nor a clergyman can be expected to give an unbiassed view of the value\nof politics or religion. I can only plead that, unlike the average\nclergyman or politician, I have warned my audience in advance, and\nshall attempt (though no doubt vainly) to be impartial.\n\nA few of my hearers hold the view that, while war in itself is a noble\noccupation, the use of poisonous gas is an innovation as cruel as it\nis unsoldierly. The majority are probably pacifists in the sense that\nthey prefer almost any peace to almost any war, support the League of\nNations or other devices for the prevention of international strife,\nand look askance at preparations for future warfare, more particularly\nfor future chemical warfare. If so, I certainly share their objection\nto war, but I doubt whether by objecting to it we are likely to avoid\nit in future, however lofty our motives or disinterested our conduct.\nWar will be prevented only by a scientific study of its causes, such\nas has prevented most epidemic diseases. For many centuries people\nhad guessed that epidemic diseases constituted a punishment for\nhuman misconduct of some kind. They tried to prevent them by prayer\nand almsgiving. Christians gave up washing, Hindus liberated rats\ncaptured during plague-epidemics. Religious orders and priests of the\nchurch gave the most magnificent examples of self-sacrifice in times\nof pestilence. But that was not the way in which pestilences can be\nprevented. Besides good intentions, a special type of accurate thinking\nwas needed. We have not yet made a scientific study of the causes of\nwar, and, until we do, may expect more wars. If we are to have more\nwars, I prefer that my country should be on the winning side. That is\nwhy I am speaking on warfare to my fellow-countrymen.\n\nIn general, pacifists are a very great military advantage to Britain.\nOn the outbreak of war the large majority of them become intensely\npatriotic, whereas beforehand they lead our own military authorities\nand also those of our potential allies and enemies to underestimate\nour strength. This keeps us out of some wars, and leads to our showing\nunsuspected power in others. After a few years of war, when the\noriginally bellicose politicians like Lord Lansdowne are getting tired,\nex-pacifists like Lloyd George and Pitt have just got into their\nstride. The national staying-power is thus greatly increased. I need\nhardly remark that future governments will not enter on war without\nfirst persuading the vast majority of the people of its justice. This\nappears to be a relatively simple process under modern conditions.\n\nAt the present moment, however, pacifists are combining with the less\ncompetent soldiers in an attempt to check the progress of chemical\nwarfare. This I believe to be neither in our national nor in the\ninternational interest.\n\nUntil 1915 the soldier\u2019s business was to push or throw pieces of\nmetal at the enemy. Various devices had been employed for throwing\nthem fast or far, and some of them threw other pieces on arrival\nat their destination, thanks, in the main, to the genius of the\nunforgotten Major-General Shrapnel. It is true that early in the\neighth century A.D. the appropriately named Syrian Callinicus had\nprolonged the life of the Eastern Roman Empire for another 750 years\nand saved a large part of Christendom from Mahommedan domination\nby his invention of \u201cGreek fire,\u201d an inflammable liquid which was,\nhowever, later superseded by gunpowder. In the fifteenth century the\ndefenders of Belgrade against the Turks had hit upon a similar device,\nunder the direct inspiration, it was claimed, of the Holy Ghost, but\nthese weapons had fallen into desuetude, their effect being largely\npsychological.\n\nChemical warfare had been so far foreseen by statesmen that in 1907\nthe signatories of the Hague Conference agreed to renounce the use of\nprojectiles the sole object of which was the diffusion of asphyxiating\nor harmful gases. They were thus debarred from using lachrymatory\ngas, the most humane weapon ever invented; but permitted to discharge\ngas from cylinders on the ground, an exceedingly cruel practice. This\nregulation was well meant, but the path to August, 1914, was paved\nwith good intentions. In 1914 none of the great powers had made any\npreparation for poison-gas warfare, and it was not till April 22nd,\n1915, more than eight months after the beginning of the war, that the\nGermans began its use.\n\nDuring the war, twenty-five different poisonous weapons were employed.\nOf these only three are gases at ordinary temperatures, and can be\ndischarged from cylinders in which they are stored under pressure. The\nremainder are liquids which gradually evaporate, yielding a poisonous\nvapour, or solids which are poisonous in the form of smoke.\n\nThese poisonous substances so far used fall into four classes\naccording to their effect on men. First come gases and vapours which\nare poisonous when breathed, but have no effect on the skin, and\naffect the eyes or nose only when present in concentrations which are\npoisonous to the lungs. They can all be kept out by respirators, and\nwere of military value only against unprotected troops, or in local\nsurprise-action. This group, which included chlorine and phosgene, are\nprobably almost as obsolete as muzzle-loading cannon.\n\nA second group are poisonous only in very high concentrations, but\nirritate the eyes when present in amounts so small that one part in\nfive million may render a man blind with weeping in a few seconds.\nThere is no evidence, so far as I know, that anyone was killed or even\npermanently blinded by these substances; but they had a great momentary\neffect. They can be kept out by respirators, or even goggles.\n\nThe third group of poisonous smokes, mostly arsenic compounds, were\nlittle developed during the war. They are, however, weapons of very\ngreat efficiency, and it is well known that they would have been used\nby the British at any rate on a very extensive scale in 1919.[A] In\nsmall amounts, these smokes merely make one sneeze. In somewhat larger\namounts they cause pain of the most terrific character in the head and\nchest. The pain in the head is described as like that caused when fresh\nwater gets into the nose when bathing, but infinitely more severe.\nThese symptoms are accompanied by the most appalling mental distress\nand misery. Some soldiers poisoned by these substances had to be\nprevented from committing suicide; others temporarily went raving mad,\nand tried to burrow into the ground to escape from imaginary pursuers.\nAnd yet within forty-eight hours the large majority had recovered, and\npractically none became permanent invalids. These substances, when\nin the form of smoke, will penetrate any of the respirators used in\nthe late war, though the British box-respirator would stop all but a\nlittle of them in the concentrations then used. In future they will\nprobably be used in much larger concentrations and in finer particles\nthan those formed by the German smoke-shells. It is extraordinarily\ndifficult to produce a respirator which will completely stop very fine\nsmoke, for the following reason. In a gas the molecules (or ultimate\nparticles) are moving very rapidly, with speeds of several hundred\nyards per second, continually colliding and rebounding. A gas molecule,\ntherefore, will probably hit the sides of a fairly narrow passage\nthrough which it is drawn. But a smoke particle is moving at a speed\nmeasured in inches per second, and is far less likely to hit the wall\nof the respirator, and be held by its absorbent surface. If we try to\nmake the passages through which air is drawn very narrow, as by sucking\nin our air through cotton-wool (which will stop most smokes), we find\nthat we have created an appalling resistance to breathing. There is\nan electrical method of removing smoke-particles completely, but it\nwould probably more than double the weight of respirators, and does not\nappear to be either water-proof or fool-proof.\n\n  [A] The American \u201cLewisite,\u201d of which so much was heard in 1918 and\n      1919, is a substance of this class.\n\nThe fourth group, of blistering gases, contains only one substance\nused during the war, dichlorethyl sulphide, or \u201cmustard gas.\u201d This is\nreally a liquid, whose vapour is not only poisonous when breathed, but\nblisters any part of the skin with which it comes into contact even.\nTo take an example, a drop of the liquid was put on a piece of paper\nand left for five minutes on a man\u2019s sleeve. The vapour penetrated his\ncoat and woollen shirt, causing a blister the effects of which lasted\nsix weeks. And yet evaporation is so slow that ground contaminated by\nthe liquid may remain dangerous for a week. Mustard gas caused more\ncasualties to the British than all other chemical weapons put together.\n\nSuch are the weapons which chemistry has given us. It is often asked\nwhy chemists cannot produce something which will put our foes\ncomfortably to sleep and allow us to take them prisoners. The answer\nis that such substances exist, but that in small amounts they are\nharmless, in large amounts fatal. It is only over a moderate range of\nconcentrations that their effect is merely stupefying. One has only to\nthink of the familiar case of chloroform vapour, and the skill required\nto give neither too much nor too little.\n\nIt would be logical to speak of explosives under the heading of\nchemical warfare, but there is curiously little chance of explosives\nbecoming any more effective. We know fairly well the maximum amount of\nenergy which can possibly be got out of a chemical action, and, though\nexplosives might perhaps be made which were about twice as destructive\nas our best (or worst) to-day, they would probably be far less stable,\nand therefore less safe to their users.\n\nOf course, if we could utilize the forces which we now know to exist\ninside the atom, we should have such capacities for destruction that I\ndo not know of any agency other than divine intervention which would\nsave humanity from complete and peremptory annihilation. But the\nremoteness of the day when we shall use these forces may best be judged\nby an analogy. Some thousands of years ago someone first realized that\nthe sun, moon and stars were not mere bodies as large as a plate or a\nhouse, but very large, and moving very fast. It was an obvious idea\nthat their motions might be exploited in some way. Wise men observed\nthem and hoped, for example, to increase the probability of success\nin their own enterprises by beginning them when Jupiter was in the\nascendant. These attempts were unsuccessful, though far more valuable\nto humanity than most of the methods successfully employed for the\nsame purposes, such as fraud, violence and corruption. They led to\nastronomy, and so to all modern physics. We now know that the only\nprobable way of harnessing the kinetic energy of the heavenly bodies is\nto employ tidal power to create electric currents. But five thousand\nyears ago \u201chitching one\u2019s wagon to a star\u201d was a reasonable project and\nnot a poetic metaphor. The reason we cannot do it is a simple matter\nof scale. And the reason why we cannot utilize subatomic phenomena is\njust the same. We cannot make apparatus small enough to disintegrate or\nfuse atomic nuclei, any more than we can make it large enough to reach\nto the moon. We can only bombard them with particles of which perhaps\none in a million hit, which is like firing keys at a safe-door from a\nmachine-gun a mile away in an attempt to open it. We do occasionally\nopen it, but the process is very uneconomical. It may be asked why we\ncannot bring our machine-gun nearer, or improve our aim. To do this\nwe should require to construct apparatus on the same infinitesimal\nscale as the structure of the chemical atom. Now we can arrange atoms\ninto various patterns. For example, we can arrange carbon, hydrogen\nand oxygen atoms in patterns which constitute the molecules of sugar,\nglycerine, or alcohol at will. This is called chemical synthesis. We\nhave been doing it by rule-of-thumb methods for thousands of years,\nand are just beginning to learn a little about it. But even chemical\nmolecules are much too large for our purposes. We can no more ask a\nchemist to build our apparatus than expect a theatrical scene-painter\nor a landscape-gardener to do us a miniature. We know very little about\nthe structure of the atom and almost nothing about how to modify it.\nAnd the prospect of constructing such an apparatus seems to me to be\nso remote that, when some successor of mine is lecturing to a party\nspending a holiday on the moon, it will still be an unsolved (though\nnot, I think, an ultimately insoluble) problem.\n\nTo see how chemical weapons are likely to be used in future we must\nstudy their employment in the late war. Lachrymatory gas was only once\nused under ideal conditions\u2015\u2015by the Germans in the Argonne in 1915.\nThey captured a fairly extensive French trench system and about 2,400\nprisoners, almost all unwounded, but temporarily blind. When they\ngave the number of prisoners, the French authorities not unnaturally\nprotested that this number was practically equal to the total of their\ncasualties. And this was quite true. The French were unprotected. They\nwere deluged with shells giving off a vapour which temporarily blinded\nthem. They could not even run away. The Germans walked across, removed\ntheir rifles, and formed them up in columns which marched back, each\nled by a German in goggles. In order to make future wars humane it\nwould only be necessary to introduce the two following rules:\u2015\u2015\n\n    1. No goggles or other eye protection shall be worn;\n\n    2. No shells shall be used containing any other substances save\n    ethyl iodo-acetate (or other lachrymatory compound) and a small\n    bursting charge.\n\nCertainly it is unlikely that such rules will ever be adopted, but I\ndo contend that to forbid the use of such substances is a piece of\nsentimentalism as cruel as it is ridiculous.\n\nGases of the first group were used in clouds discharged from cylinders,\nsometimes on a front of several miles. They probably caused at least\n20,000 casualties among unprotected or inadequately protected British\ntroops. At least a quarter of these died, and that very painfully, in\nmany cases after a struggle for breath lasting several days. On the\nother hand, of those who did not die almost all recovered completely,\nand the symptoms of the few who became permanent invalids were mainly\nnervous. Apart, however, from the extreme terror and agitation produced\nby the gassing of uneducated people, I regard the type of wound\nproduced by the average shells as, on the whole, more distressing than\nthe pneumonia caused by chlorine or phosgene. Besides being wounded,\nI have been buried alive, and on several occasions in peacetime I\nhave been asphyxiated to the point of unconsciousness. The pain and\ndiscomfort arising from the other experiences were utterly negligible\ncompared with those produced by a good septic shell-wound.\n\nThe first German cloud-gas attack was in April, 1915, the last in\nAugust, 1916, though the British continued them until the end of that\nyear. They gradually became more and more ineffective as the efficiency\nof the respirators used on both sides increased. The first few German\nattacks were very well conducted, so far as the liberation of the gas\nwas concerned, as they were arranged by Haber, an extremely competent\nchemist, who afterwards supervised their production of explosives.\nOn the other hand, the German respirators were bad to begin with;\nand later on were not so good as the British. This was, apparently,\nbecause the most competent physiologist in Germany with any knowledge\nof breathing was a Jew. This fact was quite well known in German\nphysiological circles, but apparently his race prevented the military\nauthorities from employing him. The result was that they were unable\nto follow up their gas-attacks at all closely, but had to wait till\nthe cloud had passed off, by which time resistance was again possible.\nThat was how the Germans paid for anti-Semitism. It is very probable\nthat it lost them the war, as never again, not even in March, 1918, had\nthey as complete a gap in the Franco-British Western front as during\nthe first gas-attack in April, 1915. It was, indeed, fortunate for the\nGermans that the Russians were still more anti-Semitic than themselves.\nHundreds of thousands of Russian Jews volunteered for service in 1914.\nThey were mostly refused, and in no case granted commissions. They then\nproceeded to turn their combative instincts into other channels, to the\nno small advantage of the Germans. If one goes to what is, perhaps, the\nopposite extreme from Russia, one finds the army of the world\u2019s most\ndemocratic nation, Australia, commanded by a Jew, Monash, and notes\nwith interest that the Germans regarded the Australian troops as, on\nthe whole, the most formidable, man for man, of all their opponents.\n\nThe other reason why the cloud-gas attacks were indecisive was that\nthe Germans had relatively few reserves to put into the gap they made.\nTheir reserves in April, 1915, were in Poland. If they had trusted\ntheir scientific men they could certainly have captured Calais and\nBoulogne, and probably have annihilated the British Army.\n\nIn addition to clouds released from cylinders in the trenches,\ngas-cylinders were fired from trench-mortars, some hundreds at a\ntime, into the enemy\u2019s lines, producing a sudden and dense cloud of\ngas before the men had time to put on their respirators. But these\nbombardments, though they caused many casualties, were never decisive,\nas the cloud-attacks would have been, but for causes which we have\ndiscussed.\n\nMustard gas is a very different thing. It was never used to force a\ndecision by breaking the enemy\u2019s lines, but to cause him casualties\nand deny him the use of ground. For, after a given area has been well\nsprayed with dichlorethyl sulphide from bursting shells for some time,\nit is death to occupy it without a mask, and the vapour may blister\nthe skin, while anyone touching the ground will be certain of a very\nserious blister. Someone placed a drop of the liquid on the chair of\nthe director of the British chemical warfare department. He ate his\nmeals off the mantelpiece for a month. The most interesting thing,\nhowever, about mustard gas is that, though it caused 150,000 casualties\nin the British Army alone, less than 4,000 of these (or 1 in 40) died,\nwhile only about 700 (or 1 in every 200) became permanently unfit. Yet\nthe Washington Conference has solemnly agreed that the signatory powers\nare not to use this substance against one another, though, of course,\nthey will use such humane weapons as bayonets, shells, and incendiary\nbombs.\n\nIt is worth while attempting to analyse the reasons for this rather\ncurious decision. First, perhaps, we must put the complete and shameful\nignorance of most of the politicians and many of the soldiers who took\npart in the Conference. Their ideas of gas warfare were apparently\ndrawn from the descriptions of the great German cloud-gas attacks\nof 1915, which killed at least 1 in 4 of their casualties, and were\nwritten up on a large scale for recruiting and political purposes.\nBut it is the business of politicians and soldiers, conceivably even\nof journalists, to know the truth about such matters before coming to\ndecisions, or even impelling others to come to decisions about them.\n\nTo this ignorance, however, there was joined one of the most hideous\nforms of sentimentalism which has ever supported evil upon earth\u2015\u2015the\nattachment of the professional soldier to cruel and obsolete killing\nmachines. I would remind you of the conduct of the Chevalier Bayard,\nwhom his contemporary soldiers described as _sans peur et sans\nreproche_. To captured knights, and even bowmen, he was the soul of\ncourtesy, but musketeers or other users of gunpowder who fell into\nhis hands were invariably put to death. It is worth remembering that,\nuntil the invention of gunpowder, fighting had for many centuries been\nremarkably safe for everyone who could afford a good suit of armour,\nwhile the abominable arquebus and its descendants have saved the\nremnants of Christendom from the Turks, Mongols, and other paynims who\nhad by Bayard\u2019s time successfully overwhelmed one half of its original\nextent.\n\nI remember an excellent example of Bayardism in the war. A Turkish\nairman had developed considerable flair for shooting down our\nobservation balloons. A British officer sent up one of these latter\nwith a large cargo of gun-cotton, and blew up the Turk in question. For\nthis deed he was severely reprimanded by the local officer commanding\nR.A.F. for unsportsmanlike conduct. This gentleman, doubtless, felt\nlittle objection to bombing, for example, Turkish transport columns,\nconsisting mainly of non-combatants and animals, incapable of\nretaliating. (One may remark that between wounds and thirst perhaps\n30,000 Turkish transport animals perished during our final victory in\nPalestine.) But he objected to airmen being killed except by other\nairmen. I, fighting in the mud beneath them, and exposed to the\nbombs of both sides (I was severely wounded by one of our own), felt\ndifferently. An attempt by the professional soldiers to stereotype\nthe art of war into the channels which correspond to the ideas of\n1914 might lead to a future rather different from that which I shall\nventure to predict, a future in which the military organizations of the\nworld were overthrown by the exponents of some other mode of thinking,\nemploying all the resources of science, and fighting \u201cdirty.\u201d The\nopponents of the present world-order may, therefore, welcome Bayardism\nin their governments.\n\nMeanwhile, the Bayardists have nobbled a curious assortment of allies\nin their so far successful attempt to prevent the humanization of\nwarfare. First are a number of out-and-out pacifists, who object to\nall war, and apparently hope to make it more difficult by restricting\nthe means of fighting allowed. Some, of course, genuinely believe\nthat gaseous weapons are more cruel than solid ones. Those who know\nthe facts seem to me to be the victims of loose-thinking. With them\nare associated a group of sentimentalists who appear to me definitely\nto be the Scribes and Pharisees of our age. These people, who are to\nbe found in all political parties and most religious and irreligious\nsects, are generally willing (after a decent interval) to accept any\napplication of science which appears to them profitable, or any social\ninstitution (such as war) which is hallowed by use and wont. They salve\ntheir consciences for such behaviour by attacking, in the name of their\ngod or their ideals, every novelty, whether in thought or in action,\nwhich presents any loophole. In particular they are distinguished by a\nferocious opposition to, and contempt for, any attempt at the solution\nof human problems by honest and simple intellectual effort. Mustard gas\nkills one man for every forty it puts out of action; shells kill one\nfor every three; but their god who compromised with high explosives has\nnot yet found time to adapt himself to chemical warfare.\n\nMore respectable in every way are the candid reactionaries, like Lord\nCecil, who believe in their hearts that in abandoning traditional\nreligion of the medieval type for scientific thought, man has\ndefinitely chosen the wrong path, and who fight with their eyes open\nagainst its application. These people have a case, and are prepared to\nargue it. They would honestly desire to give up the gunpowder of Lazare\nCarnot for the sword of Bayard. But one cannot congratulate them on\ntheir associates.\n\nAnd behind these follow like sheep the predestined victims of the\nnext war, the peoples of the civilized nations who will undergo the\nextremity of suffering rather than think for themselves.\n\nHow profound and unreasoning the objection of the military mind to\nchemical warfare is can best be judged by one simple fact. About\nthree years ago the British regular army gave up the instruction of\nevery soldier in defence against hostile gas. For one thing, speed in\nadjusting respirators being of more importance than elegance, it did\nnot form the basis of a satisfactory drill, like those curious relics\nof eighteenth century musketry which still occupy so much of the time\nof our recruits. But the truth no doubt was that the officers did\nnot like that sort of thing. The chemical and physiological ideas\nwhich underlie gas warfare require a certain effort to understand, and\nthey do not arise in the study of a sport, as is the case with those\nunderlying shooting and motor transport. One of the first acts of the\nlate Government was to reinstate some modicum of anti-gas instruction\nin the normal training of the Army. But it may be hoped that this\npernicious and demoralizing teaching will once more be dropped with the\nreturn to power of one of the gentlemen\u2019s parties.\n\nPersonally, I must confess that I would go very much further than the\nGovernment, and seriously consider the provision of gas-masks for the\npopulation of London and other large towns, and the instruction of\nschool-children in their use. If this is not done, there is at least\nthe possibility of a disaster of the very first magnitude at an early\nstage in the next war. It is also one of the very few military measures\nwhich could hardly be regarded as provocative by the most ardent of\nforeign militarists or British pacifists. At the present moment,\nhowever, this need does not arise, as the French, who alone could bomb\nLondon, have very slight facilities for making mustard gas.\n\nIt is interesting to compare the attitude of our militarists to\ndefence against gas with their attitude before the war to a possible\nGerman invasion. The fear of the latter, although the naval experts\nalways stated that it was impossible on any serious scale, had been\nso impressed on the military mind by the propaganda of the National\nService League and its like before the war that, from 1914 to 1918\nhundreds of thousands of troops were quite unnecessarily kept in\nEngland. There however, this very fundamental difference between a\ndefence against invasion and a defence against gas. The one would\nincrease the importance of the professional soldier: the other would\nnot. One does not need to be a very profound psychologist to see in\nthis fact one reason why the military authorities dropped anti-gas\ntraining, and why I, being a biochemist and therefore a person of the\ntype who would become important if gas war returned, am advocating its\nextension. As to which of us is justified, I would suggest that it\nis more likely to-day that poisonous gas will be used against British\nsoldiers or civilians in future wars than it was in 1912 that Britain\nwould be invaded by the Germans.\n\nWe have seen that a case can be made out for gas as a weapon on\nhumanitarian grounds, based on the very small proportion of killed to\ncasualties from gas in the war, and especially during its last year.\nAgainst this may be urged the probability that future research will\nproduce other gases or smokes which, as weapons, will be as cruel\nas, or more cruel than, the chlorine and phosgene used in 1915 and\n1916. The answer to this is quite simple. First, as regards gases or\nvapours. Only a limited number of chemical substances are appreciably\nvolatile, and of their vapours only a small proportion are poisonous.\nNow every chemical substance has a definite molecular weight. Those\nwith a small molecular weight, _i.e._, whose molecules are relatively\nlight, are on the whole the most volatile, _i.e._, go most easily\ninto vapour. Now the large majority of the possible volatile chemical\nsubstances of small molecular weight, and therefore relatively simple\nchemical composition, are already known. Mustard gas, for example, was\ndiscovered and its properties described in 1886. There are probably\nsubstances of high molecular weight whose dense vapours are even more\npoisonous than mustard gas. But the charcoal of our respirators has the\nproperty of adsorbing heavy molecules of vapour quite independently of\ntheir chemical composition. It is, therefore, somewhat unlikely, though\nnot, of course, impossible, that any very poisonous vapour will ever\nbe found which will go through a mask impermeable to mustard gas or\nchlorine. It is, to my mind, far more probable that skin irritants may\nbe discovered which are even more unpleasant than mustard gas.\n\nThe question of smokes is more serious. It was the hope of the\nproducers of irritant smokes that they would penetrate the gas-masks\nin sufficient amounts to cause sneezing and force their victims to\nremove their masks, thus exposing themselves to greater concentrations\nof smoke and to poisonous vapours liberated along with the smoke.\nThis was the German view when they introduced the \u201cBlue Cross\u201d shell\nin July, 1917. Fortunately, by that time our defence against gas and\nsmoke was extremely good, and we had foreseen the smoke menace and\nintroduced, between April and June, 1917, a filter which effectively\nstopped it in the concentrations then met in the field. It is not,\nhowever, at all unlikely that concentrations of smoke will be produced\nin the future which will penetrate our present masks. If our anti-gas\nmeasures are sufficiently neglected the consequences may, of course, be\nvery serious.\n\nIt would seem likely that the chemical weapons of the future will\nnot be so very unlike those of the past. The main efforts of the\nsoldier who uses them will be devoted, first, to blistering his\nenemy, secondly, to tiring him out by forcing him to wear a respirator\ncontinuously, which, of course, enormously hampers him for doing\nanything else.\n\nIn the Great War mustard gas and sensory irritant smokes were not used\nas the principal weapons of attack or defence, because the smokes\nwould not incapacitate everyone in a given area, though they would\nmake them keep their respirators on. Mustard gas, on the other hand,\ncould make any area absolutely untenable by the defenders, but the\nvapour persisted for so many days that it could not be occupied by the\nattackers either. It was mainly used to produce casualties a few days\nor weeks before an attack on the units which would be defending, and\nto protect the flank of an offensive against counter-attack. Thus in\nApril, 1918, Armenti\u00e8res, the original Northern limit of the German\nattack in Flanders, was so heavily shelled with \u201cmustard\u201d that the\ngutters in the streets were reported to be running with it. The Germans\nthemselves received orders forbidding them to enter its ruins for a\nfortnight.\n\nNevertheless, mustard gas is so adequate a weapon that the attempt\nwill almost certainly be made to use it not merely for making ground\nuntenable for both sides, but for gaining it from the enemy. For this\npurpose the following methods suggest themselves. First, attempts might\nbe made to protect troops completely from the effect of gas on their\nskins by encasing them in airtight overalls and gloves. These were\nused with a certain amount of success by machine-gunners in the Great\nWar, but would hardly be practicable for attackers, who would, except\nperhaps in winter, die of heat-stroke if encased in such apparatus.\n\nAir-tight tanks with adequate arrangements for filtering the incoming\nair are probably more hopeful, as mustard gas will not poison motors as\nit does men. (The motors would, of course, have their own air-supply,\nas it would hardly be practicable to filter air in the quantities\nneeded by them.) To support the tanks and to tackle specially protected\nmachine-gunners use will probably be made of immune infantry. One\nattack of gas-poisoning, whether by the lungs or skin, produces no\nimmunity to a second attack\u2015\u2015in fact, it generally increases the\nsensitivity of the victim. If a vapour is discovered against which\nimmunity can be conferred, it will be the most effective weapon in\nhistory as long as its secret is kept. On the other hand, some people\nare naturally immune. The American Army authorities made a systematic\nexamination of the susceptibility of large numbers of recruits.\nThey found that there was a very resistant class, comprising 20% of\nthe white men tried, but no less than 80% of the negroes. This as\nintelligible, as the symptoms of mustard gas, blistering, and sun-burn\nare very similar, and negroes are pretty well immune to sun-burn. It\nlooks therefore as if, after a slight preliminary test, it should\nbe possible to obtain coloured troops who would all be resistant to\nmustard gas blistering in concentrations harmful toward most white men.\nEnough resistant whites are available to officer them.\n\nOne sees, then, the possibility of warfare on somewhat the following\nlines:\u2015\u2015\n\nHeavy concentrations of artillery would keep an area say thirty miles\nin length and ten in depth continuously sprayed with mustard gas.\nAfter allowing, say, two days for the development of blisters, the\ngassing of the positions within two or three miles of the front line is\ndiscontinued, but a long-range bombardment, especially of roads, goes\non. Suddenly, behind the usual barrage of high explosive shells appears\na line of tanks supported by negroes in gas-masks. They meet with but\nlittle opposition in the area still reeking of gas, and occupy the\nhostile lines to a depth of two or three miles. A counter-attack, even\nif successful, involves concentration in an area under gas-bombardment\nand enormous casualties from blistering. The only satisfactory\ncounter-attack would be from the air. In this way the side possessing a\nbig superiority of mustard gas should be in a position to advance two\nor three miles a day.\n\nThis kind of tactics was impossible during the Great War for a very\nsimple reason. There was not enough mustard gas. The Germans used a\nquite surprisingly complicated process for its manufacture. When we\ndecided to follow their example, one of our chemists (a Cambridge\nman, I am glad to say) hit on a vastly cheaper and speedier method of\nmanufacture. Unfortunately, our first supplies only arrived in the\nfield in September, 1918. There is reason to think that the knowledge\nthat we were at last about to develop gas and smoke warfare on a large\nscale had a good deal to do with the acceptance by the Germans of the\narmistice conditions.\n\nThe reason why we did not use mustard gas earlier is also simple and\nrather instructive.\n\nIn 1915 a British chemist proposed to a General who was concerned with\nsuch questions that the British should use dichlorethyl sulphide.\n\u201cDoes it kill?\u201d asked the General. \u201cNo,\u201d he was told, \u201cbut it will\ndisable enormous numbers of the enemy temporarily.\u201d \u201cThat is no good\nto us,\u201d said the man of blood; \u201cwe want something that will kill.\u201d It\nis interesting to find how completely the ideas of this worthy soldier\nas to the object of war coincided with those of the average intelligent\nchild of five years old. I may remind you that Clausewitz held the view\nthat the object of war was to impose one\u2019s will upon the enemy. This\nidea would, however, appear to have been too abstract, too complicated,\nor too humanitarian for the British military mind. At any rate, it\nhad its fill of killing. It was not, therefore, until the Germans had\ndemonstrated upon the persons of some tens of thousands of British\nsoldiers (we had 14,000 casualties, though with only 400 deaths,\nduring the first three weeks of the mustard gas war) that there was\nsomething to be said for a weapon that was not primarily designed to\nkill, that we began to use it.\n\nIt seems, then, that mustard gas would enable an army to gain ground\nwith far less killed on either side than the methods used in the late\nwar, and would tend to establish a war of movement leading to a fairly\nrapid decision, as in the campaigns of the past. It would not much\nupset the present balance of power, Germany\u2019s chemical industry being\ncounterpoised by French negro troops. Indians may be expected to be\nnearly as immune as negroes.\n\nAnd clearly, the more war is complicated, the more unimportant become\nsemi-civilized powers, such as Turkey and Russia, even as allies. The\nTurks were seldom capable of organizing a combined attack by any number\ngreater than a battalion, or a shoot by anything larger than a battery.\nYet small groups of them fought very well, and their individual guns\nmade very good shooting. But gas-warfare demands organization, both\nof attack and defence\u2015\u2015attack, because one tries to keep up a certain\nconcentration of vapour over a whole large area rather than to knock\nout given groups of men; defence, because respirators and discipline in\nwearing them must be perfect. I need not say that in the Great War our\nmilitary leaders strongly deprecated the use of gas against the Turks,\non the ground, I believe, that the latter were \u201cgentlemen.\u201d They showed\ntheir gentlemanly character by such acts as the killing of 45% of the\nprisoners taken at Kut-el-Amara, not to mention some millions of Greeks\nand Armenians who had the misfortune to be Christians. But they never\nused gas: so perhaps they may have preserved their quality of gentlemen\nin the eyes of our Bayardists.\n\nI claim, then, that the use of mustard gas in war on the largest\npossible scale would render it less expensive of life and property,\nshorter, and more dependent on brains rather than numbers. We are\noften told the exact opposite, that it will make it more barbarous\nand indecisive, and lead to the wiping out of the population of whole\ncities. Let us consider for a moment this latter allegation. Can\naeroplanes do more against a hostile town with gas than with high\nexplosive and incendiary bombs? We were threatened with gas bombs\nduring the war, and certain London pharmacists made very large sums by\nthe sale of alleged anti-gas masks. It could be, and was, urged at the\ntime that as the carrying of these curious objects seemed to calm the\ncivilian population in a moment of national emergency, they served a\nuseful purpose. The same argument has been brought forward on behalf\nof amulets and other pious frauds sold in the name of religion. In the\ncase of the above gas-masks, they inspired such faith (for they had a\nbetter finish than the official pattern and looked like one\u2019s idea of\nwhat a gas-mask ought to be) that some thousands were sent out by fond\nrelatives to soldiers at the front, a number of whom in consequence\nperished miserably.\n\nWas there anything in the gas-bomb scare? In the first place, many\notherwise well-informed people have very erroneous views as to the\npoisonousness of gases. Gases are dangerous in the laboratory or\nfactory if they kill without giving warning by odour and irritation;\nbut gases of this kind, such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen arsenide,\nhave to be present, in order to kill, in concentrations which cannot\npractically be produced in the open. The insidiousness of hydrogen\narsenide has, however, so alarmed chemists that a tradition persists\nof a man having been killed by a single bubble of it, while they are\nso afraid of smelling carbon monoxide that it is generally stated\nto be inodorous. Besides errors due to this cause, there were errors\nof arithmetic. In one calculation which was made to show how easily\nLondon could be poisoned a decimal point went astray in one place!\nAs the calculation was concerned with volumes of gas, the result\ncame out as 10 metres cubed or 1,000 cubic metres, in place of one.\nFor this reason it appeared that ten aeroplanes could do the damage\nwhich would actually have required ten thousand. However, most of\nthe prophets of disaster from gas-bombs made no calculation at all.\nLet us try to make a rough one. On the nights of March 11th to March\n14th, 1918, just before the great offensive of March 21st, the Germans\nfired 150,000 mustard gas shells into the villages and valleys of\nthe Cambrai salient, an area of about twenty square miles, the same\nas that of central London. This caused 4,500 casualties, of whom only\nfifty died (all of them because they took off their respirators too\nsoon). The area was not evacuated. In central London, if the population\nhad had gas-masks, the casualties would have been perhaps ten times\ngreater. But we have to compare this hypothetical air-raid, not with\nany raid that actually occurred, but with a bombardment of 150,000\nhigh-explosive shells or their equivalent in bombs. This would hardly\nhave left a house in central London untouched, and the dead would have\nbeen numbered not in hundreds, but in tens of thousands. Such an attack\nwould have required the visits on repeated nights of something like\n1,000 aeroplanes. Such a number is not yet a practical possibility.\nWe are, perhaps, inclined to underestimate the potentialities of\ntown-bombing with high explosive and incendiary bombs. In London, for\nexample, there were never too many big fires started at any given time\nfor the fire-brigades to deal with. An attack by ten or twenty times as\nmany aeroplanes as ever bombed London simultaneously might well ring\nround a given area fairly completely with wrecked streets or burning\nhouses, in which case most of the buildings and a good proportion of\nthe inhabitants would perish. In one or two air-raids on other towns\nit seems probable that the Germans were not far from outstripping the\ncapacities of the fire-brigades and producing very large conflagrations.\n\nThe reasons why explosives are more likely to be effective than\npoison on a town are as follows. Houses are far more vulnerable to\nexplosives than earthworks, and do far more damage to their occupants\nin collapsing, besides being inflammable. And, on the other hand, they\ncontain far more refuges which are nearly gas-proof. A shut room on a\nfirst or second floor would be nearly proof against gas released in the\nneighbourhood if it had not got a lighted fire to drag contaminated air\nfrom outside into it. Moreover, civilians could, and would, rapidly\nevacuate an area which has been heavily soaked with mustard gas,\nwhereas soldiers have to stay on at the risk of their lives.\n\nGas-bombs would certainly be far less effective than high-explosives\non a town whose inhabitants were provided with respirators, probably\neven if they were unprovided. But, so long as London is undefended\nin this respect, it constitutes a standing temptation to any power\ndesirous of making this kind of experiment. Judging from experience,\nthere is no doubt that a gas or smoke attack from the air would\noccasion a first-class panic. The introduction of each new chemical\nweapon produced great terror, as did even such a militarily unimportant\n(though cruel) weapon as the _Flammenwerfer_ (flame-projector). This\nwas certainly due to ignorance. The French Colonial troops who were\ncaught in the first cloud-gas attack were far more frightened than the\nCanadians, and appear to have had far more casualties, although they\nmostly ran away: which the Canadians did not. For the Canadians made\nsome attempts to improvise respirators, and almost any damp fabric\nwill reduce the concentration of chlorine passing through it to half\nor less. They also breathed less because they did not run. As a matter\nof fact, a most efficient respirator against chlorine (though whether\nagainst mustard gas I do not know) can be made by knocking the bottom\noff a bottle, filling it with loose earth, placing its neck in the\nmouth, and breathing through it. Very great alarm was caused by the\nfirst mustard gas bombardments in France, as no one had ever seen\nanything resembling the blisters it caused. But very soon familiarity\nbred contempt, or even liking, for aeroplanes dropped sheaves of\npamphlets explaining how any soldier tired of the war could become\na casualty without danger either of death or detection by allowing\nearth contaminated with mustard gas to touch the skin or the clothing.\nA good many wound-stripes were earned by this simple and up-to-date\nmethod, though, as we had the superiority in the air and the German\nsoldiers were both more tired and more confiding than our own, the\nGerman casualties from this cause were probably still greater. But let\nus tell our civilian population before and not after they are attacked\nwith blistering gases that the blisters produced are considerably\nless dangerous than measles. It was predicted during the war that the\nsurvivors of lung-irritant gases would get consumption, while those\nburned by mustard gas would develop cancer. This has not happened, but\nit is the sort of rumour that easily starts.\n\nFor, after all, our greatest weapon in chemical warfare is not gas,\nbut education, and education of all classes. By education I mean a\nprocess which puts people in general in touch with the thought of the\nabler minds of their own and past times, whether in literature or art,\nin science, mathematics, or music. An educated man knows enough of\nscience, for example, to be able to distinguish a gas from a smoke,\nor a Grindell-Matthews from a Marconi, even if he is not thoroughly\nversed in the kinetic theory of gases or the laws governing radiation\nthrough the ether. Educated men are rather rare. It will be worth\nwhile giving some examples of how our uneducated politicians and\nsoldiers failed to adjust themselves to the scientific thought of their\ncontemporaries.\n\nIn April, 1915, a relatively educated member of the Government got\nhold of a physiologist, whose name I suppress as he is a modest man.\nHe found a rather curious state of affairs. On the _Emden_, a German\ncruiser captured in the Indian Ocean, a German sailor had been found in\npossession of a pad of lint with tapes to tie in front of his mouth. It\ndid not even cover his nose, and, though it might or might not have\nbeen of some value against smoke, it was of none at all against gas.\nThere was, however, a very prevalent belief at that time, and may be\nstill, for all that I know, that German men of science were vastly\nsuperior to British. It is perfectly true that there are more of them,\nbut I think that their average attainments in the last forty years have\nbeen, if anything, slightly below those of our own. So hypnotized,\nhowever, were some of the authorities in this country by this theory\nthat it was being proposed to issue these articles to our troops. After\npointing out their uselessness, the physiologist in question was rushed\nover to France in a destroyer, along with a chemist. He identified the\ngas used by the Germans as chlorine. On his return, he got a cylinder\nof that gas, let some into an air-tight chamber, and devised a rough\nrespirator which would keep most of it out, trying various possible\nmethods on himself. On his return to the War Office, rather short\nof breath from the chlorine he had breathed, he found to his horror\nthat the appeal to the women of England for home-made respirators had\nbeen issued. Their design was apparently based on the captured German\none, which had very probably been made on the _Emden_. As they were\nquite useless, he secured a promise that they would not be sent out\nto France. Things were not made easier by the opinion held in high\nmilitary quarters that, offence being more important than defence, the\ngreat thing was to reply to the Germans by gassing them. As, however,\nthis could not be done in less than five months, while respirators\ncould easily be made in a week, it led to delay at a somewhat vital\nmoment. Finally every important decision taken in England had to pass\nthrough the hands of Lord Kitchener, who naturally had not time to\nweigh the arguments at all fully. It is not my intention to attack Lord\nKitchener: that the war could be carried on at all under such a system\nproves that he was a great man. But, if he had managed to delegate some\nof his powers, he would have proved himself a greater. As the result of\nall this delay, a great many of the first respirators had to be made in\nFrance.\n\nConvalescent soldiers and the nuns in a convent on the Mont des Cats\nwere conscripted to make respirators, which, if inelegant, were fairly\nefficient. Unfortunately, consignments of \u201cWomen of England\u201d and other\nhome-made respirators were continually appearing in France, and every\nnow and then led to a battalion or so being wiped out. I am able to\ngive these details, because at this time I, who before and after was an\nhonest infantry bombing-officer, made my brief incursion into chemical\nwarfare. I arrived at St. Omer from my comfortable trench as being a\nperson accustomed to poisonous gases in civil life. In a large school\nthere, converted into a hospital, there was a small glass-fronted room,\nlike a miniature greenhouse, into which known volumes of chlorine were\nliberated. We had to compare the effects on ourselves of various\nquantities with and without respirators. It stung the eyes and produced\na tendency to gasp and cough when breathed. For this reason trained\nphysiologists had to be employed. An ordinary soldier would probably\nrestrain his tendency to gasp, cough and throw himself about if he were\nworking a machine-gun in a battle, but could not do so in a laboratory\nexperiment with nothing to take his mind off his own feelings. An\nexperienced physiologist has more self-control. It was also necessary\nto see if one could run or work hard in the respirators, so we had a\nwheel of some kind to turn by hand in the gas chamber, not to mention\ndoing fifty-yard sprints in respirators outside. As each of us got\nsufficiently affected by gas to render his lungs unduly irritable,\nanother would take his place. None of us was much the worse for the\ngas, or in any real danger, as we knew where to stop, but some had to\ngo to bed for a few days, and I was very short of breath and incapable\nof running for a month or so. This work, which was mainly done by\ncivilians, was rewarded by the grant of the Military Cross to the\nbrilliant young officer who used to open the door of the motor-car\nof the medical General who occasionally visited the experiments.\nThe soldiers who took part in them could, however, for some time be\ndistinguished by the peculiar green colour of their brass buttons due\nto the action of the gas.\n\nEven when arrangements had been made for the manufacture of respirators\nin England, the supply suddenly dried up. It was found that the girls\nwho made them were working as best they could with raw and bleeding\nfingers, and London was being scoured for rubber gloves. Someone had\naltered the formula of the mixture in which the respirators were dipped\nby substituting for carbonate of soda caustic soda, which has the\nproperty of dissolving the human skin. His name, needless to say, does\nnot appear in the official history.\n\nSuch were some of the difficulties which we incurred in our anti-gas\nwork, through the ignorance of highly-placed persons. As, however, our\ndefensive (though not our offensive) measures were ultimately better\nthan those of any other nation, things must have been still worse\nelsewhere. The success of our respirators was largely due to one man,\nHarrison, whose name is insufficiently known to his countrymen. He was\nan analytical chemist, and author of that admirable and too little read\nwork _Secret Remedies_ (published by the British Medical Association).\nHe enlisted as a private, but was a Lieutenant-Colonel when he died of\ninfluenza and overwork in 1918.\n\nNaturally the ignorance of our private soldiers was of an even\nmore abysmal character. In the early days they often removed the\nrespirators from their faces and tied them around their chests, as it\nwas there that they felt the effects of the gas. Again in 1917 80% of\nthe mustard-gas cases vomited, while this symptom was rare in 1918.\nApparently it took five months for the British Army to realize that\ngas-poisoning did not necessarily mean poisoning through the stomach.\n\nIf, then, in future wars we are to avoid gross mismanagement in high\nplaces, and panic and stupidity among the masses, it is essential that\neveryone should learn a little elementary science, that politicians and\nsoldiers should not be proud of their ignorance of it, that ordinary\nmen and women should not be ashamed or afraid of knowing something\nof the working of their own bodies. If we persist in the belief that\nwe can be saved by patriotism or social reforms, or by military\npreparation of the type which would have sufficed in former struggles,\nwe shall go down before some nation of more realistic views. We do\nnot know what type of scientific knowledge will be needed: we can be\ncertain that some type will be. The British are a tired people: they\nlike to rest \u201cin breathless quiet after all their ills,\u201d and to pin\ntheir faith to the promises of leaders whose eyes are fixed on the\npast. It has all happened before.\n\n    \u201cGanz vergessener V\u00f6lker M\u00fcdigkeiten\n    Kann ich nicht abthun von meinen Lidern,\n    Noch weghalten von der erschrockenen Seele\n    Stummes Niederfallen ferner Sterne.\u201d\n\n(\u201cI cannot lift from my eyelids the weariness of quite forgotten\npeoples, nor hold away from my terrified soul the dumb downfall of far\nstars.\u201d)\n\nThe Roman and Spanish Empires appear to have perished largely from\nintellectual torpor. Are we to go the same way?\n\nWe have got to get over our distaste for scientific thought and\nscientific method. To take an example from the war, the physiologists\nat the experimental ground at Porton, in Hampshire, had considerable\ndifficulty in working with a good many soldiers because the latter\nobjected so strongly to experiments on animals, and did not conceal\ntheir contempt for people who performed them. And yet these soldiers\nwould have had no hesitation in shelling the horses of hostile\ngun-teams, and the vast majority of them were in the habit of shooting\nanimals for sport. I have never known a physiologist who went in for\nshooting animals: physiologists know too much of the processes which\noccur in a wounded beast or bird that creeps away to die. And, though I\nhave seen a good many scientific experiments on animals, I have never\nseen one which, so far as concerns the pain given, I should object to\nhaving performed on myself. That this attitude is not unusual would\nappear from the following experiment described by the director of the\nPorton experimental ground, in which he wished to compare the effects\nof hydrocyanic (or prussic) acid gas on himself and a dog. They both\nentered a chamber containing 1 part in 2,000 of the gas.\n\n\u201cIn order (he writes) that the experiment might be as fair as possible\nand that my respiration should be relatively as active as that of\nthe dog, I remained standing, and took a few steps from time to time\nwhile I was in the chamber. In about thirty seconds the dog began to\nget unsteady, and in fifty-five seconds it dropped on the floor and\ncommenced the characteristic distressing respiration which heralds\ndeath from cyanide poisoning. One minute thirty-five seconds after the\ncommencement the animal\u2019s body was carried out, respiration having\nceased and the dog being apparently dead. I then left the chamber. As\nregards the result upon myself, the only real effect was a momentary\ngiddiness when I turned my head quickly. This lasted about a year,\nand then vanished. For some time it was difficult to concentrate on\nanything for any length of time. It is hard to say to what extent this\nwas due to the experiment.\u201d\n\nAs the result of this work, hydrocyanic acid was given up for use in\nthe field, as phosgene is effective at fifty times this dilution, and\nmustard gas at one thousand times.\n\nOne of the grounds given for objection to science is that science is\nresponsible for such horrors as those of the late war. \u201cYou scientific\nmen (we are told) never think of the possible application of your\ndiscoveries. You do not mind whether they are used to kill or to cure.\nYour method of thinking, doubtless satisfactory when dealing with\nmolecules and atoms, renders you insensible to the difference between\nright and wrong. And so you devise the means of universal destruction,\nand sell them into the hands of unrighteous and bloody-minded men.\u201d\n\nI note that the people who make these remarks do not refuse to travel\nby railway or motor-car, to use electric light, or to read mechanically\nprinted newspapers. Nor do they install a well in their back-gardens\nto enjoy drinking the richer water of a pre-scientific age, with its\ninteresting and variegated fauna. But it is quite easy to show that\nthe destructive and horrible nature of modern warfare is due, not to\nthe weapons used, but largely to the other applications of science\nwhich constitute the material basis of our civilization. Let us imagine\nthe Great War fought with all our means of transport and preventive\nmedicine, but no weapons more complicated than swords, spears, and\npossibly a few bows. With fewer munitions the armies could have been\nmobilized even more rapidly, and more men put in the fighting line.\nThe Germans would probably have tried, as they tried in 1914, to bring\nabout a \u201cSchlacht ohne Morgen,\u201d a battle on reversed fronts modelled\non Cannae. The fighting would probably have been about as severe as\nat Cannae, and men would have been fighting in close order, ten or\ntwenty deep, along a hundred-mile front. No doubt it would have been\nover sooner, but the losses would probably have been just as great. The\nFrench and Germans would doubtless both have gone on fighting until at\nleast half their armies had become casualties, and, with four years\u2019\nfighting compressed into as many weeks, it would have been impossible\nto tend more than a fraction of the wounded. The chief difference might\nhave been that the Russians would have been victorious by mere weight\nof numbers, and the French defeated. In former wars slaughter was\nlimited by the fact that large armies could not be fed, and developed\nepidemic diseases. They also moved very slowly. So it took twenty-three\nyears (from 1792 to 1815) to wear down the resistance of the French\nnation. Moreover, the Great War was the first since the Second Punic\nWar of the 3rd century B. C. between two great civilized nations, each\nfighting with all its might. This fact accounts for its ferocity.\nModern transport and hygiene made its scale possible; the weapons used\nmerely served to prolong it.\n\nThe objection to scientific weapons such as the gases of the late war,\nand such new devices as may be employed in the next, is essentially\nan objection to the unknown. Fighting with lances or guns, one can\ncalculate, or thinks one can calculate, one\u2019s chances. But with gas\nor rays or microbes one has an altogether different state of affairs.\nPoisonous gas had a great moral effect, just because it was new, and\nincomprehensible. As long as we permit ourselves to be afraid of\nthe novel and unknown, there will be a very great temptation to use\nnovel and unknown weapons against us. Now, terror of the unknown is\nthoroughly right and rational so long as we believe that the prince\nof this world is a malignant being. But it is not justifiable if we\nbelieve that the world is the expression of a power friendly to our\naspirations, or if we are atheists and hold that it is neutral and\nindifferent to human ideals.\n\nIt will by now have become clear to you that I am writing somewhat\nparabolically. What I have said about mustard gas might be applied,\n_mutatis mutandis_, to most other applications of science to human\nlife. They can all, I think, be abused, but none perhaps is always\nevil; and many, like mustard gas, when we have got over our first not\nvery rational objection to them, turn out to be, on the whole, good. If\nit is right for me to fight my enemy with a sword, it is right for me\nto fight him with mustard gas: if the one is wrong, so is the other.\nBut I have no sympathy whatever for Mr. Facing-both-ways when he says\nthat, though he is prepared on occasion to fight, he will not use these\nnasty new-fangled weapons. Of course I am not suggesting that we should\nviolate or prepare to violate the Washington Agreement on this subject.\nI do, however, believe that we ought to denounce it at the earliest\npossible opportunity.\n\nSuch are the facts about chemical warfare. They will not be believed\nbecause a belief in them would do violence to the sentiments of most\npeople. They will not be promulgated, as there is no money to be\nmade out of them. (Chemical manufacturers make both high explosive\nand mustard gas, and the former more easily.) The views which I have\nexpressed do not coexist in the mind of any party leader or newspaper\nproprietor, and must therefore be those of a crank. But until some\nstronger argument can be waged against them than that they are unusual\nand unpleasant, there remains the possibility that they are true.\n\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n \u2015\u2015Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n\n \u2015\u2015Punctuation and spelling inaccuracies were silently corrected.\n\n \u2015\u2015Archaic and variable spelling has been preserved.\n\n \u2015\u2015Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.","title":"Callinicus : $b A defence of chemical warfare","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10688}