CAN WAR BE HUMANISED?

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14769, 7 October 1921, Page 4

CAN WAR BE HUMANISED?

War in its future naked possibilities threatens to decimate lives and the countryside without parallel in experience and history, and though every human instinct revolts at, life thought of the full use of science in Hie destruction of life, there is nevertheless little reasonable doubt of tho application of every modern invention to that end (says Hie Gtago Daily Times). Field-Marshal Wilson stales that Major Lc Fchurc makes it clear in his new book on “Chemical Strategy in Peace and War” that "no convention guarantee or disarmament safeguard will prevent an unscrupulous enemy from employing poison gas.” If the cablegram on the subject, which wc published yesterday, (airly indicates the probabilities in connection with the use of gas, the future of war is Hie world's most serious menace. Disease and the ills which afflict mankind may be conquered because science is united in the atlcmpt to overcome them, but for Ihc purposes of war certain scientists will vie wijh each other in the invention of the deadliest compounds for destroying iife. Field-Marshal Wilson expresses no opinion regarding Ihc use of poison gas by Britain or the possibility of an enemy using it, hut lie is “convinced that a decision reached without full knowledge of the facts may involve grave danger and a heavy, preventable loss of life.” In oilier words, it is apparent that Ihe Field-Marshal feels fairly certain that gas will be used, and as a tactic of offence and defence Britain must know all there is to he known about its use in war. In ancient struggles there was scope for individual heroism and chivalry, but in modern war there promises to he little that' is not diabolical. Innocents, in the persons of non-combatants, will suffer equally with the armies, for poison gas will be merely one of the weapons used. Long-range guns will shatter cities, and powerful bombs will destroy villages. Tanks have made roads almost unnecessary for (he advancing armies, and the instruments of destruction continue to improve and multiply. The plain, unvarnished fact is that war cannot he humanised, because success depends on the greatest possible destruction of human lives by any means. If Hie nations cannot agree to adjust international differences by an appeal to reason, there remains hut one source of safety for Ihc great human family—the fear of defeat for victor and vanquished, “The victor in the next great war,” says an English writer of recognised vision, “will be bombed from Hie air, starved, and depleted almost as much as the loser. Ills victory will be no easy one; it will be a triumph of the exhausted and dying over the dead.” II is not a pleasing prospect, but judging from some experiences in the European conflict and the subsequent development of inventive genius, it has within it more Ilian the clement of probability. Therefore, if war on the modern principle means disaster to all who appeal to its arbitrament, then there may be hope for the triumph of reason. Apart altogether from the sacrifice of life during such a war, there is Hie aftermath to he ennsidcrcd. II will he some time yet before the world fully recovers from the last great conflict and Hie last echoes of revolution have died away. War’s aftermath is not Ihc least serious of its dangers, but any attempt to humanise actual warfare appears more than futile, and those who sentimentalise on the prospect of such a change are doomed to bitter disappointment.