See other Editorial Articles
Title: Don't Fire Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 26, 2007
Author: Tony Long is copy chief at Wired News.
Post Date: 2007-04-26 20:14:34 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 231
Comments: 7
Don't Fire Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes 04.26.07 | 2:00 AM "War, which used to be cruel and magnificent, has now become cruel and squalid." Winston Churchill wrote those words in 1930, in the aftermath of the First World War, which, from a purely technological standpoint, rivals any war in history for both cruelty and squalidness. (The rest of Churchill's famous passage goes: "Instead of a small number of well-trained professionals championing their country's cause with ancient weapons and a beautiful intricacy of archaic maneuver, sustained at every moment by the applause of their nation, we now have entire populations, including even women and children, pitted against one another in brutish mutual extermination, and only a set of bleary-eyed clerks left to add up the butcher's bill.") The advent of the submarine, the tank, the machine gun and the airplane -- especially the airplane -- made the concept of total war inevitable. Churchill the romantic loathed these weapons, but Churchill the pragmatist eagerly embraced them. If he was a paradox, it was because he straddled a period of military history changed more profoundly by advancing technology than any other. It's worth remembering that Churchill came of age when the cavalry charge was still a valid tactic for breaching the enemy's defenses and he didn't leave the world stage until Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been vaporized and atomic weaponry was a well-established fact. You might be tempted to wonder what ennobles the lance or the mace or the broadsword, but I take Churchill's point. The science of killing is a ghastly business, but if you're going to do it there's something to be said for having to face your enemy on the battlefield and watch him die by your hand. The ability to kill a man without touching him, or even seeing him, reduces the act to an abstract concept. That, in turn, inures us to the actual suffering we cause through waging high-tech warfare, allowing us to use, without irony, phrases like "collateral damage" and "normal wastage" in reference to combatants and noncombatants alike. No, war is not boxing and the civilities of the Marquess of Queensbury rules don't apply. The object is survival, and, tangentially, victory. But if killing a man with a weapon wielded by hand is immoral, then killing him in a detached fashion, from 40,000 feet up or 200 miles away, is utterly amoral. And the man who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, or doesn't have to, is the most dangerous animal in the human jungle. This is the jungle we inhabit today. This is where military technology and the inherent weaknesses of human beings have brought us. It would be naïve, even stupid, to think that we can go back to the idealized Churchillian battlefield. We can't. The toothpaste is out of the tube, we've crossed the Rubicon, there's no crying over spilt milk -- pick your cliché. The fact is there's only one way to go and that's forward. And in going forward there is only one solution. War itself must be made obsolete and that means eliminating the reasons men wage war: nationalism, religion, greed. But it will never happen, not in my lifetime or in yours, because that means 1.) abandoning the concept of the nation-state 2.) abolishing all religion 3.) replacing stock-market, corporate capitalism with universal socialism. It requires nothing less than a reinvention of the human condition. Imagine. Hell will freeze first and, given the reality of global warming, that's not likely to happen, either. So we're doomed. We will continue inventing exquisite new ways of killing each other, and justifying the need to do so, until we succeed in destroying everything. Which, in the name of somebody's god or somebody's country or somebody's way of life, we will. You have a nice day, now.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, diana, zipporah, christine, robin, red jones, tommythemadartist, indrid cold, horse, arator, arete (#0)
ping
Which, in the name of somebody's god or somebody's country or somebody's way of life, we will. One hell of a post - thanks.
Mmmm not quite that simple but with a lot of touching up...... 1. Abolishing religion is impossible and infringes on a natural right. 2. Abolishing the nation-state. The boundaries of Nation-states usually are formed, and contain, common cultures which are most heavily delineated and defined by LANGUAGE, not religion. Remove the boundaries and you will have choas. People want to be with whom they desire. 3. Replacing predatory CorporoFascism [my term] sounds like a great idea. Universal socialism not such a good idea unless it is limited. There are many things that could be socialized for the benefit of all without infringing on personal freedom, some of which could be energy use by indidivuals and families in single family residences and apartments [free], water utilities and several others. Something to think about and one could probably write a book on it, with tons of pros and cons of different aspects of society that could be socialized and nobody would ever reach a consensus. In general, Socialism removes way too many personal natural rights and freedoms. There would be a revolution before this ever happens. Just some thoughts. Socialist Fascism is as bad or worse than what we have now...remember that. Always good to throw ideas around though. It's called brainstorming :) p.s. It's going to take supernatural help to stop war..Man will never do it alone...ever...not without a massive dictatorial force. And we know what happens when anyone or anything gets that much power. READ "1984."
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Agreeded indeed. And not getting bent all out of shape if someones has a differing view, or cussing at the and calling them names.
Very intriguing post. But I agree his idealistic solutions to preventing war won't work. Nationalistic Socialism can breed war as easily as other economic/government systems. The problem is one of a natural desire for power. No matter how much you're taking advantage of your neighbors, there's always room for more for their own good and the "good of the children". That's why the USA "cares" so much about the middle east to have troops, navies, and bases there. Always one more right that can be rationally stripped from people by intrusive governments, which is why more phone tapping and "no fly lists" are justified. Maybe the most on point response to the above was made by Jefferson. "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants, and of patriots". (My paraphrase).
But the answer to that is obvious. Unlike tanks, machine guns, aircraft, and submarines, the lance, the mace, and the broadsword were personal not just in the use, but in the making. They were the work of artisans, of craftsmen. Impersonal mass destruction immediately follows from impersonal mass production.
Professors are equally good at gussying up their own self-interest. Even as they may decry the dumbing down of their classes because of legacies and athletes, at many schools their own children benefit greatly from preferential treatment. It is a remarkable perk, for not only do they get the same kind of admissions breaks received by other preferred groups, they also receive generous scholarships. Faculty members insist that this favored handling is vital to the institutional culture.
Possibly nanotech + abolition of patents. Much production might return to a more craftman-like affair.
Professors are equally good at gussying up their own self-interest. Even as they may decry the dumbing down of their classes because of legacies and athletes, at many schools their own children benefit greatly from preferential treatment. It is a remarkable perk, for not only do they get the same kind of admissions breaks received by other preferred groups, they also receive generous scholarships. Faculty members insist that this favored handling is vital to the institutional culture.
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
#2. To: tom007 (#0)
So we're doomed. We will continue inventing exquisite new ways of killing each other, and justifying the need to do so, until we succeed in destroying everything.
#3. To: tom007 (#0)
(Edited)
that means 1.) abandoning the concept of the nation-state 2.) abolishing all religion 3.) replacing stock-market, corporate capitalism with universal socialism. It requires nothing less than a reinvention of the human condition. Imagine.
#4. To: IndieTX (#3)
Always good to throw ideas around though. It's called brainstorming :)
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
#5. To: IndieTX (#3)
Mmmm not quite that simple but with a lot of touching up......
#6. To: tom007 (#0)
You might be tempted to wonder what ennobles the lance or the mace or the broadsword
#7. To: tom007 (#0)
And in going forward there is only one solution.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest