194 



DISCOVERY 



our blockade began to tighten. She boldly broke inter- 

 national rules again and started to hit below the belt — 

 in the mind of our humanitarians. But to the writer 

 of this book, war is a game in which there is no belt 

 under which one may not hit. There is, indeed, to him, a 

 great risk of submitting the tactical to the ethical in war. 



This is the moral which the writer draws now that, as 

 he claims, in the Services, Tradition is rising again from 

 her ashes — in spite of the stride of new ideas everywhere 

 else. He sketches new methods of war which will compel 

 nations to throw up their hands and make peace within 

 a few days, possibly a few hours, of war being declared. 



He says that 1914 saw the last lap of the physical 

 epoch of war ; and that " now begins the first lap of the 

 moral epoch." 



Firstly he urges the use of gas. It is to be a universal 

 weapon employed by all arms. One of his strongest 

 arguments for gas is the enthusiasm with which most 

 people are agreed to execrate its horrors. The use of 

 gas has been described as " one of the most bestial 

 episodes of the war — the very negation of civilisation." 



But Colonel Fuller regards it, properly used, as the 

 weapon of the future, because it is easy and cheap to 

 manufacture ; because it economises lives on the battle- 

 field ; because the gas of which he is thinking incapacitates 

 without killing ; and because it does not injure property. 

 For he is not thinking mainly of toxic gases. He does 

 not regard killing as the object of war. Conceivably it 

 might be necessary sometimes to use toxic gases. Even 

 so, is toxic gas so inhumane as " the weedlings " assert ? 



The American General Staff have categorised their 

 casualties. Twenty-seven per cent, were due to gas, 

 and 2 per cent, of the gas casualties were fatal. He 

 concludes with them that gas is twelve times as humane 

 as bullets and high explosives. But he urges mainly 

 the use of smoke and gas, which can put troops or civilians 

 temporarily out of action. 



He urges the closest sympathy between soldiers and 

 scientists, and continuous research on gas warfare- 

 .\llowing for another big war in 1972, he considers that 

 we should have soldiers who can pit brains against beef, 

 and by science, on the roughly indicated analog^' of gas, 

 win a battle in " a day without a night." 



Secondly, in the same spirit he advises the use of 

 " General Tank." His tank will move forward in front 

 of the infantry. It will ofter a small target, and be 

 gas-tight and bullet-proof. It will make twenty miles 

 per hour. It will be invaluable in small wars, e.g. in a 

 move from Pesshawur on Cabul. It will put gunnery 

 out of date. Gunners against tanks will have to lay over 

 the open sight and in respirators ; for the tanks may 

 bring up gas. 



There will be swimming tanks, too, and tanks that can 

 be carried in submarines ; for wars in future on land and 

 sea will be waged by machine power rather than by man 

 power, though the writer wisely allows the value of the 

 blare, the thunder, and the flash of cavalry in open 

 warfare. He does not expect again the long war of 

 attrition, in which cavalry has no chance. 



Thirdly, he has downright views on aerial warfare. 



He regards sea-fighting as a prodigal method of war. 

 He can picture a fleet of capital ships put out of action 

 from the air by smoke, and toxic or non-toxic gas. In 

 the future fleets will consist only of submarines or . 

 aeroplanes. The latter will move by hundreds, carrying 

 thousands of bombs and bombing capital cities and other 

 vital centres. 



The airship will be useful for the carriage of supplies, 

 as it is too slow and has too low a ceiling to come into 

 action. It will be a mobile aerodrome for planes, which 

 will attack at a great height and then swoop down and 

 traverse with machine-gun fire bodies of enemv troops 

 from van to rear, or open tanks of vesicant chemical, 

 which will paralyse the traditional soldier. 



Many critics will rush violently down to attack the 

 gallant author, whose ideas are too fantastic and far- 

 fetched for the man who after the Armistice exclaimed : 

 " Now, thank God ! we shall be able to get back to real 

 soldiering." 



The idea of the book may be fantastic ; it may seem 

 the creation of the pseudo-scientific novelist rather than 

 of the practical soldier. But the author admits that he 

 only adumbrates the lines on which future wars will be 

 fought, and regards his work only as a stimulus to pro- 

 gressive thought. He does not tie himself to any cast- 

 iron principle or practice. 



His book will cheer up the civiHan, particularly the 

 politician, for whom it holds a promise of war that is 

 cheap as well as humane. 



The book is of great interest, but open to a great 

 amount of criticism. Two criticisms especially strike the 

 reviewer. Firstly, it begs the question that the role of 

 war is to keep men alive. On this premise rest all the 

 conclusions. But the philosopher, or any practical man, 

 whatever his scientific bent, will find it hard to reconcile 

 this premise with life, as we know it. The premise may 

 be excellent humanity, but it is very poor science. You 

 cannot draw an abrupt line between man and other 

 animals, and deny, for instance, the common laws of life, 

 and the instincts of pugnacity, fear, and acquisition, which 

 make nations periodically spoil for a fight, in which blood 

 must be let. 



Secondly, if war could be fought and won in a couple 

 of days, in a couple of weeks, or in a couple of months, 

 could it be claimed that such a war had been fought " to' 

 a finish " ? Would not your foe feel that he was beaten 

 because his opponent had taken advantage of him by a 

 sudden scientific trick ? Life would be volcanic and 

 precarious indeed with such methods of war, for one 

 would be substituting endless rounds rapid for one con- 

 tinuous and conclusive bout. 



MEASURING A NATIONS INTELLIGENCE 

 A Study of American Intelligence. By Carl C. Brig- 

 H.'^M, Ph.D. A Foreword by Robert M. Yerkes, 

 Ph.D. (Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 

 165.) 

 In a play by Mr. Israel Zangwill which met with con- 

 siderable success when it was produced, some years ago, 

 America was pictured as a " melting-pot," wherein all 



