• In our lifetime, why have new weapons developed at such a frightening rate?

• Why have some weapons been adopted while others have languished?

• How have social and cultural conditions stimulated the development and use of some weapons but not others?

• As humans, we develop new weapons to gain the upper hand against our enemies

• We act, others react, we react to their actions….

This pattern is constant throughout history

Knight à longbow

Castle à cannons

Machine gun à armored tanks

• Weapons are used for offensive and defensive positions

Social Structures and the Development of Military Technologies

• Weapons are not developed and put into service simply because of their intrinsic superiority

• Social, cultural, and individual motivations influence the emergence of new weaponry

"A new device merely opens a door; it does not compel one to enter."

Lynn White (229)

• Military technology is part of a larger system of values and beliefs. New weapons are nec. Better

The longbow à replaced by firearms, BUT

1. Initially, the longbow was as effective as musket, if not more effective
2. Arrow could penetrate armor as easily as bullet
3. Longbow not affected by rain like musket was
4. Longbow wouldn’t misfire
5. BUT, for longbow to be effective, one had to be a skilled bowman
6. Rifles required far less skill, didn’t have to be a master archer
7. Rifles more terrifying…BANG!…than the silent arrowà gave feeling of power
8. Guns are also symbol of male virility and potency

• When military technology fits into the existing mode of operation it is very likely to embraced

Germany lacked professional army like England and enlisted unskilled men for battle

Machine gun required less skill and thus became favored because of the

Practical concern with training unskilled troops

Firepower of gun made up for deficiency in troops

Germany, in WWI, became a terrifying foe because of machine gun

• France and England were slow to realize how war was transformed by the machine gun

They suffered greatly in battle because of their resistance to change

Organizational Interest and The Air Weapon

• Often, plain old-fashioned competition

Airplanes à Bombers – seen as the end of traditional warfare

Massive airstrikes could break an enemy’s will to fight

These beliefs were largely untrue in practice

• The unwarranted faith in airpower is similar to that of resisting new weaponry

• We resist new weapons or cling to current weapons, despite the evidence that they are ineffective

Social Revolution and The Enlargement of War

"Technologies are shaped by the societies in which they develop, and they reflect the culture, distribution of power, and economic, organizational, and social relationships." (234)

• Social and political factors not only influence how wars are fought but also

The very nature of wars

18^th century à wars were limited. Fought for a King’s whim rather than for the country

war fought by professional soldiers isolated from rest of society

Also, enlightenment reasoning limited the extent of wars

(unlike the passionate Catholic/Protestant wars of earlier times)

Democracy changed all this

French Revolution à citizens no longer passive subjects of the king

Warfare involved a newly emergent citizenry

The days of restrained, limited warfare were finished

• This new political climate made the reception of new weaponry possible

Industrial Technology in the Service of War

• Until 19^th century, military technology developed slowly, usually through trial and error

• During 19^th century, most improvements came with little support from central gov’ts.

Individuals made weaponry and sold products to armies, navies and individuals

• By 20^th century, gov’ts were no longer willing to sit as passive consumers

They began to develop private weaponry firms

• The Industrial Revolution made the mass development of weaponry possible

Individual craftsmen could never have produced mass quantities

• Thus, in a sense, mass production allowed for mass armies to go into battle

Large armies had large logistical problems

Movements must be coordinated

• Again other technologies made large armies possible

Steam engine à transport troops

Medical advances à keep troops healthy

This century à military technology developed faster than ever before

How do we advance but not destroy ourselves in the process?

Historical Attempts to Limit New Weapons

Efforts to limit new weapons is not new

Leonardo da Vinci kept secret the details of a submarine he designed,

"on account of the evil nature of men who would practice assassinations

at the bottom of the seas by breaking the ships to their lowest parts and

sinking them together with the crews who are in them." (240)

A Successful Example of Arms Control

1899 à delegates from 26 nations (at the Hague in the Netherlands) banned the use of asphyxiating gas, dumdum bullets (which exploded inside body), and placed 5 year moratorium on aerial bombardment.

• Such resolutions, however, have no way of ensuring compliance

• A combatant may refrain from using a weapon if he is certain that his opponent will use it

Poison Gas à not used for this reason

Fear of retaliation

Gun Control in Old Japan

16^th Century à European traders introduce firearms

quickly became dominant weapon on Japanese battlefields

began to disappear in the 17^th century à cultural and political reasons for disappearance

Japanese culture deeply infused with martial ethic à Warriors = nobility

Military virtues of strength and courage à guns didn’t fit this

Since Japanese were not threatened by foreign armies, it could shut out new technology

Only in 19^th century did foreigners threaten Japan’s stability

"A superior military technology in not always destined to be universally accepted." (242-3)

Both civilian and military, nation against nation agree à

A nuclear war is undesirable (to say the least!!!)

• Nations don’t have to like each other to make arms treaties

Merely, the fear of unbridled military power needs to be present

Deterrence, But No More

• Cold War tensions between U.S. and Soviet Union kept in check by MAD à

Mutually Assured Destruction

Both nations could ruin each other with nuclear weaponry

• Although the Cold War is over, U.S. defense policy still rests on this principle

• BUT, in order for MAD to be a genuine threat, the weapon must be viable,

i.e. it must have immediate potential for use

• This is very problematic because mistakes can be made, weapon can be used accidentally

• An effective deterrent requires the capacity to retaliate quickly and decisively

• If one country has the ability to destroy an enemies retaliatory forces in a first air strike, deterrence is lost

• The vulnerability to a first air strike is a dangerous incentive for a nation to mount an attack on an enemy before damage is suffered

• Successful arms control agreements must take into account the technological level of the respective military forces

"The negotiation of arms control agreements takes time, and the development of technology can rn ahead of the ability of arms control negotiators to come up with effective means of identifying, counting, and limiting weapons." (245)

The Perils of Proliferation

Nuclear capabilities of Superpowers is important, BUT

Perhaps a greater threat are the capabilities of smaller, terrorist nations

"No issue confronting humanity is more important than preventing a nuclear war, and yet nothing is harder than controlling a dangerous arms race."

Some say arms race is inevitable as long as Nation-States are the final power

Under this premise, the only power that could establish true arms control would

Be an International government. This is unlikely to happen any time soom

"Nuclear weapons have created the possibility for unimaginable horrors, but at the same time they provide the best reason to solve our differences in a more intelligent manner than often has been the case for much of human history." (247)