The progression of technology through the past two centuries has been undeniably remarkable. Over the last 150 years, with the inventions from the Industrial Revolution, and modern technological cornerstones like the computer, television, and cell phone, society has undergone significant transformation. Amidst all of this growth, however, technology’s original and most fundamental purpose, to promote and facilitate the progression and evolution of civilization, seems to have often been forgotten.
To accommodate World War I, war technology was revolutionized in the beginning of the 20th century. Casualties skyrocketed to approximately 3,880,500 with the invention of blimps, trench warfare, armored tanks, machine guns, mustard gas and submarine warfare. World War I is commonly known as a war of attrition- a term referring to the victory of whichever power can sustain more casualties. Later, in World War II, the arms race greatly escalated with the detonation of two atomic bombs. Then, during the guerilla war in Vietnam, military tactics acclimated to new levels of vulgarity with the use of napalm (flesh burning gas) and carpet-bombing. Since these wars, war technology has progressed yet further, or, as the case may be, regressed to unprecedented levels of barbarism and destruction.
As society modernizes, we continue to gain more knowledge, and typically, we are able to refine our technology. The more we advance technologically, however, the more destructive and harmful war becomes. . New technology has also caused a moralistic regression, because it has removed us from the destruction we cause and the totality of this destruction. As technology facilitates our isolation from one another and from the violence of war, it enables us to discount the humanity in the enemy. To lose the ability to recognize humanity is to approach thoughtless, unlimited warfare.
We often associate this potentially conscienceless destruction with uncivilized peoples. We consider cavemen primitive for their inability to aptly communicate and their “kill or be killed” survival mentality, yet we hardly practice the civilized manner that many preach of avoiding violence at all costs. We ostracize murderers from our individual societies and contest the death sentence yet we commemorate those who murder the “enemy.” Isn’t this counter-intuitive? The work of geniuses such as Einstein is abused when used to enact mass destruction. Mass murder through brute force hardly reflects the establishment and modernization of a 21st century world power.
While I admit that it is impossible, and in most cases, unfavorable, to limit the progression of science and technology, it isn’t entirely unthinkable to look for reform in military strategy and interactions between nations. Organizations such as the League of Nations and the UN were created to diminish violence and unnecessary murder; how, then, we can define necessary murder? Is violence ever imperative? It’s discouraging to think that with all of our education and professed civility, we can determine that attrition may be the most effective method of solving a dispute. Based on precedent, violence has, admittedly, been used to incite change but is it ever the only way? Is violence ever an acceptable method of enforcing the will of a nation? If so, when?
Though these questions have been contemplated for years, concrete answers have not yet been found and, to regale these questions on the morality of war was not the intention of this article—I trust that you have considered and discussed them before. My point was to link these age-old questions to my original thesis on technology; while we may not be able to concretely condemn or advocate for war, we can potentially limit our capability for excessive destruction. We need to assume responsibility for our actions and, as the violence involved in our wars is forever disputed, we need to emplace a buffer for potential mistakes.
Murder is irreversible whether or not it is done for a noble cause, so let us consider the overarching effects of technological warfare. Upon fair, logical contemplation, the images of extensive violence, skin-melting napalm, explosive atomic bombs and disabling mustard gas descending on the citizens of any nation certainly seems barbaric. We must not allow ourselves to be emotionally removed from the destruction done under our country’s name- under our name. Instead, we should play an active part in determining the acceptable use of majorly destructive, irreversibly damaging weapons. When we can recognize and clearly define the correct and incorrect use of large-scale weaponry, then and only then can we justly identify as civilized and responsible members of a global community.
By Jess Lebow
Class of 2011
