I had
only heard bad things about Max Boot before I read this book, but I have gotta
say that I was impressed. This is a very comprehensive history of the major technological
advances in warfare over the last five hundred years and I learned a lot. It’s written
very well. There are four large sections covering The Gunpowder Revolution, The
First Industrial Revolution, The Second Industrial Revolution, and the
Information Revolution. Each section is divided into three chapters, with each
chapter focusing on a major battle, such as the attack of the Spanish Armada,
the Battle of Tsushima, or Operation Desert Storm. Then, each section ends with
a summary of the major changes to warfare. It’s great. Boot stresses that the most
important technologies are not just those that deliver death to the enemy in
the most efficient way, but also those that aid in transportation and
information gathering/organization. Beyond that, he stresses that simply having
the best technology is not enough- a state or a non-state actor needs to learn the
best way of using that technology. Many times, a technology not used to its
fullest potential is useless against an inferior technology that is.
An important
moral dilemma that comes up in the last two sections of the book is what to do
with civilians. In World War 2, it had become the norm to use strategic bombing
against civilian populations, such as the Battle of London, the Bombing of
Dresden, and the Firebombing of Tokyo. Today, however, that is considered cruel
and the United States seeks to avoid civilian casualties. I think that part of it
is the type of wars the USA chooses to fight, which are not existential battles,
but small, imperialistic operations against weak enemies in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The author points out that in Iraq, “the coalition paid a price
for the precise application of firepower made possible by the advent of “smart”
munitions. Not having seen their cities turned intro rubble, Iraqis were much
less ready than Germans or Japanese to accept foreign occupation. I think that
war is evil, and in a twisted way of trying to mitigate its evil, the USA
attempts to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. However, that means
likely losing the war. Killing innocent people is a staple of war and is the way
that many countries have won wars throughout history- by inflicting unjust and
evil suffering on people who do not deserve it. Therefore, policymakers should
rethink why they want to use war to achieve their political ends. If they are
not willing to pay the price (losing any claim to their morality) they should
not go to war. If they must go to war, they should not hold back and commit the
evil acts. The half-measures the United States has taken end up just as bad
because they draw war out into years-long fights, killing more civilians in
total.
Boot
writes that, “the nature of war will always be determined by the interaction between
warriors and their tools, not by the tools alone.” He points out that, “The way
to gain a military advantage, therefore, is not necessarily to be the first to
produce a new tool or weapon. Often it is to figure out better than anyone else
how to utilize a widely available tool or weapon.” Those two statements sum up
what seems like the main point of the book. Developing new technology is
important, but even more so is being creative and thinking of the best ways to
use it. Many inventors fail to market their ideas and die poor while many
businessmen never invent anything but become rich from figuring out the best
use of a new invention. So it goes with the military. It is crucial to plan for
the next war and determine how to win battles and wars using new technology,
not just to invent it. In that, the human element will continue to be the most
important.
Miscellaneous Facts:
- Syphilis was first spread to Italy during a French invasion in 1494, and now French call it the Italian Disease and Italians call it the French Disease.
- In World War Two, Ford Motors produces more army equipment alone than did Italy.
- During Operation Desert Storm, American men ages 20-30 were statistically safer fighting in Desert Storm than at home in the USA.
- The US Air Force has not produced an “ace” (a pilot with five or more aerial kills) since 1972, which shows how little dogfighting happens in modern warfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment