User:Fabien Labeyrie/The Shock Of The Old: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= | __NOTOC__ | ||
__NOEDITSECTION__ | |||
<div style="width: 600px; font-family:Arial"> | |||
This book by David Edgerton deals with History of technology, questioning the necessity of always going further. The following notes resumes the ideas contained in the chapter called ''WAR''. | ==<span style="color:#0B0080">The Shock Of The Old: Technology and Global History since 1900</span>== | ||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
<br /> | |||
This book by David Edgerton deals with History of technology, questioning the necessity of always going further in scientific research. The following notes resumes the ideas contained in the chapter called ''WAR''. | |||
<br /> | |||
==<div style="margin-top:30px">I) An erroneous idea about military technologies</div>== | |||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
We have this idea the military relies on civilian industries. It is often said the atomic bomb has been created thanks to academic sciences. ''If we go to the great national science and industry museums of the world [...], we will find aircraft, radar and atomic bombs, but as applications to war of civilian sciences and technologies'', no rifles, tanks or artillery. | We have this idea the military relies on civilian industries. It is often said the atomic bomb has been created thanks to academic sciences. ''If we go to the great national science and industry museums of the world [...], we will find aircraft, radar and atomic bombs, but as applications to war of civilian sciences and technologies'', no rifles, tanks or artillery. | ||
It suggests great war innovations originates from the civilian domain, helping war to be quicker and more human, however it's | It suggests great war innovations originates from the civilian domain, helping war to be quicker and more human, however it's often the contrary. Most of the great inventions have been created during war time, where the government gave huge budgets to scientists, focusing the research on what they thought could help then win the battle. It was gas warfare in the First World War, radar and atomic weapons in the Second. Also ''The civil aircraft industry was just a branch of the core military industry, nuclear power was a spin-off from nuclear bombs.''. | ||
===The military is stuck in the past=== | <br /> | ||
We believe war belongs to the past and has nothing to do with enlightened sciences nor with a modern world which advocates ''democratic, industrial and free trading of nations''. | ==<div style="margin-top:30px">II) The military is stuck in the past</div>== | ||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
We believe war belongs to the past and has nothing to do with enlightened sciences nor with a modern world which advocates ''democratic, industrial and free trading of nations''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford Lewis Mumford] wrotes : "The army has usually been the refuge of third-rate minds''. This thought is extended by facts soldiers resisted to inventions. During the Great War, sailors used to dismiss the power of aviation and officers refused to accept the implementation of motorised warfare. | |||
As a result, the army spends more money on improving old materials rather than shifting to a radically new technology. | As a result, the army spends more money on improving old materials rather than shifting to a radically new technology. | ||
===Yet technologies didn't help in winning wars=== | <br /> | ||
Whereas not the main goal of a war, the killing and ''the killing of civilians became a means of victory''. Paradoxical as it is, none of the great technological inventions during war gave a hand to fulfil that purpose. The greatest killers were the ''well-established weapons'', guns and rifles such as the AK-47, the most widely used assault rifle in the world. | ==<div style="margin-top:30px">III) Yet technologies didn't help in winning wars</div>== | ||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
Whereas not the main goal of a war, the killing and ''the killing of civilians became a means of victory''. Paradoxical as it is, none of the great technological inventions during war gave a hand to fulfil that purpose. The greatest killers were the ''well-established weapons'', guns and rifles such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 AK-47], the most widely used assault rifle in the world. | |||
What made the infantry so powerful is the potential to control and confine people, making them starve to death in a barbed wired zone. Neither the poisonous gas or the air-planes have this power of control. However the weapons are refined and can shoot farer, bigger and with more accuracy, ''the casualty rate in a given period of combat fell'', because the opposition is more spread out, making it difficult to be dominated. If the ''overall level of casualties increased'', it's due to longer period of combat, thanks to daily supplies. | What made the infantry so powerful is the potential to control and confine people, making them starve to death in a barbed wired zone. Neither the poisonous gas or the air-planes have this power of control. However the weapons are refined and can shoot farer, bigger and with more accuracy, ''the casualty rate in a given period of combat fell'', because the opposition is more spread out, making it difficult to be dominated. If the ''overall level of casualties increased'', it's due to longer period of combat, thanks to daily supplies. | ||
The majority of the great battleships and the several built atomic weapons remain mostly unused. Plus there are several examples of victories against ''economic and technologically superior adversaries''. To name a few, the ''Japanese Bicycle Blitzkrieg'' in Malaya or the most widely known Vietnam war. | The majority of the great battleships and the several built atomic weapons remain mostly unused. The great [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket V2 missiles] killed more people in the building up than in their actual use ! Plus there are several examples of victories against ''economic and technologically superior adversaries''. To name a few, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Malaya ''Japanese Bicycle Blitzkrieg''] in Malaya or the most widely known [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war Vietnam war]. | ||
<br /> | |||
==<div style="margin-top:30px">IV) New technologies used as derivative purposes</div>== | |||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
Sadly, while there were tons of good reasons to believe torture would end up after the Second World War, reaching a new civilised state of society, we ''saw its extension and its technological refinement''. Sophisticated electric machines were built and used for various purposes in various occasions ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria_War Algerian War], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War Dirty Wars] in South America, etc.), often involving civilians. | |||
On the other hand, radio, mobile phones, atomic electricity, planes, cameras or internet, all of this are part of our lives today, and whether it's good or not, we owe it to the army... | |||
<br /> | |||
==<div style="margin-top:30px">Author's point of view</div>== | |||
<hr style="height:5px; margin-top:-15px; background-color:#FFF"> | |||
As a conclusion, the author describes the new technologies as coming from conservative forces, thus ''old power relations are transmitted trough new technologies''. Should we feel bad about it and think about new alternatives ? Or should we be relieved those technologies found a more humanistic purpose ? | |||
</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 6 April 2011
The Shock Of The Old: Technology and Global History since 1900
This book by David Edgerton deals with History of technology, questioning the necessity of always going further in scientific research. The following notes resumes the ideas contained in the chapter called WAR.
I) An erroneous idea about military technologies
We have this idea the military relies on civilian industries. It is often said the atomic bomb has been created thanks to academic sciences. If we go to the great national science and industry museums of the world [...], we will find aircraft, radar and atomic bombs, but as applications to war of civilian sciences and technologies, no rifles, tanks or artillery.
It suggests great war innovations originates from the civilian domain, helping war to be quicker and more human, however it's often the contrary. Most of the great inventions have been created during war time, where the government gave huge budgets to scientists, focusing the research on what they thought could help then win the battle. It was gas warfare in the First World War, radar and atomic weapons in the Second. Also The civil aircraft industry was just a branch of the core military industry, nuclear power was a spin-off from nuclear bombs..
II) The military is stuck in the past
We believe war belongs to the past and has nothing to do with enlightened sciences nor with a modern world which advocates democratic, industrial and free trading of nations. Lewis Mumford wrotes : "The army has usually been the refuge of third-rate minds. This thought is extended by facts soldiers resisted to inventions. During the Great War, sailors used to dismiss the power of aviation and officers refused to accept the implementation of motorised warfare.
As a result, the army spends more money on improving old materials rather than shifting to a radically new technology.
III) Yet technologies didn't help in winning wars
Whereas not the main goal of a war, the killing and the killing of civilians became a means of victory. Paradoxical as it is, none of the great technological inventions during war gave a hand to fulfil that purpose. The greatest killers were the well-established weapons, guns and rifles such as the AK-47, the most widely used assault rifle in the world.
What made the infantry so powerful is the potential to control and confine people, making them starve to death in a barbed wired zone. Neither the poisonous gas or the air-planes have this power of control. However the weapons are refined and can shoot farer, bigger and with more accuracy, the casualty rate in a given period of combat fell, because the opposition is more spread out, making it difficult to be dominated. If the overall level of casualties increased, it's due to longer period of combat, thanks to daily supplies.
The majority of the great battleships and the several built atomic weapons remain mostly unused. The great V2 missiles killed more people in the building up than in their actual use ! Plus there are several examples of victories against economic and technologically superior adversaries. To name a few, the Japanese Bicycle Blitzkrieg in Malaya or the most widely known Vietnam war.
IV) New technologies used as derivative purposes
Sadly, while there were tons of good reasons to believe torture would end up after the Second World War, reaching a new civilised state of society, we saw its extension and its technological refinement. Sophisticated electric machines were built and used for various purposes in various occasions (Algerian War, Dirty Wars in South America, etc.), often involving civilians.
On the other hand, radio, mobile phones, atomic electricity, planes, cameras or internet, all of this are part of our lives today, and whether it's good or not, we owe it to the army...
Author's point of view
As a conclusion, the author describes the new technologies as coming from conservative forces, thus old power relations are transmitted trough new technologies. Should we feel bad about it and think about new alternatives ? Or should we be relieved those technologies found a more humanistic purpose ?