- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Ships from: Chatham, NJ
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Ranging from the tumbling walls of Jericho to the modern advent of total war in which no person-child or civilian-is exempt from the horrors of combat, he shows how the martial instinct has evolved over the human generations, and among our closest primate relative, the chimpanzee.
Dyer shows conclusively that the underlying purpose of war has remained unchanged: an act of mass violence is applied against an opponent so that the vanquished will submit to the will of the conqueror. The primary changes have been technological, permitting us to make war so deadly that were total war to break out among the great powers, a million people would be dead before worldwide media could even report on the conflict.
While squarely confronting the reality of war, the threat of nuclear weapons, and the constant specter of terrorism, Dyer does not despair that war is our eternal legacy. Displaying respect for soldiers and the job they do, he breaks down the physics and psychology of battles.
Yet, the probing questions he explores prove he is no war junkie. Will open access to the channels of mass communication create enough shared values that humanity can move beyond warfare? Is the threat of terrorism a red herring serving to preserve the military status quo? Can our traditional military and administrative hierarchies contribute to conflict resolution? Within the answers to these questions, Dyer finds hope-real hope-that war, like slavery, is an institution that can be abolished.
Abundantly illustrated, from paintings found in the Egyptian pyramids to searing photographs from today's news magazines, War is an unput-downable account of mankind's most destructive tradition.
The Nature of the Beast
If the bombardment [of London by V-bombs] really becomes a serious nuisance and great rockets with far-reaching and devastating effect fall on many centres . . . I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population would be requiring constant medical attention.
--Winston Churchill to the Chiefs of Staff Committee, July 1944
The rain of large sparks, blowing down the street, were each as large as a five-mark piece. I struggled to run against the wind but could only reach a house on the corner of the Sorbenstrasse. . . . [We] couldn't go on across the Eiffestrasse because the asphalt road had melted. There were people on the roadway, some already dead, some still lying alive but stuck in the asphalt. They must have rushed onto the roadway without thinking. Their feet had got stuck and then they had put out their hands to try to get out again. They were on their hands and knees screaming.
--Kate Hoffmeister, then nineteen, on the firestorm in Hamburg in 19431
The conclusion was getting hard to avoid even before the advent of nuclear weapons: the game of war is up, and we are going to have tochange the rules if we are to survive. The brief, one-sided campaigns of well-armed Western countries against dysfunctional Third World autocracies kill in the tens of thousands, and the genocidal ethnic conflicts of fragile post-colonial states are local tragedies, but during the last two years of World War II, over one million people were being killed each month. If the great powers were to go to war with one another just once more, using all the weapons they now have, a million people could die each minute. They have no current intention of doing that, but so long as the old structures survive, Big War is not dead. It is just on holiday.
It is technology that has invalidated all our assumptions about the way we run our world, but the easiest and worst mistake we could make would be to blame our current dilemma on the mere technology of war. Napalm, nerve gas, and nuclear weapons were not dropped into our laps by some malevolent god; we put a great deal of effort into inventing and producing them because we intended to fight wars with them.
A lot of people know that seventy thousand died at Hiroshima, but few people know that two hundred and twenty-five thousand died in Tokyo, as a result of only two raids with conventional bombs. I was a bomber pilot a long time ago. I bombed Hamburg. Seventy thousand people died there when the air caught fire. Eighty thousand or so died at Dresden. And if you want to talk about numbers, one hundred and twenty-three thousand died at Iwo Jima . . . and so the problem is war, not nuclear war.
--Man in the street in Washington, D.C.
The essential soldier remains the same. Whether he was handling a sling-shot weapon on Hadrian's Wall or whether he's in a main battle tank today, he is essentially the same.
--Gen. Sir John Hackett
The soldier was one of the first inventions of civilization, and he has changed remarkably little over the five thousand years or so that real armies have existed. The teenage Iranian volunteers stumbling across minefields east of Basra in 1984 or the doomed British battalions going over the top in the July Drive on the Somme in 1916 were taking part in the same act of sacrifice and slaughter that destroyed the young men of Rome at Cannae in 216 bc. The emotions, the odds, and the outcome were fundamentally the same. Battle, the central act of civilized warfare, is a unique event in which ordinary men willingly kill and die as though those extraordinary actions were normal and acceptable. Changes in weapons and tactics have not altered those essential elements of its character.
However, the consequences of war can and do change. Force is the ultimate argument, and once it has been invoked, the only effective reply is superior force. The internal logic of war has frequently caused it to grow far bigger in scale than the importance of the issue originally at dispute would justify. In our time, the likely consequences of major war have grown drastically and irreversibly, so that they potentially include the destruction of the entire human habitat. Yet modern soldiers do not behave any more ruthlessly than their ancestors.
The residents of Dresden and Hiroshima in 1945 suffered no worse fate than the citizens of Babylon in 680 bc, when the city fell to Sennacherib of Assyria, who boasted: "I levelled the city and its houses from the foundations to the top, I destroyed them, and I consumed them with fire. I tore down and removed the outer and inner walls, the temples and ziggurats built of brick, and dumped the rubble in the Arahtu canal. And after I destroyed Babylon, smashed its gods and massacred its population, I tore up its soil and threw it into the Euphrates so that it was carried by the river down to the sea."2 It was a more labour-intensive method of destruction than nuclear weapons, but the effect (at least for an individual city) was about the same.
Most of the major cities of antiquity sooner or later met a fate similar to Babylon's--some of them many times--when the fortunes of war eventually left them exposed to their enemies. The difference between ancient military commanders and those who control the ultimate weapons of today (apart from a strikingly different approach to public relations) is more in the technologies and resources at their disposal than in their basic approach to the job. Soldiers often prefer to cloak the harsh realities of their trade in idealism or sentimentality, as much to protect themselves from the truth as to hide it from the rest of us, but at the professional level they have never lost sight of the fact that the key to military success is cost-effective killing. The relentless search for efficiency in killing that ultimately led to the development of nuclear weapons was just as methodical when the only means of introducing lethal bits of metal into an enemy's body was by muscle power. Consider the following instructions on the use of a sword in a Roman army training manual:
A slash cut rarely kills, however powerfully delivered, because the vitals are protected by the enemy's weapons, and also by his bones. A thrust going in two inches, however, can be mortal. You must penetrate the vitals to kill a man. Moreover, when a man is slashing, the right arm and side are left exposed. When thrusting, however, the body is covered, and the enemy is wounded before he realises what has happened. So this method of fighting is especially favoured by the Romans.
Excerpted from War by Gwynne Dyer Copyright © 2005 by Gwynne Dyer. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
|1||The Nature of the Beast||3|
|2||Anybody's Son Will Do||29|
|3||The Roots of War: Rousseau, Darwin and Hobbes||63|
|4||The Rise of Battle||99|
|5||The Middle Passage||147|
|6||The Road to Mass Warfare||203|
|7||Reductio ad Absurdum: Total War||241|
|8||A Short History of Nuclear War, 1945-90||287|
|9||Keeping the Old Game Alive||347|
|10||Guerrillas and Terrorists||389|
|11||The End of War||417|
Posted September 23, 2005
This is an awesome indictment of civilization and a reasoned plea for good judgment. It is a book that should be read by all students of history, it is a book that should be required reading at our military academies, it is a book that should be read by all those in a military command structure, it is a book that should be read by all senators and representatives, it is a book that should be read by all in the Department of Defense, and, above all, it is a book that should be read by the chickenhawk neocons who have never served a day in the uniform of their country. Anyone who writes about imperialism in the future should know this book as it puts a different slant on the way nations act. I cannot recommend this book too highly.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.