Callinicus : $b A defence of chemical warfareHaldane, J. B. S. (John Burdon Sanderson)
Philosophy
Callinicus : $b A defence of chemical warfare
Haldane, J. B. S. (John Burdon Sanderson)
Chemical warfare; Gases, Asphyxiating and poisonous -- War use
Of course, if we could utilize the forces which we now know to exist
inside the atom, we should have such capacities for destruction that I
do not know of any agency other than divine intervention which would
save humanity from complete and peremptory annihilation. But the
remoteness of the day when we shall use these forces may best be judged
by an analogy. Some thousands of years ago someone first realized that
the sun, moon and stars were not mere bodies as large as a plate or a
house, but very large, and moving very fast. It was an obvious idea
that their motions might be exploited in some way. Wise men observed
them and hoped, for example, to increase the probability of success
in their own enterprises by beginning them when Jupiter was in the
ascendant. These attempts were unsuccessful, though far more valuable
to humanity than most of the methods successfully employed for the
same purposes, such as fraud, violence and corruption. They led to
astronomy, and so to all modern physics. We now know that the only
probable way of harnessing the kinetic energy of the heavenly bodies is
to employ tidal power to create electric currents. But five thousand
years ago “hitching one’s wagon to a star” was a reasonable project and
not a poetic metaphor. The reason we cannot do it is a simple matter
of scale. And the reason why we cannot utilize subatomic phenomena is
just the same. We cannot make apparatus small enough to disintegrate or
fuse atomic nuclei, any more than we can make it large enough to reach
to the moon. We can only bombard them with particles of which perhaps
one in a million hit, which is like firing keys at a safe-door from a
machine-gun a mile away in an attempt to open it. We do occasionally
open it, but the process is very uneconomical. It may be asked why we
cannot bring our machine-gun nearer, or improve our aim. To do this
we should require to construct apparatus on the same infinitesimal
scale as the structure of the chemical atom. Now we can arrange atoms
into various patterns. For example, we can arrange carbon, hydrogen
and oxygen atoms in patterns which constitute the molecules of sugar,
glycerine, or alcohol at will. This is called chemical synthesis. We
have been doing it by rule-of-thumb methods for thousands of years,
and are just beginning to learn a little about it. But even chemical
molecules are much too large for our purposes. We can no more ask a
chemist to build our apparatus than expect a theatrical scene-painter
or a landscape-gardener to do us a miniature. We know very little about
the structure of the atom and almost nothing about how to modify it.
And the prospect of constructing such an apparatus seems to me to be
so remote that, when some successor of mine is lecturing to a party
spending a holiday on the moon, it will still be an unsolved (though
not, I think, an ultimately insoluble) problem.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account