Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and FutureFyfe, Herbert C.
History
Submarine Warfare, Past, Present, and Future
Fyfe, Herbert C.
Submarine warfare
As to the “inhumanity” of the submarine vessel, Mr. Nordenfelt, it may
be noted, would not admit that there was anything especially cruel or
horrible in the idea of a diving torpedo boat. War altogether was cruel
and horrible, and caused an enormous amount of pain and suffering, but
any invention which tended to shorten a war or to protect common or
private property during war would really diminish this suffering on the
whole. Humanitarians had urged that there was something especially cruel
in the secrecy of the submarine boat, but the whole tendency of war had,
he pointed out, moved in this direction ever since the days of old, when
Hector and Achilles advanced in front of their respective followers and
spent half an hour in abusing their adversary’s parents and ancestors
before they commenced to fight.
[Illustration:
EMERGING TO TAKE BEARINGS.
]
The whole object of modern warfare is to keep the enemy ignorant of your
whereabouts and your actions, and to mislead him whenever possible, and
for this reason smokeless powder, torpedoes, disappearing guns, &c.,
have come into use, false attacks are considered admissible, and every
advantage is taken of cover and entrenchments. The only “cover” possible
in naval warfare is beneath the waves, and it is difficult to see any
greater inhumanity in submarine than in military mining, which certainly
dates from very early times. If it is lawful to sap and mine before a
fortified town, and to blow up an army as it marches unsuspectingly over
“mined” ground, it is surely permissible to send ships sky-high by mines
and to sink them by torpedoes.
Mr. A. F. Yarrow has remarked that it seemed strange that an
artilleryman behind ten or twenty feet of earthwork, hurling explosive
shells at an almost unseen foe, should be held as fighting fairly, while
in the case of the torpedoist, who has the pluck to accompany his
missile to within a short distance of his enemy, it should be considered
an unfair mode of attack.
Yet so it is, and we find in a recent number of the _Engineer_[1] that
submarine warfare is placed on a par with guerilla warfare and
train-wrecking. “The torpedoing of a single German ironclad by a
submarine would almost certainly be followed by a refusal to recognise
submarines as belligerents.”
Footnote 1:
_Engineer_, October 1, 1901.
The question of the laws and usages of civilised warfare has been the
subject of many books and articles, and conferences have been called to
endeavour to arrive at some understanding on the subject. An
International Conference on the “Usages of War,” held at Brussels in
1874 at the instance of Alexander II., considered among other things,
“the means of injuring an enemy,” and suggested the prohibition of the
use of poison and poisoned weapons, murder by treachery, and murder of a
disarmed enemy, projectiles causing unnecessary suffering, and
prohibited by the declaration of St. Petersburg in 1818; “_ruses de
guerre_” were, however, declared permissible.
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