Chemical Tactics and Strategy.—Two basic military conceptions come to our assistance in attempting to characterise types of chemical warfare development. With a little explanation it is possible to place this or that method in the tactical or strategic class. Any new chemical warfare development capable, under a given system of individual protection, of successfully attacking the hitherto protected individual, may be termed strategic. The method may be aimed at a protected or hitherto immune human function, but if it overcomes protection it is then capable of effecting strategic results by its use on a sufficiently large scale. Thus we regard the first introduction of cloud gas by Germany, or their use of mustard gas, as examples of strategic chemical warfare moves. Any fundamental discovery of this sort, applicable to chemical warfare, is capable of strategic effects. Used only on a small scale, however, these possibilities may be lost and tactical advantages may alone accrue.

The tactical type of chemical warfare method involves the use of some new or old war chemical device in achieving a tactical objective which may, itself, form part of a larger scheme with strategic significance. Examples were plentiful during the recent war. We may refer to the use of smoke, of gas shell for neutralisation, or of cloud gas as preparation for a local infantry advance.

The same classification can be applied to the protective as to the offensive side of chemical warfare. The equipment of an army of millions with a gas mask has a strategic value, if it counters the large-scale use of gas by the enemy. The mere fact of this protection may serve the same purpose as a violent resistance to a huge enemy attack. It may render the attack, and, therefore, the resistance, out of the question. By permitting the individual soldier to retain the efficient use of his weapons in gas, the mask, or other form of individual protection, may render a costly counter-attack unnecessary. In this way protective methods in chemical warfare may be the determining factor in some strategic campaign or tactical activity. The distinction between tactics and strategy in chemical warfare cannot be made by grouping substances, or their methods of application to war, any more than one can say that certain infantry or artillery formations or weapons have a purely strategic or tactical function. The distinction lies rather in the magnitude and incidence of use of the chemical appliance on the battle-field, while depending on its novel nature. A new substance, possessing potential strategic value, may be wasted, and its surprise effect lost, in some local affair. This applies to the use of mustard gas by the Germans and to our own use of the Livens projector. Our armies were surprised and our plans modified by the German use of mustard gas at Ypres and Nieuport. We were not clear where this new thing was tending. Think of its strategic and psychological value had it been used on a scale and front twenty times larger. Leaving the chemical field, we can say that the first British use of the tank provided another example.

New War Chemicals.—The question of entirely new war chemicals is of general interest. The first main group of substances with which we were faced during the war contained such types as chlorine and phosgene, whose chief line of attack was directed towards the respiratory system. Specific protection rapidly developed and, once obtained, led to violent attempts to penetrate it or "break it down." In other words, the attempts to penetrate the mask by using higher concentrations of phosgene were analogous, from our point of view, to similar attempts by the use of an entirely new substance aimed again at the respiratory system. The introduction of mustard gas confirmed, what the use of lachrymators had suggested, that the most fruitful line would be found by attacking human functions hitherto immune. First the lungs, then the eyes, then the skin of the human being came under fire, so to speak. What further developments appear possible on these lines? Assuming that means are found to protect satisfactorily the respiratory system, and the eyes, what other vulnerable points can the war chemical find in the human organism? Some more specific vesicant, some modification of mustard gas, might arise, limited in attack to certain portions of the human being. The Germans were already at work on these lines.

"Camouflage" Chemicals.—It is by no means visionary to picture the loss of the sense of taste and smell by the use of some chemical. Partially successful efforts were made by both sides during the war to mask the odour of the harmful constituent of a shell filling by introducing an appropriate "camouflage" compound. Whole series of chemicals were examined from this point of view by the American field laboratory at Puteaux near Paris. The step from specific camouflage compounds to a single general type is by no means unbridgeable in theory.

An insight into work of this kind has been given by Colonel R. F. Bacon of the American Chemical Warfare Service. He says: "The gas-camouflage is of particular interest. It has been found that malodorous compounds (butyl mercaptan, dimethyl tricarbonate, etc.), are useful to mask the presence of other 'gases' or to force the enemy to wear respirators when no other 'gases' are present. As in the case of lachrymators, such 'stink gases' must frequently be accompanied by other 'gases,' in order that the enemy may never know when toxic gases are actually absent. Camouflage gases are also useful in that they save 'mustard gas' and the highly lethal gases. Their value has been demonstrated in trials at Hanlon Field and also at the front." The use of such compounds has an obvious value. By removing the possibility of detecting the dangerous chemical, they enforce the permanent use of the protective appliance or encourage a fatal carelessness in the individual soldier.

Functions Hitherto Immune.—In this field of chemical attack upon hitherto immune human functions, it is particularly easy to class suggestions as visionary and to be wise only after the event. But it must be borne in mind that any nation in a position to effect such a surprise would be in a commanding position. It is believed, for example, that the human being maintains his equilibrium through the proper functioning of the semi-circular canals, organs situated behind the inner ear. It does not appear possible to attain them chemically directly, but they might be reached by the absorption of some suitable chemical into the system in the very small concentrations now possible on the field of battle. We doubt whether any physiologist would go further than to say that such a mode of attack is improbable in the near future. No qualified person would class it as impossible. It has been advanced that the control of equilibrium occurs through the movement of certain hairs through a liquid within these canals. If this be so, then one would simply require to solidify or change the viscosity of this liquid. Would this be difficult? Probably not, for most of the body fluids are of that colloidal nature in which coagulation occurs in the presence of small quantities of special agents. Such a result might cause the individual to lose his equilibrium. This would prohibit all organised movement. An army thus attained would be less mobile than a colony of cripples.

Picture for a moment such a battle as the great German attack of March, 1918—millions of men urged forward from fixed positions under highly centralised control—they advance, say, two or three miles beyond this control and are largely dependent on local initiative for the attack. They then enter clouds of shell chemical and in less than fifteen minutes a fair percentage becomes incapable of advancing in a fixed direction, of obeying local orders, or of anything more than a sort of drunken movement. By this time their supporting artillery would have been identified and attained, and the whole attack reduced to almost farcical conditions. Such a compound may never develop, but who will class it as beyond the realm of eventual possibility?

Every one is acquainted with the peculiar effects produced by various anaesthetics. The emergency uses to which they are put and our personal acquaintance with them may have dulled the imagination. Think for a moment of the possibilities which they unfold. Gaseous anaesthetics, in certain concentrations, produce temporary unconsciousness, other anaesthetics, so called local, produce absolute immobility without loss of consciousness. Chloroform and ether are common forms of the first type, but they are required in such concentrations as to render their battle use impracticable. But the second type, of which stovaine, the new synthetic drug, is a good example, produces its effects in very small concentration. A few drops injected into the spinal column are sufficient to prevent all movement for a number of hours. We cannot expect to obtain the conditions of the operating table on the battle-field, but chemicals which are effective in very small quantities or concentrations may find another channel into the human system. For this reason the development of the mask, the protection of the respiratory channels, is of great importance, for it blocks the way to substances which by mere absorption might produce valuable military results.

Chemical Constitution and Physiological Action.—It is impossible to adopt a more than speculative outlook in this field. So little is known regarding the relationships between chemical constitution and physiological action and very few sound generalisations have been made. A considerable amount of scientific work occurred on these lines in various countries before the war on the connection between the chemical nature of compounds and their taste and smell, but the relationships are still obscure.

Unsolved Problems of Mustard Gas.—The use of a chemical which attacks some unexpected human function introduces many disturbing and disorganising factors. Thus the introduction of mustard gas has left us with a number of unsolved problems. By employing this substance Germany departed from her usual caution and violated one of the first principles of chemical warfare. It is unsound for any nation to introduce a new weapon, unless that nation is, itself, furnished with the means of protection against its eventual employment by the enemy. The Germans have, themselves, explained this breach of the principles of war. They were convinced that we could not retaliate with mustard gas, because we could not produce it. It was a miscalculation but based on grounds of which they were sure, having been largely instrumental in determining them through their aggressive chemical policy.

Mustard gas attacks the respiratory system and the outer skin of man. The armies were efficiently protected against the first line of attack, but they never developed efficient protection against the second. Protection of the skin of the individual soldier against mustard gas was theoretically possible in three ways. In the first place a number of chemical solutions were devised which, applied to the affected skin, would destroy the poisonous chemical. This was a bad method, and was never efficiently employed. German army orders after the French introduction of mustard gas were bristling with references to chloride of lime or bleaching powder. It was to be kept in every conceivable place where the gas was likely to penetrate. Soldiers were provided with boxes of bleach called "Gelbolin." Permanganate of potash was carried as an alternative for a brief period. A wire from the Third German Army to the War Ministry, Berlin, dated 17th July, 1918, stated: "Chloride of lime has all been issued in boxes to the troops. Reserves exhausted." One had the impression of a drowning man catching at a straw. Supply on a sufficient scale to cover most cases was practically impossible. Each soldier would have to carry the protective chemical as part of his equipment, and its proper use depended on training. There was no time to identify and assemble the thousands of affected cases for central treatment. Mustard gas penetrated thick clothing, even boots. and was often only identified hours after the damage was done. The second method which was attempted on a large scale was the protection of each soldier by special mustard-gas-proof clothing, but a man, fighting for his life on the battle-field, will not tolerate such a handicap to movement, and, although hundreds of thousands of oiled suits were prepared and were of definite use in certain special cases, for example in certain artillery formations, yet the method must be rejected as unsuitable from a military point of view. The third solution, which was tried experimentally on a large scale, was to cover soldiers going into action with a cream or paste of protective chemical. This, again, could only be applied in special cases, prior to an assault, for example, and could not be regarded as a permanent form of protection.

As we have seen, mustard gas infected whole areas for many days, owing to its great persistency. It was often necessary to cross such zones for attack or counter-attack. How was this to be effected without huge losses? It was found possible, literally by creating roads of bleach, that is, by sprinkling bleaching powder on chosen lanes through the infected area, to pass columns of troops through such areas, but this cannot be viewed as a practicable solution. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would have taxed the possibilities of supply beyond their utmost capacity. Here, then, we have a case in which it is not possible to protect a soldier by some specific appliance, and the war found us embarking on schemes of protection by the use of chemicals in quantities which threatened to carry us out of the range of possible manufacture.

A New Type of Obstacle.—Chemical warfare has introduced a new type of strategic and tactical obstacle. Mediaeval methods of war relied largely on natural and man-built barriers. Rivers, moats, forts were, and still are, to a certain extent, critical factors in war. The conceptions of a Vauban could determine the issue of a campaign. Such obstacles were only effective, however, when properly manned and armed. The Hindenburg Line and the Canal du Nord were tremendous obstacles when backed by German artillery, rifles, and machine-guns, but, without the latter, they would have been mere inconveniences for the passage of an army. The massing of a multitude of guns, used for the first time during the recent war, produced another form of temporary obstacle, but troops could be trained to, and actually did, advance through the barrage. Further, the ultimate limits of supply and the use of counter artillery introduces time and quantitative limitations to the use of the really intensive barrage. Chemical warfare, however, has introduced a method of blocking out chosen areas of the battle-field in such a way as to prevent their effective use for military defence, communications, or other purposes. It is now possible, by chemical means, to give a normal piece of country the same value as a natural obstacle, or one organised for defence by formidable engineering construction, and manned by rifles and machine-guns. This can be achieved by the use of a highly persistent dangerous gas or war chemical of which, so far, mustard gas is the most effective example. We have seen how the Germans formed defensive flanks during their March, 1918, offensive, by spraying certain areas between their fronts of attack with mustard gas. It is true that, in the quantities in which it has, so far, been used, mustard gas has not converted open areas into absolute obstacles against the movement of a determined individual, platoon, or even larger unit. But even in the quantities which have already appeared on the battle-field, it has rendered whole zones practically unusable for huge masses of men, owing to the certainty of a very high percentage of casualties. Up to the present its value has been rather as a serious factor in Staff consideration of losses than as an actual physical barrier. Many of the casualties are only incurred a few hours after contact with the gas. This may not deter a man from crossing an affected zone, but it may deter the Staffs from using that zone, when they realise that this would imply the certainty of many thousands of casualties amongst the troops. The choice is between two evils, tactical acquiescence to the enemy's plan, blocking out a certain area, or the certainty of huge casualties. A very interesting case occurred in the German attack near Mt. Kemmel in the spring of 1918, where large quantities of German mustard gas were used some distance in front of the original line of German attack. In this case, not only was it clear that the Germans would not attempt to advance beyond a limited objective (and they did not), but the development of their attack left them organising their defences behind their own mustard gas barrage.

The "Persistent Lethal" Substance.—The importance of these considerations can hardly be exaggerated when we realise that, at any time, a substance possessing the same strategic value as mustard gas, but much more violent casualty effects, may be discovered. The Germans were certainly aware of these possibilities. According to the statement of an apparently reliable prisoner of the 30th R.I.R., July, 1918, the Regimental Gas Officer stated in a lecture that, as the Allies had used a new gas, the Germans were going to employ a "White Cross" gas shell. This gas was "stronger" than any of the gases at present in use; it possessed a persistence up to eight days, and could, therefore, not be used on the front for an assault. Its persistence was favoured by damp or misty weather and by the nature of the ground. Neither the German drum nor the masks of the Allies afforded protection against it. The last important German development consisted in the use of pumice impregnated with phosgene in their Livens bombs. It was clear that the Germans were attempting to produce a gas which was not only highly lethal but persistent. Following up this idea, we can forecast the use of a chemical which will not only permit the formation of defensive flanks, or pockets, in the enemy front, or in our own defensive positions, through their influence on Staff considerations with regard to casualties, but, by replacing the relatively mild casualty effect of mustard gas by a highly and rapidly lethal effect, will render these areas not only strategically, but physically, impassable. One of the most significant possibilities in chemical warfare development is the arrival of this type of the compound, the highly lethal, highly persistent chemical.

The Critical Range.—These considerations are very interesting from the military point of view. Consider the phenomenal amount of muscular energy required to organise any captured stretch of territory against counter-attack. The type of compound we have outlined is likely to change completely the aspect of attack and counter-attack. The Somme battlefield, for example, gave the impression of a series of defensive positions organised by the one side or the other after attack or counter-attack, in order to hold small gains of ground, which were never intended to represent the final advance. Successful progress from one trench system meant building another, under the pounding of the enemy's artillery, and the deadly fire of machine-guns, exposing, in this improvised system, large numbers of troops, among which casualties constituted a continuous drain upon eventual reserves. The arrival of the highly persistent lethal compound should provide an effective substitute for this laborious constructional protection in the shape of the persistent lethal barrage. This will render immediate counter-attack and near machine-gun fire very difficult. Automatically, fewer men will be needed to hold the advanced positions. It is true that, with the next attack, "kicking off" and assembly positions will be required, for these can be much more efficiently developed behind a deep chemical barrage and will demand the exposure of fewer men where more time is available for preparation. Such conditions, however, can only occur if one, side possesses some distinct advantage with regard to surprise by, or efficient protection against, the persistent lethal compound. When both sides are equally matched in this respect, a duel will arise in which the winner will be the one who can throw the critical concentrations of chemical into a given area at the greatest range. This might be called the "critical range." Herein lies the importance of the development of such weapons as the Livens projector, and the Germans had certainly grasped an important principle, when they used our own modified weapon against us with a much greater range than our own. If we admit the possibility of a persistent lethal compound, this question of critical range assumes outstanding importance.

The New No-Man's-Land.—The recent war witnessed a rather sudden adoption of trench warfare, during a period in which the artillery strengths of both sides were relatively feeble, when compared with the later stages of the war. Accordingly, there arose very definite lines of field fortifications, and strongly held trench systems, separated from each other by a comparatively narrow No-Man's-Land, With the development of the formidable artillery strengths of belligerents, there was a tendency to form a much wider No-Man's-Land, and the front line systems were lightly held, approximating, in many cases, to an outpost line.

The discovery and mass production of a persistent lethal substance is likely to convert No-Man's-Land into a permanently infected gas zone, manned by special outposts of permanently protected troops. Combined with the development of smoke, this may render unnecessary the highly organised trench assembly systems of the recent war, used before the assault, and, with the development of the tank as a fast fighting machine, and for the transport of troops, one can obtain a glimpse of the nature of the new attack and counter-attack. A recent writer[1] has shown us the future tank carrying war into the enemy's country and destroying his nerve centres by actually reaching and paralysing the G.H.Q.s. of armies and smaller formations. Such operations will have to occur through a wide zone of the new gas and will necessitate the anti-gas tank. Indeed, one of the most important functions of the tank will be to carry the advance guard of an army beyond the infected No-Man's-Land, and such an advance will occur behind a series of smoke barrages created, in the first place, by the artillery, and, later, by the advance of tanks themselves.

[1] Tanks in the Great War, Col. J. F. C. Fuller., D.S.O.

The "Alert Gas Zone."—The development of the "gas alert" idea has definite interest for the future of chemical warfare. It is well known how the development of gas shell and surprise gas shoots by the Germans led to the necessity for "gas alert" conditions between certain times and within certain distances of the front line. The mask had to be worn in the so-called ready position, in order that swift adjustment might be possible in case of surprise attack. The summer of 1917 witnessed a great increase in gas shell activity. This was reflected in important changes in the "gas alert" regulations. In the autumn of that year all periods of readiness were abolished and replaced by a constant state of readiness. In the forward area absolute readiness was required within two miles of the front line, and special precautions were taken as far back as twelve miles. That the Germans suffered under the same restraints is witnessed by many captured documents. In particular, a divisional order taken in December, 1917, gave the gas danger zone as within fifteen kilometres of the front line, and within this region every one must carry a mask. The alert position of the mask was insisted upon within two kilometres of the front line. By July the alert zone had increased in depth in both armies. This tendency must have increased, had the war continued, for both sides were employing gas in guns of larger calibres, and weapons were being devised, such as the improved German Livens projector, which gave high concentrations at much greater distances from the front line, i.e. with greater critical ranges.

We have seen how the possible development of a persistent lethal compound may produce an infected and wide No-Man's-Land. Imposed on this, there will, no doubt, be "gas alert" conditions of great depths. How do these conceptions work out for the war of movement? It would appear that the possession of such a compound and the means of producing and using it on a very large scale could determine the stationary or open nature of warfare, if other forces were not too unequal. A new military factor emerges, the artificial, permanent, unmanned obstacle, which can be laid down at will on areas whose magnitude depends finally on manufacturing capacity. The germ of the idea appeared during the war at Kemmel and in the various mustard gas barrages formed by artillery or delayed mines used by the Germans in their great retreat. The sudden development of such barriers will be equivalent in effect to the creation of strong trench systems, but these could never result, under war conditions, in time to approach the strategic flexibility and importance of the persistent lethal infected barrier.

Gas and Aircraft.—The combination of gas and aircraft presents the possibility of attaining strategic effects by chemical means. Many rumours were afloat, towards the end of the war, regarding the use of gas by enemy aircraft, and there was apprehension amongst the civil populations, which has been reflected in numerous public utterances. Evidence on the matter is very scanty. In July, 1917, the use of gas in aeroplane bombs by the Germans was reported, but not confirmed. Further reports in August indicated the use of Blue Cross, owing to the sneezing effects which were produced on those within reach of the air bomb. In October, the evidence was more conclusive. But the German aeroplanes left no blind or dud shell, and, beyond the violent nasal and sneezing effects of Blue Cross, evidence was again absent. This report was very persistent, for, in July, 1918, there were again rumours that Blue Cross bombs had been dropped on the British near Ficheux. The Air Forces of the different armies were, perhaps, the last to feel the effects of the gas campaign, but the pilots of low-flying aeroplanes in the 1918 offensive were constantly crossing pockets of gas, and this, added to the fact that the pilots were often compelled to land in gas, led to their equipment with gas masks. A respirator of special type was taken from a German aviator in April, 1918, after the fighting at Passchendaele. But the war gave us no direct evidence of the successful use of gas and war chemicals from aircraft. This, however, is no criterion as to its eventual importance. The Allies definitely refrained from employing the combination until Germany should give them the start in what was regarded as a new atrocity. The main reason for their lack of development on these lines was probably the fact that the most suitable type of gas only developed during the later stages of the war, when it was required exceedingly urgently on the front. No really harmful persistent compound appeared before the advent of mustard gas, and the dangerous non-persistent types, such as phosgene, could not have been used with great success, owing to the fact that very considerable quantities would have been required to produce any serious effect. Mustard gas, however, which could have haunted a city for days, would not have been required in such large quantities. But its more urgent need on the front, and the fact that soon after it arrived the Germans were sending out feelers to see whether the Allies would consider the cessation of chemical warfare, were probably sufficient reasons to explain their failure to use it from aeroplanes.

Another point must be raised in connection with the use of gas from aircraft which has not yet received much attention. We must remember that the use of projectiles from aircraft over a city was a very different proposition from their use over a battle-field. One of the advantages of gas over explosives on the field of battle was its greater range of action. It produced effects at longer distances from the point of impact, but no such incentive existed for the use of gas from aeroplanes over large cities. Explosives, which might miss their objective on the field of battle, could not do so in a city. They were bound to hit something. The load of the aeroplane is always important, and the essential is to carry, weight for weight, the material which will produce the most effect. There is no doubt what this will he when the persistent lethal compound arrives, and mustard gas would probably have been superior to explosives for use by German aircraft on British cities.

Protective Development;—Individual Protection.—The question of protection against chemical attack presents some knotty problems for the future. Let us glance at the broad lines of war development in this field and forecast their future in a speculative way. Protection developed along two main lines. Individual protection covered the mask and any other protective appliance used by the individual soldier, while the term collective protection was applied to any method or appliance which afforded simultaneous protection for a number of individuals.

In general, the former represented an attempt to purify the poisoned air actually inspired by the soldier, whereas the latter was an attempt to purify the atmosphere of a locality or to prevent its initial poisoning. How far can the individual form of protection develop to meet the possibilities of the chemical attack? It certainly seems to have countered satisfactorily all the war attacks upon the respiratory system, although, as we have pointed out, the Germans might have failed, had we been sufficiently prompt in introducing our arsenic compounds. But we have forecasted the use of chemicals which may attack human functions hitherto immune. For the sake of our argument, we can divide these into two classes, those attained through the respiratory and digestive systems and those attained through contact with some other part of the body. The former can probably be satisfactorily met by developments in the mask. Even that does not appear certain, when we remember the emphasis laid by Germany upon the possibility of penetrating the mask by using a particulate cloud. The last word has certainly not been spoken in the struggle between the mask and the chemical attempting to penetrate it. But both the introduction of mustard gas and general speculative grounds justify us in concluding that attacks may materialise upon other parts of the human organism, We cannot foresee the actual point of attack and can, therefore, only view with assurance some form of protection which covers the whole body.

Collective Protection.—All parties dabbled in such a form of protection, but the French were the only ones to make a large-scale experiment on the front. It was not very successful, for the burden of these oilskin suits was intolerable. It may be that some successful form of protection for the whole body will materialise, but on general grounds we can assume that development will follow other lines. What are the possibilities? They all lie in the direction of collective protection. The individual cannot be satisfactorily protected from the new gas and remain an efficient soldier. We must, therefore, see whether it is not possible to protect numbers of men by removing them from contact with the poisoned atmosphere. A stationary form of such protection was used by all the armies, but emphasised by the French, by the creation of a large number of enormous underground chambers, some capable of holding more than a thousand men, the entries to which were carefully protected by special filtering devices to prevent the entry of the poisoned external atmosphere. On the British front these enormous dug-outs, although not absent, were largely replaced by the efficient gas-proof organisation of the smaller dugouts. The use of impregnated blankets for this purpose must be well known to any who visited the front or took part in hostilities. But you cannot imprison a whole army in this way. The value of these collective protective chambers depended on the fact that a certain number of men were always on the alert in the defensive systems outside and around the chambers, exposed to those gases against which the latter chambers were devised.

In my opinion, the further intensive development of gas warfare, such as would have accompanied, say, the doubling or quadrupling of the German factory output, would have forced us into realising the limit of this collective protection. It would have compelled us to immobilise, in these shelters, more men than was consistent with the safety of the zone in question. Undoubtedly, the future of collective protection lies in some form which will leave the soldier his combatant powers, in other words some mobile form. This has already been forecasted by Colonel Fuller in his book on Tanks in the Great War. But he passes lightly over the protection of the tank against gas. With the increase in depth of infected zones, through the increasingly lethal nature of the persistent compound, the tank will he compelled to rely on filtration methods of protection, instead of the use of compressed oxygen in a gas-tight compartment. Once committed to the use of oxygen, the only safe procedure will be to close up the tank and employ the oxygen while there is any suspicion of the presence of gas, and, under these conditions, oxygen transport would become a factor militating against the prime purpose of the tank, the transport of troops and arms. It is safe to forecast a tense struggle between chemical weapons and protective tank devices in the event of future wars.

Conclusion.—The facts which we have surveyed in early chapters, and the development foreshadowed above, form part of a much wider subject, for they are but one aspect of scientific warfare. In what main directions has science modified or revolutionised modern war? Its influence has touched practically every weapon in manufacture or design, introducing profound modifications in many cases. The sum total of such changes may be claimed to have revolutionised warfare, but the term revolution should be reserved, for some more specific scientific innovation, which threatens to change the nature of war rather than merely improve existing weapons. Modern wars have all echoed the popular cry for some new scientific principle or device to settle hostilities with one sharp stroke. This conception has been the sport of writers of fiction and others for many years. The "electric" death-dealing ray, the all-powerful gas, the deadly bacteria, and the "explosion" wave have all shared in buoying up the hopes or quickening the fears of warring peoples. Contrary to popular supposition, a decisive scientific military surprise of this nature is not likely to follow close on the heels of the discovery of a new phenomenon. It is more than eighty years since the mind of a Faraday delved so fruitfully into electrical science, yet the oft prophesied large scale direct use of high voltage electricity, or some other form in war has not materialised. Organic chemistry was a well-founded branch of science early in the nineteenth century, and flourishing industries, fostered by it, were in existence thirty years ago, yet it was not until the early twentieth century, and the recent war, that we witnessed the rapid growth of organic chemical warfare, which, I claim, was as revolutionary as any other war development. The physical sciences, have left their mark on every weapon and mechanical appliance, and the cumulative effect of these changes is indeed large, but the most revolutionary upheaval in warfare, with permanent results, came from chemistry. The flexible nature of organic chemistry must not be lost sight of. In the physical sciences, electricity, for example, years of co-ordinated world progress are required to produce an epoch-making discovery which might have critical and direct war significance. Radioactivity has shown us what undreamt-of energy is bound up in the atom, and many are the prophesies regarding the harnessing of these forces for constructive activities. At least one prominent novelist has pictured their destructive use in the radioactive bomb. But the use of this wonderful store of energy for peace and war can only result from years of costly and voluminous research, and we have no idea of the difficulties involved in production, without which any invention, however telling and revolutionary, has no incidence on war. But in organic chemistry a single worker, following up some rare family of compounds, may stumble upon a substance pot far removed chemically from related compounds yet infinitely more potent for war. Mustard gas, or B:B dichlordiethylsulphide, is a member of a group of compounds differing only slightly in chemical structure the one from the other. Yet its nearest chemical relative is comparatively harmless. The persistent lethal compound which will vastly change the nature of warfare will probably be but a slight chemical modification of some harmless substance, Thus, by comparison with other branches of science as the handmaids of war, organic chemistry is sympathetic, flexible, and theoretically capable of yielding revolutionary discoveries in a relatively short time. We can only base such speculations on general grounds. Circumstances may disprove our contention over a short historical period, but it will be borne out in the long run. This is not the only reason, however, for the unique war importance of organic chemicals. It so happens that many of them are essential to our daily life, as dyes, drugs, photographic and other synthetic products. Industries, therefore, have arisen for their manufacture. And this is not all. Organic chemical factories have proved to be not only arsenals in disguise but endowed with the flexibility of their parent, the science itself. The factories and plants ignore the war significance of the problems put to them. They can develop the production of practically any chemical which research can produce. The will of man can thus silently and swiftly convert the dye factory into an arsenal.

These inherent possibilities of organic chemistry, flexibility in research and production, make chemical warfare the most important war problem in the future reconstruction of the world.



CHAPTER XI

HUMANE OR INHUMANE?

A good deal of abuse has been showered on chemical warfare methods by those who understand very little about them. It has been claimed by such that gas is particularly atrocious. Feeling on the matter has been so strong in certain quarters that the fact that all war is particularly vile and atrocious seems to have been completely lost sight of. Let us take up this matter in a rational way. In the first place, what do we mean by the atrocity or inhumanity of a weapon? We can either appeal to the imagination or the reason, in the first case, by visualising the battlefields, or, in the second, by making a cold analysis of the casualties caused by gas.

Nature of Gas Casualties.—Every normal person who experienced and survived the throes of the different stages of the war, and of the different gas surprises, mainly German, which were sprung upon us, finds it difficult to think out, or express, a cool and balanced view on the question of poison gas. But such a balanced view is most important for the future. It must be remembered that the official protests in 1915 arose on the grounds, to use Lord Kitchener's words, that "they employed these poisonous methods to prevail when their attack, according to the rules of war, might have otherwise failed." Had the rules of war permitted their use, we should, no doubt, have been protected. But these protests, submerged in popular sentiment, became an outcry against the atrocity of the new weapon. This, a just criticism at the time, became inaccurate when the Allies reacted, methods of protection developed, and the specific tactical uses of gas were realised. The view of the peculiar atrocity of gas has outlived the truth of war experience with regard to it. We agree that chemical warfare is atrocious. But it is no exception, for thus are all the aggressive methods of warfare. Indeed, when we attempt to interpret atrocity in terms of available casualty statistics, we find that gas is slightly less atrocious than the other weapons. We must either incline to this view or dispute the figures, which are authoritative. Consider the American figures. These will he more truly representative than our own, because their troops were only exposed during the later and more developed phases of the war. Of the total strength of the A.E.F., the number gassed was about six per cent., wounded by rifle and machine-gun fire about one per cent., wounded by high explosive one and a half per cent., shrapnel wounds three percent., and bayonet wounds less than one half per cent. But although enemy gas caused more than 70,000 casualties, yet of these only one and a half per cent. were fatal, while the total number of deaths for all types of casualties was thirty per cent. Thus against the American army, measured by casualties produced, gas was by far the most effective, and yet by far the least deadly weapon. What can be more atrocious than the actual cone of tens or even hundreds of dead and wounded invariably left before an untouched machine-gun emplacement in an assault? What is more horrible than the captured first line trench after its treatment by the preparatory bombardment, or the mutilation of men peacefully sleeping in billets behind the battle front and thrown, broken and bloody, through their billet walls under the wheels of passing transport, as one has seen them?

The whole experience of real war is beyond adjectives. But, leaving impressions, let us turn to facts. With regard to the future and from the point of view of atrocity, gas has a hopeful outlook as compared with other weapons. This may seem a curious statement to make, but consider the following. We cannot envisage advances in the use of explosives in shell or bomb to render them more humane. Explosives, if their development be pressed, can only become more violent, with a wider range of action. Chemical warfare may follow the same lines, but it has the unique possibility of developing on more humane lines. The vesicant action of mustard gas produced huge casualties with relatively little permanent harm. Chemicals may be found which temporarily influence human functions, enabling military objectives to be attained with a remarkably small amount of pain and death. In a fair review of the whole situation, this possibility cannot be overlooked. It is more than possible that a League of Nations, compelled to employ an element of force in its eventual control of peace, may find its most effective and humane weapon in some chemical development. However visionary these views may appear, they are not unjustified as scientific possibilities. Analysis of war gas casualties reveal two main trends. As the struggle became more intense the number of casualties multiplied. They were considerable during the first period of cylinder attack, and the rate remained steady until the beginning of the mustard gas period. From the summer of 1917 to November, 1918, there were more than ten times as many gas casualties as for the preceding three years of war. But the percentage mortality, the number of deaths amongst each hundred men attained, decreased considerably. As high as twenty-five per cent. during the early cylinder attacks, it decreased to two and a half per cent. for the huge number of mustard gas cases. Yet mustard gas was an exceedingly important military factor. It illustrates the possibility of development on these lines, but we must by no means disregard the atrocity of chemical warfare, and safeguards are required for the future.

We cannot do better than conclude by quoting from General Hartley's report to the British Association. He says:

"The general impression that gas is an inhumane weapon is derived partly from the German breach of faith in using it contrary to the Hague Convention, and partly from the nature and number of casualties in the earliest cloud attacks which were made against unprotected troops. Under the stress of a long war the individual is apt to forget the physical and mental sufferings it involves, unless he is daily in contact with them, but a dramatic occurrence such as that of the first gas attack forces on the imagination the brutal significance of war—the struggle for victory by killing—and the new weapon is judged as inhumane, like gunpowder in the fifteenth century. If we accept war as a possibility, the most humane weapon is that which leads to a decision with the smallest amount of human suffering and death. Judged from this standpoint, gas compares favourably with other weapons during the period when both sides were fully equipped for offence and defence. The death-rate among gas casualties was much lower than that among casualties from other causes, and not only was the death-rate lower, but a much smaller proportion of the injured suffered any permanent disability. There is no comparison between the permanent damage caused by gas, and the suffering caused to those who were maimed and blinded by shell and rifle fire. It is now generally admitted that in the later stages of the war many military objects could be attained with less suffering by using gas than by any other means.

Sargent's Picture.—"The judgment of future generations on the use of gas may well be influenced by the pathetic appeal of Sargent's picture of the first 'Mustard Gas' casualties at Ypres, but it must not be forgotten in looking at that picture that 75 per cent. of the blinded men he drew were fit for duty within three months, and that had their limbs and nerves been shattered by the effects of high explosive, their fate would have been infinitely worse."

Need for Safeguards.—We have continually referred to the need for safeguards instead of mere reliance on prohibition. Such views and facts as the above should be more generally known in order that very worthy sentiments may not impel us to adopt an unsound solution for future peace. However alarmed and revolted we may have been in 1915 and later during the war, it is essential to take a balanced view in the present critical period of reconstruction.



CHAPTER XII

CHEMICAL WARFARE AND DISARMAMENT

Preceding chapters have shown how chemical warfare has now become a normal, technical, and increasingly important part of the science of war. Further, it has opened vast possibilities, the limits of which it is very difficult to fix.

The Treaty of Versailles.—Chemical warfare received definite attention in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles. Lord Moulton, one of the few Allied representatives who realised the full importance of the matter, has drawn attention to its Treaty aspect in a recent speech. He lays emphasis on the fact that the full significance of the German dye industry was not realised during the war. Referring to its chameleon-like nature in peace and war, Lord Moulton says: "All this was imperfectly present to my mind throughout the war, and I was aware of the gravity of the matter, but until I learnt what had passed in Germany I could not appreciate it fully. I have spoken to you of the extent to which the Germans turned their chemical works into general works for supplying explosives. I have not touched the part in which they played the most deadly game against us, and that was where they used their chemical works to produce those toxic gases."

The same statement tells us, "The knowledge that I have gleaned as to what was going on in Germany during the war makes me feel that all my anticipa-tions of the importance of chemical industries in time of war, all the views that I expressed of that importance, did not nearly approach what has been proved to have gone on in the enemy's country during the war." He then proceeds to explain how a clause was inserted in the treaty—"whereby the Germans have to tell us all the secrets of their manufacture of explosives, all their methods of making toxic gases— in fact, all the military secrets that made them so terrible. This clause was a very just one. It is not fair that when we have gone through this agonising struggle, and when we are still suffering from the consequences of all the wealth of knowledge and ingenuity which they employed for their infamous purposes— it is not fair, I say, to allow them to keep these secrets to themselves, and I think you will agree with me it was in the highest degree consonant with justice that we should make them reveal them all to us." Small wonder that we missed this vital point, that we failed to fathom the force behind the German chemical war, if such an eminent authority was left groping for the truth. There was no time for mature reflection with the problems of war supply pressing forward in an endless stream. Lord Moulton was himself responsible for the brilliant solution of the most important, the problem of explosives supply.

The realisation of the facts in question led to the direct admission of their importance in the Treaty. Article 172, the one in question, states: "Within a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the German Government will disclose . . . the nature and mode of manufacture of all explosives, toxic substances or other like chemical preparations used by them in the war, or prepared by them for the purpose of being so used."

German Information.—This clause should be fulfilled in detail. In any given period of the stage of intensive chemical warfare and at the end, the Germans, in addition to those devices in operation, must have had a large number of more telling and more novel ones in preparation. It is important to get as much information as possible on this development.

A striking fact emerges. The years 1915, 1916, and the early part of 1917 witnessed the actual manufacture of the war chemicals which were used by Germany on the front. All the research and other work which precedes chemical manufacture must have been completed much earlier. What surprises, then, had the German laboratories in store for us after 1917? Have these been revealed under authority of the Treaty?

Probably the most important point in the clause is its interpretation with regard to the Haber process. Its critical importance in the manufacture of explosives is so great that our neglect to use the Treaty to remove the monopoly is a direct menace to peace. This process undoubtedly saved Germany in 1915 and is largely responsible for the three years of war agony which followed. It can only have missed specific reference in the Treaty on account of its claim to represent the fertiliser rather than the explosives industry. To yield to such views, however ideal the motives, is to threaten the greater ideal of world peace.

Limitation of Armament.—This clause, covering only war development, cannot be regarded as a serious safeguard for the future. It is rather the fruits of victory, the logical outcome of Allied success and the German breach of faith. But the Treaty of Versailles contains an admission of the importance of chemical warfare for the future. Article 171 states: "The use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and of analogous liquids, materials, or devices being prohibited, their manufacture and importation are strictly forbidden in Germany. The same applies to materials specially intended for the manufacture, storage, and the use of the same products or devices." What kind of guarantee is this? How far is it supported by other disarmament? It is very important to answer these questions. In a sense the full execution of the other relevant Treaty clauses would provide a partial answer. We deal with these in the next chapter.

Report of the Hartley Mission.—Chemical warfare is the point faible in world disarmament. Judging from the above clause of the Treaty, it is clear that this is not fully recognised. Once again our trust is invited in mere prohibition. The lesson of the war is not learnt. The chemical menace is not countered. Why should this be? There are two main reasons. In the first place, very few had any conception of the tremendous growth in this branch of warfare, for facts had rarely been disclosed, and those with no direct contact with chemical warfare were relying on impressions. The vivid recollection of the first German cloud attack, and of the introduction of mustard gas, have, for most people, obscured the solid facts of the case. The great importance of the projector, the high percentage of chemical shell used by the enemy artillery, and the tremendous undertaking involved in protecting an army of millions with a modern gas mask, have not been grasped. The Hartley report clearly revealed the importance of the German dye factories for chemical warfare production. But we have a shrewd idea that it left many of its official readers much better informed on production than on the use of the materials concerned, that is, on the military value of chemical warfare.

New Conceptions in Chemical Disarmament.—The second difficulty preventing a full understanding of the case lies in the fact that chemical disarmament involves certain conceptions which are remote from the normal military outlook. Let us examine the matter as simply as possible.

During the many discussions on disarmament in Paris, various principles were suggested as a basis. One which received recognition in the Treaty was the limitation of the number of projectors or guns, using the term "projector" in a general way to cover all projectile-throwing weapons. Thus, in the sense implied, rifles, machine-guns, field and heavy guns are projectors. Recent writers have termed gas a projectile, one which, on account of its fluid nature, ignores the limitations of explosive shell and multiplies their radius of action indefinitely. This is true—with one most important qualification. Gas has never entirely depended upon the usual form of projector, the gun, and with the limitation of the latter its dependence will decrease. New forms of chemical weapon will evolve. Now it is true that almost every form of warfare which one can conceive depends for success on some sort of projector, and it is also true that the manufacture of these projectors can be controlled, because it is usually so complicated. These remarks apply, for example, to the manufacture of a field or heavy gun. But there is one serious exception to the covering power of this method of limitation. You cannot carry on tank warfare without ordinary projectors, but you can run a chemical campaign without them.

Facing the difficulties which are before any League of Nations or international body planning world disarmament, let us assume armament reduced to a police basis. In other words, the use of force is not entirely ruled out, but is limited to the minimum required for reducing local disorder, maintaining the peace, and contributing to any general scheme for preventing war. The nations, then, agree to limit their personnel and material within certain prescribed bounds. The work of the League of Nations, or central organisation, does not finish here. We cannot assume that permanent purity of national intentions, in other words, some check or guarantee must be instituted. This may take the simple form of systematic reporting by nations and their inspection by the League. Here we meet with considerable difficulty. Unless some simple covering principle for inspection can be determined upon, we shall end up with one-half the world inspecting the administration and organisation of the other. The matter becomes an absurdity.

Limitation, Mechanical and Chemical.—Considering the present trend of war development, we can divide the factors requiring limitation into three classes—the combatants, and weapons of a mechanical and chemical nature.

Tank Disarmament.—A little thought will show that the limitation of the number of projectile-throwing weapons covers the first two types, and is a matter which is not theoretically beyond the possibility of inspection. Periodic inspection could reasonably be regarded as a check against very big scale production beyond the normal scope of industry, for such weapons as rifles, machine-guns, field and heavy guns. If we consider the most important new mechanical war appliance, the tank, we find it no exception to the above remarks. Without projectors, that is, machine-guns, rifles, etc., it merely becomes a means of conveying troops and material from one place to another.

Two possibilities then arise. The number of tanks required might be so small that they could be suitably armed with light projectors without entering upon large-scale production. Secondly, the tank might become an offensive weapon without projectors, by the use of some chemical contrivance. This merely goes to prove that steps must be taken to limit the output of the tank itself. Are such steps possible? We assume that the modern tank is, and will increasingly become, a weapon practically as specific as a big gun, requiring a number of special parts which normal industry does not provide, and that the production concerned can be controlled by inspection with the same order of difficulty as that of the bigger projectors. We now come to the third type requiring limitation under a disarmament scheme.

Chemical Limitation.—Can we limit chemical armament? Our review of production has shown the impossibility of doing so, unless we completely wipe out the organic chemical industry which is essential for world progress by its contribution of dyes, drugs, and other synthetic commodities. The factories of the organic chemical industries are more silently converted into arsenals than any other type. It is true that, under normal conditions of warfare, the decisive success of a chemical campaign might be restricted by the use of other weapons, such as artillery. But, under conditions where the latter are seriously limited, the chemical weapon becomes, relatively, of much greater importance. One of the main trends in chemical warfare was the development of devices which would give long-range chemical effects without a complicated form of projector, or with none at all. Having thus shown the independence of the chemical weapon, under conditions of limitation of armament, we are faced with an important question. What can be the guarantees for the limitation of chemical warfare?

Research.—In the first place, can any research results accrue under Treaty or League conditions? The chief poison gases used during the war owed their discovery, as individuals, to pre-war research which was not stimulated by the need for an offensive chemical. Phosgene was discovered in 1811 by J. Davy, while experimenting on the action of sunlight on a mixture of carbon monoxide and chlorine. Guthrie, in 1860, trying to throw light on some theoretical aspects of organic chemistry, examining the nature of certain so-called radicles or groups of atoms, came across a family of compounds of which mustard gas, or B:B dichlordiethylsulphide, was a member. This he found to be a dangerous substance, but the nearest members of the series were harmless.

These substances will arise as a result of normal chemical research. We admit they may multiply much more quickly if work is specially directed towards their discovery, but it is practically impossible to control such work. The research worker's nearest confidante and laboratory companion might be unaware that he was developing some new vitally important chemical for warfare. No serious person can claim the possibility of a check upon such research. If, then, the Government of any country desires to provide its chemical factories with suitable subjects for chemical warfare production, these can be produced under ANY international arrangements, however prohibitive.

Production.—But what of production? Here, again, we have an entirely different problem compared with that of limiting the output of a gun. Let us assume that the production of some vitally important new organic compound involves four different steps, and that the last step produces the toxic substance. This is a fair assumption. Let us further assume the most favourable condition for detection, i.e. {t}he final product is a liquid or gas with obviously toxic properties. Given a big organic chemical industry, there is no possibility of detection by open methods of control. With regard to the first three steps, in practically every case they will be related to some new or existing dye, drug, photographic, or other commercial organic product. The products of these first reactions can either be stored, ready for the rapid realisation of the last reaction, in which case there is no possibility of detection, or the reaction can be completed and the materials passed without exposure through a standard type of plant to an easily concealed container. The only type of inspection which could possibly cope with such a problem would require to probe deeply into the technical and commercial secrets of the factories and plants, and could even then be misled owing to the constantly developing nature of the compounds produced. The inspectors would require to be numerous and as closely in touch with the plants and processes as the actual factory staffs.

Consider the Leverkusen works for a moment. They cover a very wide range of products, are admirably planned on a well thought out and rational scheme, and there is a reason for the position of every unit. Their methodical arrangement would be of more assistance to inspection in this than in any other large organic chemical works with which we are acquainted. Even under such favourable conditions satisfactory inspection would be most difficult. Each one of the twenty huge blocks contains many units of plant, and is devoted to the production of primary, intermediate or finished materials. For the inspection of suspected poison gas production, an examination of the first two would be of no assistance, for the war and peace materials would be identical. Differentiation would occur in the dye and finished product blocks. Each one of these blocks may be producing as many as one hundred different compounds at the same time, and each one of these compounds may, itself, involve two, three, or four different stages. The members of one official mission, when asking to be shown the plant for the manufacture of p-amidophenol, an important dye and photographic chemical, were taken to a large building filled with assorted plant, and were told by the guides, "We have no special plant for the product you mention; we make it in this building with a great many other products, for it is our principle not to have plant which makes one product only, but is readily adaptable for making a variety." In many of the processes the materials do not appear to the naked eye after their introduction into the first plant unit, being fed by gravity or pressure from one enclosed apparatus to another. It would be absolutely essential for any inspection to conduct chemical tests at the different stages. The difficulty of inspection is incontestable. It could be done with a large staff, but we must remember that the Rhine plants are, themselves, but a small corner of the whole world of industry requiring inspection. Even under the most favourable conditions for detection, the chances are exceedingly small. But, in most cases, an enemy with a strong organic chemical industry need not undertake manufacture during peace. He could rely on the potentialities of his chemical industry, which would enable him to commence production in his existing plant immediately on the outbreak of war. The question of the use of the chemical then arises. If of an exceedingly novel and decisive nature, it could take its share of use in the limited number of guns available; on the other hand, it might be capable of use in one of the very simple weapons already devised for chemicals, or to be devised in the future.

Consider the Livens projector, by no means a favourable case. The latest German designs have a range well over a mile. This range maybe increased. Yet the Livens projector can be made without serious or obvious war modification of plant, in a tube works, where the bomb can also be produced. The very nature of chemical warfare is such that great accuracy is not required, and simplification of production of the gas projector follows naturally. We conclude from the above that whatever treaty or international arrangements exist for prohibiting chemical warfare, we can find no safeguard in practicable methods of control, and must find safety in some other measure.

Mechanical and Chemical Preparations for War.—There is a fundamental difference in preparation for the mechanical and chemical methods of war. This difference necessitates special consideration for the chemical method from the point of view of disarmament. All the modern mechanical types of war appliances are characterised by their great structural intricacy, witness the Lewis gun with its innumerable complicated parts, the heavy and field guns with their wonderful mechanism, and the future tank with its anti-gas, anti-water, and general anti devices. This characteristic of great structural development has certain concomitants which are of considerable military importance. It imposes certain conditions on production, involving special factories for special parts and other factories for the assembly of those parts. It implies large scale experimentation for the improvement of the appliance. All this brings control and inspection within the region of the theoretically possible, and militates against sudden surprise. The structural characteristic also imposes certain important conditions in military training. It takes a definite period of time to create a machine-gunner who will humour the wonderful mechanism which he serves. He must know the different jambs, and simple repairs. He must be trained. The same remarks apply to any other structurally intricate appliance, such as the tank. In other words, this characteristic is a distinct check on any nation aiming at a sudden expansion from limited to war armament.

But consider the chemical method. The specific property of the chemical which gives it its military value is ultimately its influence on the human organism, which causes casualties or imposes heavy military handicaps on protected troops. There is, again, a question of structure, the chemical structure of the substance in question. This, however, does not involve the same aids to armament limitation as for the mechanical type, unless it be in a very restricted sense. In research, the discovery of the most effective chemical the world will ever see can occur by the use of a few beakers, pots and pans, and common chemicals, directed by a trained mind. Being atomic or molecular, the structure imposes no large scale conditions on the research. Nor is it fair to say that from the point of view of production there is a parallel between the complexity of the molecule and the plant required to make it. The chemically complicated Blue Cross arsenic compounds were produced by Germany in a plant which was simplicity itself when compared with the marvellous installation developed to produce oleum, a concentrated form of the relatively simple sulphuric acid, a fundamental substance in explosives production. Instead of manipulating a huge lathe, or forge, or exceedingly complicated multiple mechanical device, you manipulate temperatures and pressures and vary the reaction medium. Naturally, chemical engineering is very important, but its magnitude and complexity is in no sense parallel with the intricacy of the chemical molecule, whereas a distinct parallel exists for the mechanical war appliance. More than this, we believe that developments in both fields will exaggerate rather than diminish the difference. We see thus how, on general grounds, the chemical weapon tends to evade any normal condition of limitation which might be perfectly adequate for the mechanical type.

Recent Disarmament Proposals.—A superficial examination of recent disarmament speeches by prominent League of Nations advocates leaves one with the glow of inspiration produced by homage to a great ideal. But later reflection, in the cold light of reason, produces a critical, but not cynical, frame of mind. Disarmament depends for success on the way in which we tackle certain critical cases, The carrying out of the more commonly considered forms of disarmament will give immensely added importance to other forms of warfare which have already challenged supremacy in the keen competitive atmosphere of the great world war. The outstanding example is the chemical arm, whose peculiar requirements in any scheme of disarmament have been but vaguely understood.

The great case and rapidity with which the German dye factories mobilised for poison gas production on a super-industrial scale has already been demonstrated. It took forty years and more to develop those factories. Yet forty days saw many of their plants producing huge tonnages of poison gas, and as many hours were sufficient for others. In some cases, indeed, they were already producing eventual munitions long before the outbreak of war. We must not remain insensible to the double-edged nature of this industrial weapon. When with one hand Germany withdrew life-giving drugs from America, with the other she poured upon us an endless stream of deadly poison made in the same factories. Even when our textile industries were threatened through lack of indigo, from the very plants on which we had depended there issued a steady stream of mustard gas, each ounce of which threatened Allied limb and life. But how does this touch disarmament? Very simply. A few quotations from some recently published disarmament utterances will show that we are not pressing the point without need. But let us follow the matter through in a logical way.

The Covenant of the League;—Need for Guarantees.—We start from the sure ground of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 8, recognising the reduction of armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, refers to the formulation and revision of plans for such reduction and states: "The members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military and naval programmes, and the conditions of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes." Here is the frank admission of the importance of such industries. But later exponents of the League express dissatisfaction with Article 8, claiming the wording to be vague. Thus, from Major David Davies, M.P.,[1] "The whole wording of Article 8 is vague. These proposals would not eradicate the old atmosphere of suspicion which has brought about so many wars. Nations who put their trust in the League are entitled to an assurance that the League will be able to enforce its decisions with promptitude. The proposals concerning armaments in Article 8 and elsewhere do not give this assurance. Something more definite is required," and he proceeds to lay down three aims which must be covered by an efficient disarmament scheme.

[1] The Flaw in the Covenant and the Remedy. Major David Davies, M.P.

"(a) Allow each nation an army sufficient to maintain internal order within its own boundaries, and sufficient also to furnish its quota for the League of Nations when required.

"(b) Ensure that the quota of any nation shall not be rendered useless by the employment of a new weapon of war by another nation.

"(c) Provide the League of Nations with an adequate force for immediate use.

"All the above essentials are incorporated in a scheme for an International Police Force. This scheme, which is given in the merest outline, is based on the assumption that our national security must always be absolutely safeguarded, and that before we decide on any relaxation of our armament policy we must be certain that the alternative offers complete protection." Other exponents emphasise this last essential. This reference to an International Police Force raises an important issue. Such a force must draw its personnel from the different nations. Without any doubt, one of the most important contributions from the nations is the fostering of organic chemical research and technical cadres which can only be maintained under true disarmament conditions by the redistributed organic chemical industries.

Viscount Grey—"Germany Must Disarm First."—Viscount Grey, at the public meeting in support of the League of Free Nations on October 10th, 1918, stated: "Germany must disarm first. She led the way up the hill in increasing expenditure on armaments. She must lead the way down the hill. That as a first condition, from our point of view, goes without saying. There can be no talk of disarmament until Germany, as the greater armer, is disarmed." One can only heartily agree with such expressions, but the denouement brings a sense of disappointment. There is a feeling that those who should be nearest are but groping for a solution. The peculiar significance of chemical warfare for the future is freely admitted in these utterances. Thus Major David Davies states: "If they had kept their intentions secret until they could utilise a thoroughly deadly gas in the general attack, it was more than possible that they would have completely broken the Allied line," and Lord Grey, "You cannot limit the amount of merchant ships or commercial aeroplanes, and the fewer the armaments, fighting aeroplanes, and ships of war, the more potential as weapons of war become the things which you use in commerce-ships, aeroplanes, chemicals of all kinds."

Left in this state the case is true but not complete. The essential point is that the new and telling types of armament will develop from these very peace industries. We are not merely concerned with their relative magnitude in a state of disarmament, but with the critical types which may develop from them.

So far, so good, but what steps are proposed to counter the menace? In reviewing what has been suggested by different responsible individuals, we find that the methods intended to cover armament limitation for the newer weapons fall into two classes.

Suggested Methods.—In the first place, it is suggested "that war's newest weapons—poison gas, aeroplanes, submarines, heavy artillery, and tanks, should be ceded to the League to form the Headquarter's Force, and that no state should be allowed to own them or to make use of any new invention for warlike purposes.

"There should be no delay in handing over the new arms before they can claim long traditions. Vested interests have not yet been created on a permanent footing. Great disturbance would not be caused at present by the suggestion of denationalisation."

This really claims the advisability of verbal prohibition, which is absolutely useless, unless supported by the second class of safeguard, periodic "inspection." Major Davies suggests "all arsenals and munition factories would be open to inspection by the General Staff, who would use them, when necessary, for arming the quota of a nation other than that in whose territory they were situated." We know of no practical method by which inspection could be relied upon to give satisfactory warning of the conversion of the plants of the I.G. for war purposes. A distinction must be made between those weapons whose production can and cannot be practically controlled by inspection. In attempting such a classification, Major Davies claims, "It is difficult to prevent the secret manufacture of rifles, but it is easy to prevent the manufacture of tanks, aeroplanes, gas, or submarines." No one having witnessed the large scale operations of assembling tanks and heavy guns, and aware, at the same time, of the German methods of producing mustard gas or Blue Cross compounds, could make such an elementary mistake in classification, and any international disarmament arrangements based on such an error can only produce a false security. *Gas is the outstanding case of a weapon whose manufacture it is difficult to prevent.

"Vested Interests."—With regard to the vested interests in the new method of warfare, the most striking example is again the I.G. We find Ludendorff consulting Krupp and the I.G. representative when formulating his plans for a vast munition programme. Few people have realised the existence of another Krupp in the I.G. It would, indeed, be a revelation to find Germany sharing in these schemes of disarmament to the extent of voluntarily abandoning her dye monopoly. For such a situation is the only one consistent with safety. While the sole big source of production of these substances exists in Germany or in any one country for that matter, no scheme of disarmament is on sure ground.

"Handing Over" Inventions.—Certain disarmament advocates have ingenuous ideas with regard to new war inventions, and their "handing over" to the League. How can an invention be handed over? If every country informed the League of its new scientific war developments, those countries would still be aware of them. It is possible, commercially, to hand over any invention by assigning a patent, but this is of no use for war purposes. What country would regard patent law as a barrier to the use of a valuable war invention? Secondly, the cession of an invention to the League depends entirely on the goodwill of the nation concerned. No country can be sufficiently inspected to root out its new inventions. Suppose a gas ten times more useful, from a military point of view, than mustard gas were discovered in the laboratories of the I.G. An inspector, or "Secret Service" agent, at the next bench in the laboratory might never know that the research was not aimed at the discovery of a new dye. World equilibrium may at this moment be threatened by the discoveries of some absorbed scientist working, say, in a greenhouse in St. John's Wood.

We come back to the same point, that the crux of the situation lies in the possession of the means of production. There is hope of controlling this for a weapon like a tank, but it cannot be controlled for chemical warfare. If the League requires these weapons it cannot rely on obtaining them from a monopoly source so complete as the I.G. Further, with or without a League the mere existence of this monopoly is a permanent menace to peace.

Neglect of Chemical Disarmament in the Treaty.—Let us face the facts. Our treatment of chemical industry during the Treaty negotiations and in the Treaty itself persistently ignored its chameleon nature. We knew that the nitrogen plants at Oppau and Merseburg were the most menacing munition plants in existence. We knew the grave dangers of leaving Germany, a guilty country, in possession of the poison gas monopoly. Yet, deaf to such arguments, the Treaty opportunity was ignored. Even now the lesson is only half learnt by those whom it vitally concerns.

Here is a new weapon whose exploitation demands research and large scale production. The former cannot be checked, and the latter cannot be destroyed or suitably controlled to prevent conversion for war purposes. Yet three distinct features of this weapon make the disarmament need imperative.

In the first place, everything points to "chemical disarmament" as a key measure to control the large scale use of all other weapons. The aggressive agent in war is the chemical. All weapons, except the bayonet, depend upon it.

In the second place, chemical warfare is itself so overwhelmingly important that it is farcical to con-template any disarmament scheme which does not, first and foremost, tackle this question.

Thirdly, no nation ever held a more complete monopoly for any weapon than did Germany for chemical warfare. Yet the levelling up process which occurred during the war, tending towards armament equilibrium, towards removal of enormous disparity, failed to touch the chemical arm. Germany through her guilty exercise of the new weapon, has still further increased her enormous manufacturing superiority for war.

This age has witnessed the growth of an industry critical for war and disarmament. Others will follow as science progresses. Without them, the possibility of sudden decisions, and therefore war incentive will be removed. Sir Oliver Lodge prophesies the war use of the newly controlled atomic energy. The fulfilment depends on the growth of another critical war industry whose nature it would be difficult to foretell. It is these critical industries which rational disarmament must harness. At present the chemical industry holds the field.

Surely the first and crying need is to effect a redistribution of these organic chemical forces. This, indeed, is the one solid chemical disarmament measure which can and must he brought about.

The certain establishment of these industries in the chief countries outside Germany must be fixed far beyond the hazard of local politics and the reach of organised German attack. True, it is essential that no such support should in any way drug the will, weaken the initiative and impoverish the service of the fostered industries. This must depend upon wise organisation and control in the country concerned.

I claim, however, that it is one of the main duties of any League of Nations or other organisation dealing with disarmament to proceed two steps beyond the paragraph in Article 8 of the Covenant. This runs as follows: "The members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes, and the conditions of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes." Such an exchange of information must be used, first, to isolate that industry which is of a vital or key nature to the armament of the period, either on account of its value as a universal check, or because it fosters some particularly deadly new type of weapon or aggressive agent. The chemical industry at present fulfils both conditions, for without it, all weapons except the bayonet become silent, and it includes the organic chemical industry which fosters the deadly weapon of the period.

Secondly, rational disarmament must prevent the existence of monopoly in this critical industry. It may be objected that we are interfering with the play of ordinary economic laws. But we must face the possibility that the war of the future can never be averted without such interference. Indeed, if we accept the reports of the American Alien Property Custodian, this very monopoly which now threatens us was established by methods open to the same objections. It is indeed an interesting question whether the German dye monopoly resulted from forces which directly opposed the play of economic law. Further, the question is not so simple as it appears, for, in the industries which disarmament most concerns, governing technical changes are constantly occurring, and the normal home for the production of a whole range of chemical products may be shifted by a change of process which demands new raw materials or new types of energy and power. We must be ready, in certain critical cases, to regard disarmament as the paramount need. International agreement, through the League or otherwise, must find a suitable method to control the critical industry and prevent its use against world peace.

To be the ardent possessor of an ideal, to be its official guardian, does not allow us to ignore the technical aspect of an international and national issue. After our gigantic praiseworthy, but wasteful, attempts at chemical armament, let us at least disarm on rational lines.



CONCLUSION

THE TREATY AND THE FUTURE

I have endeavoured to present the facts of chemical warfare as briefly yet as truly as possible, giving a glimpse of the war possibilities inherent in this branch of applied chemical science. Nor have I ignored the hidden forces which inspired, stimulated, and supported the huge war chemical experiment. The great Rhine factories of the I.G. still cast their shadow on the outer world, obscuring the issues of reconstruction. This looming menace, its share in the past and future of chemical warfare, and the fatal growth of the latter present questions demanding an imperative answer. It is the weak point of world disarmament.