kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (11/03/84)
[surrender peaceably, bug, and we'll kill you mercifully after we torture your secrets out of you. . . .] I recently discovered an Authority to support my argument that using the Ultimate Weapon (hah!) on Japan was immoral largely because we offered unconditional surrender as the only alternative to war to the death. An authority no less than Capt. B. H. Liddell Hart, one of the 20th Century's greatest strategic thinkers. In his book _Defence of the West_ (William Morrow & Co., 1950), he includes a chapter titled "Two Words--The War's Greatest Blunder." I will quote, at length: "History may say that 'Unconditional Surrender' was the most expensive of all phrases--and of all policies. That two-word formula was produced at the Casablanca meeting between Pres. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill early in 1943. It sounded so simple and neat, ruling out all argument by the losing side, but proved a source of worse complications than any it was intended to avoid. It prolonged the war far beyond its likely end, thus leading to the sacrifice of countless lives that could have been saved. It jeopardized the chances of Europe's recovery, as the long drawn-out process of liberation entailed immense devastation on the Continent as well as the undue exhaustion of Britain. Another ominous sequel has been the conflict between the victors that resulted, naturally, from the complete disappearance of any European balance. War to the bitter end was bound to make Russia 'top dog' on the Continent, to leave the countries of Western Eurpoe gravely weakened, and to destroy any buffer. . . . All deep-thinking strategists in the past have realized the value of leaving a loophole of escape to cornered opponents, so encouraging a tendency to retreat. In that way, opposition starts to trickle away; the trickle develops into a stream, and the stream into a flood. If, on the other hand, no line of retreat is left, the most reluctant fighters tend to be stiffened with the courage of desperation. When, in war, the opponents are starting to wilt, a rigid demand for unconditional surrender has a natural tendency to stiffen their resistance, and may even cement an incipient crack. This elementary truth was pointed out in the first classic work on the art of war, that of the Chinese master-strategist Sun Tzu, in 500 B.C. . . . The German generals with whom I talked after the war all said that, but for the unconditional surrender policy, both they and their troops would have yielded sooner, either collectively or separately. . . . [But] [t]he generals could hardly order their troops to lay down their arms, and disobey Hitler, unless they could promise them some security against Allied vengeance." He does not discuss the case of Japan, although the same reasoning applies in that case as well. This is something not generally discussed nowadays: Why did the US (the policy was first formulated by FDR) pursue a policy which could only benefit the Russians in the long run? Personally, I believe it is because Americans are strategical ignoramuses, who have thus far been able to successfully dispense with subtlety thanks to an immense material advantage over the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this advantage won't last, due in good part to the dedication of our best technical resources to the development and production of unreliable "wonder weapons," and as it disappears, so too will our ability to enforce Imperial policy, which has depended on largesse and raw might to retain third-world "allies." BTW, does anybody ever stop to reflect on the German experience with wonder weapons, or, say, reread Arthur Clarke's story "Technology"? The whole Star Wars concept has a Teutonic grandiosity about it that is reminiscent of the German WWII efforts--Big Technology to The Rescue. Too bad the Russians produced 10 times as many tanks as the Germans did. I wonder what BMD proponents will say in 20 years, when third-world countries start to deploy "Nuclear Winter" devices on their home soil, a la the "Doomsday Bomb" of _Dr. Strangelove_. $1,000,000,000,000 (order of magnitude) spent, and some bozo in North Nowhere can still end the world on command? Not much of a payoff. . . . Despairingly, Kevin Eric Saunders