Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ChicagoRonin

(714 posts)
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 06:01 PM Jun 2022

(article) People Thought Machine Guns Might Prevent Wars - They were wrong

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/maxim-guns/428253/

The New York Times, in 1897, called Maxim’s invention “terrible automatic engines of war,” and suggested their mere existence might convince world leaders to settle conflicts diplomatically.

“These are the instruments that have revolutionized the methods of warfare, and because of their devastating effects, have made nations and rulers give greater thought to the outcome of war before entering … ” the Times wrote in 1897. “They are peace-producing and peace-retaining terrors.”

But when war broke out, machine guns proved to be catastrophic. They killed millions of people in World War I alone—a conflict that became known as the “machine gun war”—and sometimes killed tens of thousands of people in a single day.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(article) People Thought Machine Guns Might Prevent Wars - They were wrong (Original Post) ChicagoRonin Jun 2022 OP
I mean, if the people in charge of wars had to lead from the front, war would end pretty quickly ck4829 Jun 2022 #1
They once said the same thing about nukes.... TheRealNorth Jun 2022 #2
Putin's burning through a lot of generals in Ukraine. patphil Jun 2022 #3
And that's the rub... that's who needs to go ck4829 Jun 2022 #4
Albert I of Belgium may disprove that theory. NutmegYankee Jun 2022 #5
I apologize for the opinion slightlv Jun 2022 #6
They said that about dynamite, too...nt Wounded Bear Jun 2022 #7

ck4829

(37,761 posts)
1. I mean, if the people in charge of wars had to lead from the front, war would end pretty quickly
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 06:03 PM
Jun 2022

TheRealNorth

(9,647 posts)
2. They once said the same thing about nukes....
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 06:08 PM
Jun 2022

But we don't want everyone wielding one. It's bad enough when Trump and Putin had/have access to the nuclear codes.

patphil

(9,068 posts)
3. Putin's burning through a lot of generals in Ukraine.
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 06:19 PM
Jun 2022

They have to be at the front to get the troops to fight.
Unfortunately the one military commander that isn't going to die on the front is Putin.

slightlv

(7,790 posts)
6. I apologize for the opinion
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 07:30 PM
Jun 2022

but I think the only way we're ever going to get rid of wars is to get rid of the patriarchy. Put women in charge of the government, and you -might- stand a chance. Not all women are cooperators, but you do stand a better chance at having governments based on cooperative, fair-trade based policies than you ever would with men at the helm. Women are not only cooperators rather than competitors, but they are creators rather than destroyers. They also tend to think decades into the future rather than just what's around the corner tomorrow. These are just sweeping statements, and do not hold true for all women, please understand that. There is always the exception to the rule. And, knowing American society as it stands right now, we'll find the exceptions to put in power, no doubt!! But across the board, if enough men are stricken from government and replaced with women, we might stand a chance to wipe out war across the globe. And we really do need to begin to think along these earth-shaking terms, I believe. Men are going to kill us all, including the earth, if we don't.

The time for the rise of the Matriarchy is now.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»(article) People Thought ...