GAS WARFARE IS NOT CRUEL

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1927, Page 4

GAS WARFARE IS NOT CRUEL

(By J. U. S. HALDANE. Render in Bio-Chemistry in Cambridge University, one of the leading chemists of the day. with special knowledge of poison gases, here replies to the striking article by Lord Halsbury which was published in “ The Daily Alail” under the heading “The Poison gas AA’ar That is Coming.”) One of the many novelties introduced into warfare between 191 1 and 1918 was the use of poisonous gases and smokes. It is an open secret that towards the end of the Great AA’ar they were being very rapidly developed and would li;> been used by the British in the campaign of 1919 on an altogether unprecedented scale. But for various reasons a great.deal of misconception prevails with regard to chemical weapons. In the first place they are regarded as more cruel than bayonets or high explosives, and many nations have therefore agreed not to use them In future wars. It is true that the agreements are so vaguely worded as to leave many loopholes and that some Powers are not parties to them. Xcuv the first German gas attacks against unprotected troops were undoubtedly cruel. A very large proportion of the casulaties died after considerable suffering. But “ mustard gas.” the most effective chemical weapon so far used, is the least cruel of all known weapons. It caused 170.000 British casualties, hut only one in forty of these died, and less than one in a hundred was permanently incapacitated. The others were blistered and quite incapable of fighting for weeks or months, hut at last recovered completely.

For this reason, if 1 am in the field in the next war l shall he delighted to hear that our enemies have adopted gas warfare. Mustard gas and propaganda are the only methods by which an army can he defeated without killing or maiming a third of its numbers. But it is also suggested that gas bombs and smoke clouds Irout hostile aeroplanes will be used against civilian populations in towns. Again, if I am in London during future air raids T sincerely hope that any bombs dropped in my neighbourhood will contain gas rather than high explosives. In the first place, houses are a very considerable protection against gas. AA'hen it is released it lies on the ground, and very little indeed would penetrate a room with closed windows on the first or second floor, provided there was no lire to suck in outside air. A cellar with blankets over the entrances would also be lairly safe.

Xo doubt, if a- large gas bomb hursts in a house the inhabitants will mostly ho killed, hut the same is true if it is hit by a large bomb containing high explosives. Moreover, gas bombs do not cause fires, and in any future air raids on London it is only too probable that more fires will he stalled than the brigades can cope with at one time. Calculations have been made to show that the whole of central London could he smothered by two thousand tons of

a poison gas such as phosgene. These overlook certain facts. In the first place the total weight of the bombs would he five thousand tons or more, as a compressed gas must lie contained in vessels with thick metal walls. They would require a Heel of several thousand bombing aeroplanes, and no such fleet is in existence.

Secondly, the required concentration cocild only Ik* rvnclu'tl in vol'y calm weather, as otherwise the gas would lie rapidly dispersed by the wind. And, finally, only a very small proportion of gas would penetrate into properly closed rooms. With the same weight of incendiary bombs several thousand distinct fires could fie started and large areas of London would he burnt out. Nevertheless, the dangers of such an aLtack might ho greatly reduced if 1

civilian population realised that fairly good protection against must gases is con for red by remaining in a closed room and breathing through as many layers as possible of a loose woollen fabric. There are, of course, smoke* which will penetrate even the best of respirators, hut though they cause a good deal of irritation they are not very poisonous. The real danger to London lies in attack with high explosives and incendiary bombs. They can he dropped night after night, whereas in order to he effective gas bombs must he dropped simultaneously and close together so as to obtain a fatal concentration. A I single gas bomb will probably do no harm at all, a single high-explosive bomb may destroy several houses. The air defence of London is a military problem only second in importance to the defence of our shores and food supplies. Anti-gas measures will not protect us from high explosives. An efficient anti-aircraft defence would solve both these problems. It is the business of the Government to supply that defence, and of every London ALP. to see that they do so.