Are we to yield in this field of economic war? If so, then one of the chief lessons of the Great War will remain unheeded, and the future cannot fall to prove this to the hilt, to our cost.
CHAPTER X
LINES OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The Element of Speculation.—It is of considerable interest to Introduce an element of speculation into our discussion of chemical warfare. In glancing at future possibilities, we can adopt one of two courses, follow up the clearly marked lines of recent development, or give the imagination play within the whole field of scientific possibility. The former course lies more within the scope of this book.
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.