A Modern Proposal for Aiding Our Country in Winning a Full-Scale Nuclear Conflict

A MODERN PROPOSAL FOR AIDING OUR COUNTRY IN WINNING A FULL-SCALE NUCLEAR CONFLICT HERBERT F. JANSSEN* The threat of global nuclear war has produced a negative influence on our emotional stability [I]. Undoubtedly, this emotional stress results in part from fear of the unknown. In the past, the consequences ofwars, as devastating as they have been, were also somewhat predictable. It is feared by many that a nuclear conflict will not produce these previously anticipated results. Frequently it is said that a full-scale nuclear war cannot be won [2]. I feel that this argument is nearsighted. Advocates of this theory have failed to focus clearly on the ultimate goal ofwarfare. In war, as in any contest, a winner can be determined only if we have a welldefined objective or end point for the contest. In an attempt to define this objective, we must look beyond rationales and consider the actual battlefield strategies that have been employed in warfare. It is, after all, these strategies that reflect accurately the true intent of the parties involved. As a hypothesis for consideration, I submit that historically the objective of war has not been the death of the adversary. Support for this hypothesis can be found in the international agreement governing conduct in warfare. In 1899 an international agreement ratified at the Hague Conference prohibited the use of soft-nosed or dumdum bullets in warfare [3]. If killing the opponent is the prime objective of war, this would seem to be illogical. Big-game hunters often prefer soft-nosed bullets that mushroom on impact [4]. This mushroom effect enlarges the size of the wound, thereby increasing the likelihood of a rapid death. Similar results are obtained with dumdum bullets. A projectile of this type is more effective at killing than are the hard-jacketed bullets used in military-issued small arms. Hard-jacketed bullets cause minimal tissue ""Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas 79430.© 1986 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 003 1-5982/86/2904-048410 1 .00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 29, 4 ¦ Summer 1986 | 535 damage. Unless a vital organ is hit directly, a slow, painful death may come as the result of shock or infection. After World War I, the Geneva Convention of 1925 banned the use of chemical weapons in future wars [5]. Again, this is illogical if the objective of war is the quick and humane death of one's opponent. In the United States, inhalation or injection of lethal compounds has become the recommended method for the humane execution of criminals and unwanted stray animals [6, 7]. These chemicals are relatively inexpensive to produce and, if delivered correctly, would certainly produce greater death tolls than would the conventional small arms that are issued currently to our soldiers. If the death of your opponent is not the primary objective of warfare, what is? It is accepted in military doctrine that a wounded enemy soldier is a much greater burden on the opponent than is one who is killed instantly. Currently, on the average, 4.2 staff persons are required in the hospital for the maintenance of each patient [8]. This figure does not include the additional support personnel required for the delivery of food and supplies to the hospital, transportation of the wounded to and from the hospital, etc. This number of required personnel decreases greatly if the soldier is killed on the battlefield. Burial is a simple task requiring unskilled labor and minimal time. If this is considered in conjunction with the previous discussion, it can be deduced that, in modern warfare, it is more desirable to subject your adversary to a slow, painful death than it is to kill him rapidly. If we can agree that the objective of war is the slow, painful death of one's adversary, it would seem logical to assume that the country that accomplishes this goal most successfully is the victor. When this logic is applied to nuclear war, it is apparent that we must rethink our strategy if we are to win such a conflict. The United States and Soviet Russia both possess sophisticated devices for the delivery of...