With every advance in technology also comes a regression, of sorts. When the Agricultural Revolution brought immense change to the world, axes and spears were invented to protect property. As civilizations and populations grew over the years, the gun was eventually invented. And when world superpowers, full of precious ‘cargo’ to protect, scoffed at diplomacy the arms race began. Great technological progress has brought the world to one of two options: 1. the power to create, and 2. the power to destroy. Despite all good intentions, the power to destroy continues to live on.
American society has been and always will be changing. Certain values, notions, and ideals are quite firmly ingrained in the American psyche, and they are far from being completely erased (individualism, republican democracy, and "capitalism"). These are abstract things, however. Ideas are not easily replaced, as they typically need a philosophical revolution to do so. Concrete, tangible things, on the other hand, are constantly being added and taken from American society. Ford’s Model T, "The Lawrence Welk Show," the 8-track tape, and Levi Jeans were, and still are, emblematic of American society. However, their heyday was over long ago. The Hummer is the new Model T, American Idol the new "Lawrence Welk Show," the iPod the new 8-track tape, and a flashy $200 pair of jeans the new pair of Levi’s. All of this seems and is a great step forward. Things became available to the masses and no longer just the elite. And they worked much better, too. All of this progress masked a tragic phenomenon: the progression of weapons technology and the regression of human interaction.
As automobiles were being built en masse in their infancy, the atomic bomb was being quietly researched and manufactured. After all, why should weapons be forbidden from adhering to the same old consumer mantra, “Bigger, better, faster!” A bigger, better, and faster weapon was needed to protect bigger, better, and faster things. Spears and lances, bows and arrows, and guns and ammo were no longer seen as capable of defending things. Missiles and bombs seemed like the only answer. So just as the assembly line was capable of producing radios for the millions in America, the engineering lab was capable of systematically destroying hundreds of thousands of people in Japan. Unfortunately, this was exactly what happened.
War, with the rapid progression of technology, became much less personable and "real," just as communication has with the advent of cell phones and social networking websites. The human costs of war are hardly ever seen anymore, even by soldiers. A man sitting in Washington, DC is capable of attacking a village in Waziristan. He will never have to leave his air conditioned office to experience the intense heat of the Middle East, nor will he have to see the countless dead and maimed who suffered from his attack. Because of technology, the human element is gone. Consequences are sanitized and seen through rose-colored glasses. Advances in weapons technology and the substitution of a screen for human interaction is what perpetuates this gross and seemingly endless injustice called "war."
For now, it seems like weapons will only continue to get bigger, better, and faster. The reason for this insatiable appetite of bombs, missiles, and guns is quite simply because of governments. Only governments feel the need to wage pointless wars based on lies, to conquest foreign lands to plunder their resources, and to simply “boost morale.” Only until the greatest injustice of all time, government, is abolished will this excessive hunger for weapons end. The power to destroy will still remain an option, but it will never match the power to create.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments










I think that all technology, including weaponry, is inherent to advancement. You can't have one without the other. You physically cannot protect yourself with a gun if your enemy has a nuclear weapon. Really, the only thing that has changed is scale. Owning a gun used to be mutually assured destruction on a smaller scale, we're just bigger, better, and faster. The scale of the world has increased; try not to think of it as a zero sum game.
The assumption that without government, technology would NOT lead to improved weaponry is a bad one. In engineering terms, we have just started unlocking the ability for smaller units of manpower to utilize larger units of energy. What happens with that energy is directly related to who controls it, not to the technology itself. Without the technology that allows for nuclear weapons, we wouldn't have the ability to provide enough food for as many people as we have on this earth. Either more people would be starving to death, or we would have more statism enforcing population controls. The ability to provide for an exponential number of people REQUIRES the ability to destroy exponential numbers of people.
"The assumption that without government, technology would NOT lead to improved weaponry is a bad one."
I'm not saying that absent government weapon technology would cease to improve. I'm saying that there would be no need for bouncing betties, hydrogen bombs, etc. if we didn't have rampant militaristic imperialism. But unfortunately, that is what we have. After all, do you think a hydrogen bomb would be necessary to solve a neighborhood dispute? I think not.
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
Governments do not cause wars, people cause wars and use governments to fight them. We have the wars for the same reasons that we have the welfare state. One group believes that they should have what another group wants. They then work towards making that group appear to the be the bad guys, so to take what the other group has instead of working to produce what the need. It does not matter what the two groups are that are pitted against each other are. It can be the poor and the wealthy as the socialist try to do. Once race against another as we see here in this country. Or it can be one religion against another as in the middle east. It was for this reason that John Locke consistently called it making war on another when one person took another's life, liberty, or property. The way to stop war is to realize that we are the problem, when we covet what another has.
If what I have stated is the case, then government is no more responsible for the newer and more powerful weapons, then they are for newer and more powerful cares. It is the desire of the poeple that drive governments to build those weapons.