DOCSLIB.ORG

CHANGES in MODERN WARFARE- WORLD WAR I There Were Many Advances in Science and Technology During World War I That Changed Modern Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHANGES in MODERN WARFARE- WORLD WAR I There Were Many Advances in Science and Technology During World War I That Changed Modern Warfare CHANGES IN MODERN WARFARE- WORLD WAR I There were many advances in science and technology during World War I that changed modern warfare. New battle strategies and tactics had to be created due to these changes. Both sides had scientists and inventors who worked throughout the war to improve weapon technology so their side would have an edge in the fight AIRPLANES The first war to use the airplane was World War I. Airplanes were initially used to observe enemy troops, but by the end of the war they were used to drop bombs on troops and cities. Airplanes had machine guns mounted on them to shoot down other planes. Fights between two planes in the sky became known as “dogfights.” ZEPPELIN The Zeppelin, or the blimp, was an airship used during the early part of the war during bombing raids by the Germans. They carried machine guns and bombs, but were abandoned because they were too easy to shoot out of the sky. TANKS Tanks were first introduced and used during World War I at the Battle of the Somme. They were armored cars that were used to cross “No Man’s Land” between the trenches. Tanks had mounted machine guns and cannons. The first tank was the British Mark I. Its prototype had the code name of “Little Willie,” which needed a crew of three. Its maximum speed was only three miles per hour and it was unable to cross trenches. Initially, the tanks were unreliable and difficult to steer. They were originally called “landships” by the British, but later changed the name to tank, which what the factory workers called them because they looked like large water tanks. By the end of the war though, they became more effective and were able to carry ten men, had a revolving turret, and could reach four miles per hour. TRENCH WARFARE The Western Front mainly used trench warfare, where both sides dug long lines of trenches to help protect soldiers from gunfire and artillery. The area between the enemy trenches was known as “No Man’s Land.” Trench warfare led to a stalemate between the two sides for several years because neither side was able to gain ground. Unfortunately, both sides lost millions of soldiers during this fighting. NAVAL WARFARE Large metal-armored battleships known as dreadnoughts were the most dangerous ships used during World War I. They had powerful long-range guns allowing them to attack other ships and land targets from a large distance away. The Battle of Jutland was the main naval battle during World War I. Allied naval ships were also used to blockade Germany to prevent supplies and food from reaching them. Submarines were also used during World War I. Germany used their U-Boats to sneak up and sink ships with torpedoes. Allied passenger ships, such as the Lusitania, were even attacked. 1,195 people were killed in the sinking of the Lusitania on May 1st, 1915. Americans were outraged and joined World War I in 1917 on the side of the allies. WEAPONS BAYONETS were simple weapons that were designed more for their psychological impact. Men were trained to advance in rows with their faces contorted, lungs blaring, and bayonets thrusting. These charges were not typically effective when placed against other modern weapons, but they were effective propaganda. Bayonets were also used as all-purpose tools- used for anything from digging to opening canned food. RIFLES were the main weapon used by the British in the trenches. The bolt- action rifle could fire 15 rounds in one minute and a person 1,400 meters away could be killed. Soldiers spent much of their time cleaning and maintaining their rifles. ARTILLERY, or large guns, were improved during World War I. They included anti-aircraft guns that were used to shoot down enemy planes. The large artillery guns needed as many as twelve men to aim, load, and fire them. The majority of the casualties during World War I were inflicted by artillery. Some large artillery guns were able to launch shells almost 80 miles. MACHINE GUNS were improved during World War I. They were made much lighter and easier to move around. They needed 4-6 men to work them and had to be on a flat surface, but had the fire-power of 100 guns. They were able to fire up to 500 rounds per minute! Large field guns had long ranges and could deliver devastating blows to their enemies, but needed up to 12 men to work them. These guns fired shells that exploded upon impact. German troops had the upper-hand when the war started when it came to the quality and quantity of machine guns. The German army had more than 10,000 units in 1914, while the British and French had less than 1,000 each. GRENADES were small bombs that were thrown by hand or launched from a rifle attachment. They detonated on impact or by a time. Germany led the way in grenade development. The early British version was awkward to use and prone to accidental detonation. The Mills bombs were then created. They were pineapple-shaped and had a safety pin and firing lever. They were produced with four and seven second fuses. Allied soldiers were trained to hurl Mills bombs over by arm. The best cricket players were often called upon to be grenade specialists. MORTARS were later created to launch grenades and small bombs short distances. They made a distinctive “whoomp” sound when launched, which was often a signal to take cover. FLAME THROWERS were used by the German Army on the Western Front to force Allied troops out of their trenches. They were not widely used, but were terrifying. They were usually wielded by a single soldier and used pressurized gas to spurt burning oil or gasoline up to 40 meters. The problem was the flamethrowers had to be relatively close to their enemies, which made it easy for competent riflemen to kill them. CHEMICAL WEAPONS were introduced during World War I. Germany used chlorine gas to poison the Allied troops in the Battle of Ypres in 1915. Chlorine gas caused severe burning in the throat and chest pains. The death was extremely painful because it caused one to suffocate. The problem with chlorine gas was that the weather had to be right. If the wind blew in the wrong direction, troops could end up killing their own people, rather than the enemy. Later, mustard gas was developed and used by both Central and Allied troops. It was the most deadly weapon used and was shot into the trenches in shells. The gas was colorless and took 12 hours to take effect. The effects included: blistering skin, vomiting, sore eyes, external and internal bleeding. Death was slow and painful, taking up to five weeks. Troops started be equipped with gas masks by the end of the war, so the weapon was not as effective. MINES were large bombs or explosive charges that were planted underground and detonated remotely or by the contact of soldiers’ feet. Sea mines were also used by navies. They floated in the ocean and exploded upon contact with ships. Mines were not used much on the Western Front since there was not much mobility. Trench soldiers often dug tunnels to plant huge mines under enemy trenches and positions though. BARBED WIRE and caltrops (single iron spikes scattered on the ground) were used in “No Man’s Land” to stop enemy advances on one’s own trench. Barbed wire was laid as screens or “aprons.” It was installed by wiring parties who often worked at night. Attacking infantry found the large barbed wire screens almost impossible to penetrate. Many soldiers died slow deaths entangled in the wire. The positioning of the wire was important and often strategic. They tried to keep the enemy out of grenade range from the trench. They also tried to funnel troops toward machine-gun positions. More than one million kilometers of barbed wire was used on the Western Front..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Night Operation on the Passchendaele Ridge, 2Nd December 1917
    Centre for First World War Studies A Moonlight Massacre: The Night Operation on the Passchendaele Ridge, 2nd December 1917 by Michael Stephen LoCicero Thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of History and Cultures College of Arts & Law June 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract The Third Battle of Ypres was officially terminated by Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig with the opening of the Battle of Cambrai on 20 November 1917. Nevertheless, a comparatively unknown set-piece attack – the only large-scale night operation carried out on the Flanders front during the campaign – was launched twelve days later on 2 December. This thesis, a necessary corrective to published campaign narratives of what has become popularly known as „Passchendaele‟, examines the course of events from the mid-November decision to sanction further offensive activity in the vicinity of Passchendaele village to the barren operational outcome that forced British GHQ to halt the attack within ten hours of Zero. A litany of unfortunate decisions and circumstances contributed to the profitless result.
    [Show full text]
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • To Examine the Horrors of Trench Warfare
    TRENCH WARFARE Objective: To examine the horrors of trench warfare. What problems faced attacking troops? What was Trench Warfare? Trench Warfare was a type of fighting during World War I in which both sides dug trenches that were protected by mines and barbed wire Cross-section of a front-line trench How extensive were the trenches? An aerial photograph of the opposing trenches and no-man's land in Artois, France, July 22, 1917. German trenches are at the right and bottom, British trenches are at the top left. The vertical line to the left of centre indicates the course of a pre-war road. What was life like in the trenches? British trench, France, July 1916 (during the Battle of the Somme) What was life like in the trenches? French soldiers firing over their own dead What were trench rats? Many men killed in the trenches were buried almost where they fell. These corpses, as well as the food scraps that littered the trenches, attracted rats. Quotes from soldiers fighting in the trenches: "The rats were huge. They were so big they would eat a wounded man if he couldn't defend himself." "I saw some rats running from under the dead men's greatcoats, enormous rats, fat with human flesh. My heart pounded as we edged towards one of the bodies. His helmet had rolled off. The man displayed a grimacing face, stripped of flesh; the skull bare, the eyes devoured and from the yawning mouth leapt a rat." What other problems did soldiers face in the trenches? Officers walking through a flooded communication trench.
    [Show full text]
  • Trench Warfare
    Aaron Berman, Will Ryan, and Jim Wald Trench Warfare A Comparative Analysis of Civil War and World War I Trenches Lauren Fraser 4/30/2013 Page | 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: “A Soldier’s Life for Me”…Life in the Trenches ....................................... 7 Chapter 2: The Building of the Trenches ....... 32 Chapter 3: European Observations and the Trenches of WWI ............................... 55 Conclusion: ................................... 79 Bibliography .................................. 85 Page | 2 Trench Warfare A Comparative Analysis of Civil War and World War I Trenches Intro: Trench warfare, or occasionally “siege warfare”, is often defined as a form of “occupied fighting lines” in which soldiers are protected by field works from an opposing front’s artillery and small-arms fire. One tends to picture trench warfare as two large armies bogged down due to heavy artillery and unable to do more than move gradually inch by inch across a battlefield; or of men leaping out of trenches to dash headlong into immense fire and certain death. Sometimes considered representative of futility in war, trench warfare has become synonymous with stalemates in the midst of conflict, of the wearing down of enemy forces until they are unable to continue from lack of arms or morale, and of a form of warfare that is nothing more than senseless slaughter in less-than-stellar environments. Trench warfare is so often associated with World War I because its usage was such a prominent characteristic. Tactically and strategically, the use of trenches for defensive purposes was not particularly new by 1914. Field fortifications – forts, strongholds, and even trenches – have Page | 3 been in sporadic usage throughout warfare as far back as the Romans, although not to the same extent as during the First World War.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Building a Rattan Weapon for SCA Youth Combat by Mistress Arianna of Wynthrope Baronial Youth Combat Marshall, Barony-Marche O
    Building a Rattan Weapon for SCA Youth Combat By Mistress Arianna of Wynthrope Baronial Youth Combat Marshall, Barony-Marche of the Debatable Lands This article demonstrates one way to make rattan weapons for SCA Youth Combat Division 2 and 3 fighters. It is not the only way, but weapons made this way have passed inspection by Kingdom and Society level Youth Combat Marshals and proven to be durable and functional. You will need the following supplies and equipment: • A piece of rattan between ¾” and 1” in diameter and appropriate in length for the weapon you wish to make. Weapon length should be proportional to the fighter. Great weapons have the following maximum length limitations: • Spear - 7.5’ • Pole-arms - 6’ - The striking edge shall not exceed 1/3 of the weapons total length. • Great sword - 6’ - No more than 18" haft (hilt). • 1” inner diameter pipe foam that is at least 3/8” thick and long enough for the desired weapon • Closed cell camp foam, any thickness from ¼” to ¾” • A roll of duct tape • A roll of electrical tape in a contrasting color to the duct tape • Scissors • A utility knife • For single-handed weapons, a shoelace or other cord for a lanyard • A ruler 1 STEP 1 – Making sure your rattan is properly sized Using a ruler, verify that your rattan is at least ¾” and no more than 1” in diameter. If it is too large, use a plane or draw knife to shave it down, then sand the entire shaft. If it is less than ¾” in diameter, do not use that piece of rattan.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Arms-Individual Weapons
    290 Small Arms–Individual Weapons INVESTMENT COMPONENT Modernization thousand M14 EBRs were assembled be mounted on the shotgun. The bolt • 1QFY09: Materiel release and full- at TACOM Lifecycle Management handle is mountable on either side for rate production decision Recapitalization Command at Rock Island Arsenal in ambidextrous handling. • 3QFY09: First unit equipped response to Operational Need Statements M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun Maintenance requesting a longer range capability. The MASS enables Soldiers to transition System: The upgraded weapons are currently in between lethal and less-than-lethal fires • 4QFY09: Limited user test and MISSION service with select Army units. and adds the capability of a separate evaluation with MP units Enables warfighters and small units to shotgun without carrying a second • 2QFY10: Low-rate initial production engage targets with lethal fire to defeat The M320 Grenade Launcher is the weapon. Additional features include a approved or deter adversaries. replacement to all M203 series grenade box magazine, flip-up sights, and an • 4QFY10: First article testing launchers on M16 Rifles and M4 extendable stand-off device for door complete DESCRIPTION Carbines. A modular system, it attaches breaching. The M4 Carbine replaces the M16 series under the barrel of the rifle or carbine PROJECTED ACTIVITIES Rifles in all Brigade Combat Teams, and can convert to a stand-alone weapon. SYSTEM INTERDEPENDENCIES M4 Carbine: Division Headquarters, and other The M320 improves on current grenade None • Continue: M4 production, deliveries, selected units. It is 1.4 pounds lighter launchers with an integral day/night and fielding and more portable than the M16 series of sighting system and improved safety PROGRAM STATUS M14 EBR: rifles.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of the War at Sea During WWI
    The Importance of The War At Sea During WWI By: Taylor Pressdee, Anna Ward, Nathan Urquidi What Was the Impact of ‘The War at Sea’? ● Opened a new kind of warfare: Submarine Warfare ● Involved civilians as well as sailors and soldiers ● One of the major reasons that the United States joined the Allies ● Influenced major events during the war: Battle of Jutland, the naval blockade, submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania Who Was Affected By The War at Sea? ● “Total War” ● War At Sea affected civilians as well as soldiers ● Ship Liners, and Coastal cities were in danger of attack ● Starvation was prevalent in specifically Germany because supply ships were being sunk Timeline May 31st 1916 September 1915 Battle of Jutland Germans stop using U-boats February 1st 1916 Germans begin using U-boats again May 7th 1916 Lusitania Sinks Battle of Jutland Battle of Jutland ● Fought on May 31st 1916 ● Only major battle fought at sea ● Fought by the Jutland Peninsula between England and Germany ● Two Admirals in charge of both fleets: Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer (Left) and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe (Right) The Battle ● British forces intercepted a German message containing a plan to attack them on May 28th ● However, Admiral Scheer postponed the attack due to bad weather ○ Attempted to plan another attack down by the Jutland Peninsula, however Britain intercepted this plan as well ● Vice Admiral Jellicoe moved his fleet down to the Jutland Peninsula, awaiting the attack Aftermath of the Battle ● The British suffered losses, but not nearly
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Updated July 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant CRS reports. Congressional Research Service American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Artillery Lends Dignity to What Otherwise Would Be a Common Brawl": an Essay on Post-Modern Warfare and the Classification of Captured Adversaries
    Pace International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 1 Spring 2002 Article 5 April 2002 "Artillery Lends Dignity to What Otherwise Would Be a Common Brawl": An Essay on Post-Modern Warfare and the Classification of Captured Adversaries Ralph Michael Stein Pace University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Ralph Michael Stein, "Artillery Lends Dignity to What Otherwise Would Be a Common Brawl": An Essay on Post-Modern Warfare and the Classification of Captured Adversaries, 14 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 133 (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol14/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "ARTILLERY LENDS DIGNITY TO WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE A COMMON BRAWL": AN ESSAY ON POST-MODERN WARFARE AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF CAPTURED ADVERSARIES Ralph Michael Stein* I. Introduction ....................................... 133 II. What is "War" in a Post-Modernist America? ...... 134 III. Warfare Moves in Two Contradictory Directions .. 140 IV. The Protection of Prisoners of War ................ 141 V. And Now, What Do We Do With the Taliban and Al Qaeda Fighters? ....... ......................... 148 1. INTRODUCTION As this essay is written many individuals believed to have adhered to the cause of terrorist activities against the United States, including participation in or support of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon building, are in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I 1914-1918
    A Significant War Over 16 million people died in WWI and over 20 million were wounded, totaling over 37 million. There are 317 million people in the United States today. That means, that if the casualties from WWI were applied to the United States today, one in every nine people would be dead or wounded. That is how much of an impact this war had on the world, especially Europe, and why it is important to know and understand. World War I What was the correlation between the Age of Imperialism and the outbreak of World War I? Long Term Causes Militarism- Glorifying Military Power Keeping a large standing army prepared for war Arms race for military technology Long Term Causes Nationalism- Deep Devotion to One’s Nation Competition and Rivalry developed between European nations for territory and markets (Example France and Germany- Alsace-Lorraine) Long Term Causes Imperialism- European competition for colonies Quest for colonies often almost led to war Imperialism led to rivalry and mistrust amongst European nations Long Term Causes Alliance System- Designed to keep peace in Europe, instead pushed continent towards war Many Alliances made in secret By 1907 two major alliances: Triple Alliance and Triple Entente The Two Sides Triple Alliance Triple Entente Germany England Austria-Hungary France Italy Russia Central Powers Allied Powers Germany England, France, Austria-Hungary Russia, United Ottoman Empire States, Italy, Serbia, Belgium, Switzerland Game of Allegiance Did it get confusing trying to keep your allegiances
    [Show full text]
  • Ethical Issues in the Global Arms Industry
    draft: March 7, 2015 Michael Davis, Illinois Institute of Technology Ethical Issues in the Global Arms Industry: A Role for Engineers Ethical Dilemmas in the Global Defense Industry Conference University of Pennsylvania Law School Philadelphia, April 16, 2015 This paper has four parts. The first two seek to clarify the subject of this conference, ethical issues in the global arms industry. The third sketches the role engineers have in much of the global arms industry. The last part considers one way that engineers might help with resolving some of the industry’s ethical issues. While the first part of this paper should contain few surprises, the last three will, I hope, contain more. 1. Dilemmas and Defense Let me begin with two differences between the official title of this conference and the title of my paper. First, I have substituted “issues” for “dilemmas”. Second, I have substituted “arms” for “defense”. The purpose of these changes is to avoid unnecessary disputes rather than to change the subject of the conference. Let me explain. A “dilemma” is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two (or more) equally undesirable alternatives.1 If the alternatives were not equally undesirable, the choice would be easy: choose the more desirable alternative. There would be no dilemma (though the choice might, like most good choices, have its cost). My impression is that the main ethical issues, questions, problems, or quandaries posed by the global arms industry are not dilemmas (in this sense) but complex situations in which most of the choices on offer are hard to assess and many of the best choices have yet to be devised.
    [Show full text]