Abstract
ADDRESSING the House of Commons on May 13 on disarmament, Sir John Simon, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said that everyone would agree it was desirable to enter into an agreement, and make effective its observance, against the use of poison gas in warfare. It was an example of ‘qualitative’ disarmament, contrasted with ‘quantitative’ disarmament, aiming at a limitation of the number and size of ships and the calibre of guns. Sir John Simon's declaration was received| with cheers, and his argument was reinforced in the debate by Mr. Winston Churchill, who laid stress on the indiscriminate character of gas warfare, entailing death and wounds not merely to combatants but also to the civil population, men, women, and children, far removed from the area of hostilities. He pointed out that the acceptance among the leading authorities of different countries of the bombing of open towns would introduce a new idea into warfare, “an idea not compatible with any civilised decency”. Are we to allow ourselves to be led, step by step, into contemplating such hideous episodes as part of the ordinary give and take of war?
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chemical Warfare and Disarmament. Nature 129, 809–811 (1932). https://doi.org/10.1038/129809a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/129809a0