Wings Assignment 4

Why did some world leaders and theologians feel that flying would be the end of mankind?

When Wilbur and Orville Wright successfully achieved human flight at the beginning of the twentieth century, they knew they had stumbled upon the beginning of aviation, but they had also created something else. Many individuals and groups disagreed with the creation of the airplane because they felt it would cause more harm than good. This is due to the fact that the Wright Brothers’ had unintentionally invented not only a new machine, but a new weapon.

Both those who agreed or disagreed with the creation of the airplane theorized about the path it would take in the history of humankind. Those who disagreed with its invention had for the most part come to this conclusion due to their speculation that it would cause death to the innocent among the masses. They especially grew fearful of the destruction that would come about when the power of flight fell into the wrong hands. “Noel Andre l’Abbe Pluche agreed that “the art of flying would be the greatest calamity that could befall society,” while the English natural philosopher William Derham believed that flight would “give ill men greater opportunities to do Mischief,” and prove inconsistent with “the Peace of the World”” (page 357).

Did these men have ideas that would eventually become a reality? The incorporation of flight into war would prove that flight was definitely possible of all these speculations. Both World War I and World War II heavily relied upon the new weapon of flight in their battles. Airplanes became equipped with guns and bombs, leading to the death and destruction of many. Theologians were right in that every country needed to scramble to arm themselves with airplanes in order to protect themselves from those who already had it.

Flight continues today to be used as a weapon. We in America know this all too well after September 11^th. However, flight has become so much more in society than just a weapon. Flight is a major part of transportation, which without the world would be very different. Flight continues to be used both for good and bad today, but I think that many of the theologians who speculated about the airplanes potential many years ago would be surprised by the amount of good it can also bring to society.

What new technologies revolutionized aerial combat in WWII?

               At the beginning of World War II, the world had only been introduced to the airplane just a few years beforehand. The incorporation of aviation into society, especially in America, depended heavily upon the dependence of flight in the wars. The strong utilization of flight in World War I had dramatically taken the airplane - that had almost literally just become a practical success by the Wright Brothers - to a much more reliable machine with much higher standards. This increase in the airplane’s technology and aerial combat technology was no different for World War II.

               As expected, airplanes advanced throughout the World War II. Countries focused great amounts of attention on pursuing air bombings through bomber planes. These planes had more advanced designs and engines than the planes that had been used pre-World War II. Countries also focused on mass production of air planes, numbering in the thousands of airplanes produced, ultimately leading to production outcomes never before seen. Not only did airplanes advance during World War II, but also technology concerning aerial combat. A major breakthrough came with the use of radars for detection. “No one envisioned an air war in which a battle between electronic detection and navigation systems, and the technical measures devised to counter them, would spell the difference between victory and defeat” (page 384). Aviation grew tremendously during World War II, not only through airplanes, but with aerial technology, like the radio detection system. In addition to defense, new weapons incorporated via flight also started to become introduced, like the atomic bomb. Without airplanes, it is not likely that atomic bombs could be deployed, so the invention of weapons of mass destruction like this became possible largely due to flight. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost during World War II due to air attacks. These scales of attack would not have been possible without flight and its advancement. 

What role did strategic bombing play during the war and was it successful?

               During World War II, aerial combat had become a major part of battle. This of course, would not be possible without the airplane. Aerial bombing had been introduced in World War I, and because of its “success,” continued to be utilized during World War II. As bombing became more and more a focus during the war, leaders decided to introduce strategic bombing as opposed to random bombing.

               Strategic bombing is the bombing attacks of industrial areas, like railroads and factories, instead of the bombing of civilian areas. The purpose of this type of bombing is to cutoff the enemy from its own further advancement in the war, while lessening civilian casualties. This new idea of strategic bombing became even more possible with the use of radio, radar detection, and aerial mapping, because pilots were more equip to precisely aim at specific targets.

               The use of strategic bombing was a tactic incorporated by the United States when pursuing its own attacks. Franklin Roosevelt endorsed strategic bombing on enemies in order to prevent as many civilian casualties as possible. “‘The American government and the American people,’ he announced in 1939, ‘have for some time pursued a policy of whole-heartedly condemning the unprovoked bombing and machine-gunning of civilians’”(page 408). However, the numbers do not lie. The hundreds of thousands of lives lost during the war for the most part included civilians. “Talk was cheap. When the time came, whatever his public stance, President Roosevelt urged an unrelenting, around-the-clock, strategic-air assault of the enemy’s homeland as a keystone of Allied policy”(page 408). In the end, many homes and cities had been burned to the ground, with little focus seeming to have been to only bomb strategically. Therefore, the overall use of strategic bombing not only by the United States but by all participants of the war appeared to have failed.