Comments on: Problems of the Age: 13: The Reaction of War Weapons on Civil Life

By: kevinf

kevinf — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:03:29 +0000

Steve C, good point. I had not thought about that, but then again the anti-labor sentiment was often linked to fears of communism even this early in the 20th century. That was perhaps part of the reasoning that allowed for the violent reaction to union organizing, such as the attack on union workers on the steamship Verona in Everett, WA in 1916. That attack left around a dozen workers dead or missing, and one policeman and one deputized thug (described as “businessman” in the local press at the time) also dead, probably by friendly fire.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:12:14 +0000

Kevinf: I also found his remarks about labor unrest interesting. I couldn’t help but think that part of his concern had to do with events in Russia and the revolution. He’s writing this at a time when the US is going into a Red Scare, so I’d venture to say that that was also on his mind.

By: kevinf

kevinf — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0000

This was really enlightening. One of Dr. Tanner’s fears seems to be related to labor unrest, and that these weapons would be used by disgruntled workers.

Some of this I suspect is related to what I suspect was a much higher incidence of violence in the 19th century than our present day. This time frame (1918) is also the high point in the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or Wobblies) and union violence was considered by business and government to be a real threat. In reality, it would appear that more union members died as a result of police action or thugs hired to intimidate the unions than the other way around. Certainly there was some sabotage from union members of machinery or business property, but personal violence seems to have tipped against union workers.

Relatively speaking, I think our society currently may be less subject to personal violence now than at any time during the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century (not counting actual wars, of course).

Still, an eerily prescient anticipation of modern terrorism, but I don’t think that was Dr. Tanner’s real fear.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:25:21 +0000

The use of airplanes as getaway vehicles seems fanciful 90 years on, but as the “Barefoot Bandit” recently tracked down and captured in the Bahamas, shows, it’s not completely unknown.

And, I suppose, we could add DB Cooper and Brother Richard F. McCoy to that list, although their use of the airplane wasn’t quite what Bro. Tanner had in mind.

His concern about rogue use of aircraft by civilians was echoed by concerns during the interwar period about the military use of aircraft against civilian populations. Stanley Baldwin, the British PM, said it most succinctly in a speech in 1932: “The bomber will always get through.”

He didn’t know then that radar would be invented, or that there weren’t (and wouldn’t be) enough airplanes or bombs in Germany to wipe out England’s cities anyway. Or that nobody, whether English or Iraqi, could be shocked or awed into surrender by an aerial bombing campaign using conventional weapons.

By: CurtA

CurtA — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:06:09 +0000

Being somewhat of a contemporary of Heber J. Grant, Dr. Tanner probably did not survive to see the horrors of WW2 with nuclear weaponry, etc. It would be an interesting exercise to papraphrase his thesis using modern weapons, rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea and terrorist groups. No, it wouldn’t be interesting, it would be sleep-depriving.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:32:32 +0000

Steve, there is some background in the comments to the Preface post. He’s probably best known for being the husband of Annie Clark Tanner (author of A Mormon Mother), but that doesn’t exactly define his career, does it? Sometime before this series runs too far, I’ll try to write up a compact biography that helps us all understand why his ideas were selected for the priesthood course of study that year.

And I very much appreciate your noting that there was some grounds beyond paranoid fantasy for his suspicion that war weapons could be turned against a civilian population. I was afraid that was so “out there” that everyone would scoff beyond what is warranted. He may have been overly pessimistic, but not entirely wrong. IMO.

By: Steve C.

Steve C. — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:21:41 +0000

What an interesting outlook from a 1917/18 perspective. I have known that from the very beginning the airplane was considered for its military perspective and that one of its earliest uses was during World War I. I had not, however, considered that people’s first impression of the airplane was strictly as a weapon. I wonder what Dr. Tanner would think of President Uchtdorf’s numereous references in conference talks to aviation and airplanes to illustrate gospel principles.

I am also intrigued by the views Dr. Tanner expressed with the reality of today. Certainly airplanes are used for military purposes and, in the wrong hands, missiles to crash into tall buildings. On the other hand look at the wonderful and beneficial civilian use of the airplane. The use of the submarine has also beneifited science. I don’t know of too many rogue submariners who have become pirates, though. I guess we continue to have concerns about poison gas in the wrong hands.

I hope I’m not asking an obvious question, but who was Dr. Joseph Tanner and what was his background?