FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1914
1914 - 0855.PDF
AUGUST 14, 1914. opponent as speedily as possible—he dare not be too squeamish—and where the rules governing it are so elastic and where such differences of opinion exist between the Great Powers, many acts will be countenanced that should raise the indignation of the civilised world. But we will not go so far as to admit that— " The test of the legitimacy of any engine of war is, in the end, its effectiveness; if the results which it achieves are sufficiently great to be regarded as justifying the incidental suffering of its victims, if its " bag " is large enough, then the conscience of the world has no difficulty in approving its use." The space at our disposal renders it impossible to more than briefly refer to the subject matter of the volume, and we will, therefore, confine our attention to three points dealt with by Dr. Spaight, and which are to us of supreme importance and intense interest at the present juncture. These relate to a) the aerial attack of towns and cities, (t>) the passage of aircraft over neutral territory, and (r) the treatment accorded to private aircraft. The discharge of projectiles or explosives from aircraft on undefended towns is a contingency which we have to face, as notwithstanding the prohibitions embodied in the Declaration at the Hague Convention, the signatories to the agreement were only Great Britain, the United States, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Holland, Portugal, (7JJGHT) Switzerland and Turkey, and these countries are only bound in wars between themselves, and would be free to avail themselves of this mode of attack against a non- signatory Power, or when allied to a non-signatory Power ; but even in war between the countries mentioned, the susceptibility to, or the immunity from, attack from aircraft enjoyed by a town or city apparently depends in part upon the question as to what constitutes a defended town. According to Article 25 of the Hague Reglement, the bombardment of undefended cities, towns, villages, &c, is forbidden, but in the Convention on Naval Bombardments, which Dr. Spaight believes will be applicable to aerial warfare, any works which can be utilised for the needs of the hostile army or fleet—materiel de guerre—may be destroyed by artillery. This heading, it may be presumed, would embrace harbours, docks, and railway stations, in addition to warlike stores, military establishments, &c, and it would, therefore, appear that an aircraft is quite within its legal rights in attempting their destruction—if in so doing some other portions of the towns in which they are located are damaged, past experience in land bombardments has shown that there can be no redress—" the sufferings of these residents are but an unfortunate incident of the execution of an approved act of hostilities, and complaint is useless." Dr. Spaight is, therefore, probably right in holding that the only deterrents against the aerial attack of London MR. MADELEY'S NEW WATERWORKS SCHEME FOR MADRAS.—The filter beds and the round elevatec' tank can be clearly seen in these photographs, which were secured by Mr. Wilfred R. Wills from Mr. Madeley*S Maurice Farman biplane. Mr. Madeley is Special Engineer to the Corporation of Madras. 855
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
