In 1877, he wrote, “It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine gun which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease would be greatly diminished.”
Why would he not realize that countries, generals, kings, and those in power would simply send more men to die? They will not send 2 guys with a machine gun and then simply accept that the battle was lost if their guy loses. No, they will send a million men, as many as are needed to take another foot of ground.
Colonialism was super popular, so a couple of dudes with machine guns could mow down a field of natives with much less risk.
Plus a machine gun is much more impressive than some dudes with single fire guns. A platoon (or whatever fits on a boat or three) can be overrun. Throw a couple of machine guns in with a couple of brutal shows of force and you got yourself a colony.
WW1 was still a ways off and it wasn’t really the target market for your Gatlings and Maxims.
It’s the cotton gin logic. Eli Whitney thought his invention the cotton gin would reduce the need for manual labor on cotton plantations and reduce slavery. Instead it made cotton farming more profitable and revitalized slavery.
“I was in Vienna, where I met an American whom I had known in the States,” Maxim told the Times of London. “He said: ‘Hang your chemistry and electricity! If you want to make a pile of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other’s throats with greater facility.’ ”
He didn’t said which side and how though, so the statement of “reducing number of soldier” could be true to the side using the gatling and also the side getting shot at.
You can’t really be killed by both at the same time, unless somehow the guillotine blade lands on your neck as soon as the submarine implodes. But even then, only one of them will claim a kill to its name.
So this is a case where we can’t just have both. And I’m always the one who references that commercial in comments.
I don’t.
I want the classic one as it’s far more sustainable & reusable, (even more) eco friendly, and the ride can be enforced in case they get last minute jitters.
Im thinking poultry industry mechanised processing. We have those and they themselves labeled it ‘humane’ (Im not saying they are human or humane, it’s just the words we are using).
I read a brochure at my local butcher shop. The chickens they sell are put in crates and gassed to death. Supposedly pretty easy on the animals. This seems much more efficient than individual submersible trips.
I understand. The ride doesn’t need external assistance though. It seems to have some natural magic force that attracts billionaires. I never heard the classic being used by a person on their own, out of free will.
Maybe they both have their own specialisation, so they can coexist without competing for customers.
sopuli.xyz
Oldest