Just a note: I ain't no philosopher; I have received no formal training, and therefore I hold no qualifications in the subject. I am simply an educated individual with an enquiring mind that encompasses several acadaemic topics. I make no pretence of having deep knowledge and understanding of most of what I write in this blog. My particular field of expertise is cellular genetics and biochemistry. With all that said, I have a wandering/wondering intellect that restlessly and carelessly seeks to take part and learn of the marvels of the world. I invite criticism of my work. I will not take offence at contrary comments as long as they are respectful. My wife may call me a 'know-it-all', but we know better. 

According to the esteemed British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russel, the German savant of the 17th century, Gottfried Leibnitz was, 'One of the supreme intellects of all time'. This is quite the accolade from a man who was no intellectual slouch himself. And indeed, the 17th century was a remarkable time, heralding in the 'Scientific Revolution'. Leibnitz's contemporaries included the acclaimed polymath, Isaac Newton- possibly the greatest scientist of all time (discuss). There are others too many to list here. The 17th century was an astonishing century for the production of great folk of intellectual genius. I'll leave it to my readers to seek out other remarkable individuals whose contributions to science, mathematics and philosophy simply boggle the mind. 

This brief post just scratches the surface when it comes to Leibnitz. It is a mere introduction to an introduction. The more I read about this man, the more I am in awe of his intellect. The sheer breadth and depth of his scholarship invite grandeur, and I can only gape in admiration of his achievements in metaphysics, science, mathematics, logic, linguistics, engineering, geology and even computer science. Therefore, this post is just the first in a series that will delve deeper into the wondrous insights of this Great Man. Sadly, Leibnitz is hardly remembered in Anglophone countries these days, except by specialists. Considering his vast contribution to scholarship and knowledge, the lack of awareness and interest in this man is criminal, and I declare that part of the UK curriculum should include obligatory introductory courses outlining his achievements. 

Leibnitz* was born in the German town of Leipzig in 1646 during the dying embers of the Thirty Years' War (another post mayhap?). His father was then a professor of philosophy. Young Gottfried studied law and, at the tender age of 20, obtained a doctorate at Altdorf. A good education of the time required the eager student to be thoroughly steeped in 'Scholastic Philosophy'. This philosophical system was based on the extensive teachings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). In turn, Aquinas relied heavily on the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. By the mid-17th century, 'free-thinking' students were starting to rebel against these church-inspired teachings. Scholasticism was becoming to be seen as stodgy, dogmatic, and archaic, with little relevance to the developing ideas of the New Science. Liebnitz was of this ilk and became averse to the malign influence of the 'good doctor' on European universities. A little digression is required: at this time, the distinction between philosophy and science was a tad blurred.  What we would regard as 'true science' was often subsumed under the overarching concept of philosophy. With time, the subjects would part ways and science would achieve wonders, while true philosophy would continue to amass baseless concepts and commentary (a tad harsh and wrong, Flaxen!). Here endeth the discussion.  

Leibnitz was a true polymath, as was his arch-rival, Newton. The days of the polymath are no more. Ever-expanding scientific knowledge and the advent of micro-specialisation guarantee we will never see their kind again. Of course, when discussing Leibnitz, it is impossible not to compare him with Newton. Both men were rare geniuses of a high order. While Newton was an empiricist, Leibnitz placed greater emphasis on rational, logical deduction. Both men invented calculus independently. Leibnitz contribution involved integration, while Newton founded differentiation. A rift occurred between the two scholars concerning primacy. Newton could be exceedingly nasty and spiteful if he felt that his genius was to be challenged. At the time, it was determined, in Britain at least, that Newton was the first to unravel the mysteries of this powerful mathematical system. Modern historical investigation supports this view. Newton discovered calculus first, but was tardy in its widespread reveal.    

After this expansive introduction, tis time for a fleeting look at some of Leibnitz's achievements.

Monadology and Other Philosophies 

Leibnitz's concept of 'Monads' was his metaphysical attempt to apply a universal system to reality. He envisaged that everything was composed of an infinite number of entities Leibnitz labelled monads. Monads represent the fundamental state of everything. They are non-physical and represent a nondivisible unit of self-aware 'force'- ultimately energy. They occupy no space; however, each monad mirrors the entire universe from its own perspective. Leibnitz's Monadology is not as simple as it first appears, as it represents an ambitious attempt to unify everything and overcome a series of philosophical problems under a single concept. Several categories of monads exist, each with its own particular attributes. Thus, there are monads that represent matter, a second class concerns cognition, and ultimately, the supreme monad is a concept of god. As my regular readers are aware, I'm not a great fan of metaphysics. It belongs to a bygone age of intellectual development best left to Ancient Greek Thought and its subsequent expansion in the Middle Ages. Science conquers all. However, I have to make an exception with Leibnitz. His concept of Monadology is expansive, all-encompassing and extremely logical. The more I read about his metaphysics, the more I appreciate its innate beauty and harmony. Tis an impressive logical edifice. In a certain light, it anticipates quantum physics and panpsychism. It is certainly deserving of a deeper delve in a future post. I can't help but think that his ultimate reliance on the 'God Concept' is redundant. However, some free thinkers of the time were not yet ready to discard reliance on supernatural agencies. Educated men of the 17th century were generally pious, so perhaps I shouldn't be too harsh. True naturalistic development would coalesce later, resulting in the discarding of superannuated constructs. Enter the shade of Darwin, stage left.  

Leibnitz wrote extensively on metaphysics and published a treatise on Theodicy that argued that god created 'The best possible of all worlds.' He was heavily criticised and mocked by the French intellectual, Voltaire, for this misplaced optimism. All theodicies ultimately fail due to the inherent evil evident in this world. Why would a supposed all-powerful, all-loving god embed the horrors and unmitigated evils into existence? He also developed 'proofs' for god. His theodicy and extreme advocacy are obvious to the modern mind as sophistry run wild, and his arguments for 'letting god off the hook' are easily revealed as philosophic sycophancy better suited to the brutal Middle Ages. As said, he was a deeply religious man, like Newton, and his philosophy reflects his religious devotion. However, by the late 17th century, his extreme religious views were becoming misplaced and outdated.                 

Calculus and Mathematics Akimbo

I have already alluded to Leibnitz's work on the branch of mathematics known today as calculus. Sufficient to reiterate here that he was not the originator, although his contribution was independent of Newton, and today, we use Leibnitz's notation rather than Newton's. Also, Leibnitz invented a mechanical calculating machine (Stepped Reckoner) that implemented the four basic functions of calculation more efficiently than any preceding machine. This machine was used for centuries and anticipated the fundamentals of computing technology. And let us not forget that he also developed the Binary System, the basis of modern computing. And if this was not enough, Leibnitz made important contributions to the developing field of statistics. 

Engineering

Leibnitz worked on the design of a wind-powered water drainage pump for mines. Although the project ultimately failed, it was an early attempt to combine mechanical power systems and demonstrated his theoretical and intellectual reach, as well as his ability to apply theory to practice.  

Logic

Leibnitz worked tirelessly to systemise syllogistic reasoning by introducing a small number of axioms based on deduction. He introduced algebraic notation to represent logical connections, thereby heralding foundational concepts in Symbolic Logic.  

Final Comment

I will stop here, not because I have come to the limits of this man's formidable achievements and contributions to knowledge. There is more to be said, but that will have to wait for future post(s). Leibnitz was a voluminous writer, and much of what he wrote did not get published in his lifetime. Indeed, the final release of all his work was only completed in the latter half of the 20th century. Russell was of the opinion that much of his unpublished work was actually more profound than his published work. If possible, I will see if I can't tease out some of Leribnitz's more radical and deeply thoughtful musings.      

Gottfried Leibnitz/Leibniz* 

Usually, 'Leibnitz' is rendered 'Leibniz'. My spelling of the name is not incorrect; it is just uncommon. Nuff said.

The question posed in the title was answered by the supercomputer Deep Thought after 7.5 million years of binary cogitation. And the final answer to the fundamental, most profound puzzle that has occupied the minds of brilliant individuals for the past 2.5 thousand years is: Forty Two. Well, that is according to the late, great Douglas Adams in his book, 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. An excellent book, by the way. However, the BBC series adaptation will haunt me to the end of time. In particular, the incarnation of 'Beeplebrox' with a poorly constructed second head, made of rubber. It was unconvincing and wobbled precariously on Beeplebrox's shoulder. Occasionally, the mouth would move up and down in a parody of a demented ventriloquist's dummy. It looked ridiculous and was disturbingly distracting. Rant over.

As mentioned, the Great Question has fascinated and intrigued our species over the millennia. The question can be put forth in several ways, such as: Is there meaning to the universe? What is the purpose of our existence? Is there an underlying purpose to life? Philosophers contend that there is no answer to these questions. That sounds unsettling. We strive to understand, and we become perplexed when we are thwarted in our quest. Not all are so limited in their understanding. Great systems of thought have solved the conundrum, or so they think. Religions have the answer. In fact, their answer is definitive and true. There is something terrifyingly unsettling in certainty.    

Generally, there is no wriggle room when it comes to religious systems. The question is definitely answered by belief in an unknown, invisible, supernatural deity. A deity of superlatives. A deity that acts in space and time and gets things done. Believe, and there is no reason to ask for an alternative solution. God knows the answer to all things, and that should be enough for the devoted. Deities do not directly project their wisdom and knowledge to the common folk; an intermediary is required. A special class of men who act as conduits to pass on god's edicts and other profound stuff to the simple devotee; a cadre of individuals solely devoted to the role. Usually, the work is well paid and not demanding- a good gig if you satisfy the entry requirements.  

We don't have to understand the mechanism or minutiae of existence. We have the broad outline, and that should suffice. Asking for clarification or raising objections is strictly forbidden. But here is the rub. Different systems propose different solutions to the ultimate question. Even those who claim to adhere to the same deity offer different resolutions. Compare Catholicism with Jehovah's Witnesses. Both, at the very core of their beliefs, worship Yahweh, an Israelite warrior, storm god; however, their versions of '42' are fundamentally incompatible. This can't be.

Simply put, when it comes to religions, various (take your pick), either one system is correct, or none are correct. This is basic logical analysis that cannot be refuted. Unlike induction, deduction provides absolute knowledge. As long as the premises are true, the conclusion is unassailably true. The thinking man knows this and ponders anew. He knows that so-called religious 'veracity', regardless of type/flavour/cult, is not founded on knowledge but on speculation without evidence. When pushed, the theologian will invariably resort to the concept of 'Faith'. Faith, as a theological vehicle for knowledge acquisition, is a baseless fabrication. Invariably, the believer will falter and resort to 'Faith' as a special form of cognition bestowed by the deity. Not only is the concept dependent on supernatural intervention, but some theologians have the intellectual audacity and breathtaking dishonesty to declare that atheists are denied access to this special form of cognition as a consequence of their nonbelief. Frankly, this is where rational debate must end. 

My Personal Journey toward a Solution to the Great Question: Prologue

As a young man of 21, my intellectual development was ragged, fantastic and filled with supernatural causation. It was a time when I earnestly believed in the existence of ghosts. Admittedly, this stemmed from an unsettling visitation by an apparition at the tender age of three. My ghost was no ephemeral shade. It was solid, in vivid colour and materialised within a foot of my bed.  

My Story

I awoke to see an old, bespectacled woman seated on a large wooden chair next to my bed. I was transfixed, unable to look away. I still remember how she was dressed, her grey coiffed hair spun into a bun. A shawl was draped across her shoulders. There was something antique about my visitor, as if she belonged to a bygone age. How long my unearthly, unbiden phantasm tarried, I could not tell. Eventually, the image broke and dispersed into a kaleidoscope of fractured colour. During the experience, my visitor remained still, staring, inert and expressionless. The spell was broken, and I ran to my parents' room crying in terror. This vision had a significant impact on my immature mind.

 At 21, I should have known better. The hint: my wraith came as I awoke from a deep sleep. I no longer believe in ghosts. That said, our present home is afflicted with a mischievous poltergeist whom I have named Rupert. We never see him; however, he takes delight in hiding my pens, reading glasses, car keys and wallet. He is a very naughty sprite! Flaxen, enough of this nonsensical digression and rambling narrative, you must return to the topic in hand. You have something important to say, at least it is important to you and your understanding and conception of ultimate reality.     

I had the fervent hope that I could cover what I wanted to say in one, coherent post. This was not to be. For reasons not apparent to the reader, or the author, to be honest, I have veered from my avowed purpose and found myself mired in narrative verbage that has lurched from 'sensible' to a babbling brook of words, that swirls and disperses into the depths of muddied/muddled soggy inconsequence. Thusly, I have wisely decided to split the post asunder into two (unnecessary redundancy), to prevent 'reader fatigue'. It is my avowed intention to conclude with a second post before the arrival of the new year or the next medication cycle. 

 

Just finished the Christmas meal and am presently lying on the bed post-dinner. All the family was present; both children, partners and two granddaughters. 

Although I've lived in New Zealand for twenty-five years, I have never got used to Christmas in summer. Today, it is sunny and hot. Just never seems right.

Well, readers, I hope you have a great Yuletide, and don't forget the pagan origins of this Mid-Winter festival. Christianity usurped the festival for its own. The truth is, no one knows the date of Jesus' birth.  It was an act of expediency by the early Christian church. The pagans had an essential festival at that time, and the church fathers knew that it would be virtually impossible to stop those dumb but violent Germanic tribes from relinquishing this highly culturally ingrained festival. Their solution: They imposed a Christian event, 'The Birth of Jesus', on top of the Yuletide festival. As Jesus' birth date was not known, it proved an effective and easy solution. Regardless, the vestiges of the old festivity remain. The yule log, misletoe and other symbolic vestiges are there to see, to the restless mind. 

The same is so with Easter. The Easter celebration was originally pagan. It represented the time of renewal and fertility. The name itself has nothing to do with torturing a Jewish Rabbi and his subsequent crucifixion. The pagan fertility goddess Eostre lends her name to this fest. A goddess of renewal and spring rebirth. The banishment of winter and the celebration of the coming bounty. Again, the deceitful early Christians applied and tried to bury the pagan source of this crucial Germanic celebration of life. The antithesis of the symbolism of non-life as applauded by Jesus' death by Roman justice. As with 'Christmas', the fragments of the old buried remains poke out from the overlying Christian pageant. What do eggs and bunny rabbits have to do with the Christian parody of Easter?

Regardless of belief, custom, or banal celebration, enjoy the day as fits. Tis all subjective and of little consequence to the broader experience. I'm off to sacrifice a virgin (sex not specified) and bathe in the milk of an Ass, seasoned with a tincture of Raven's blood. Who are you to judge?

During the 1950s, ICI in the UK was working on organophosphate pesticides when it discovered a highly effective agent. However, the new 'pesticide' proved too toxic for release in the British countryside. The Ministry of Defence took note and recognised the agent as a potentially effective weapon of war. The British had manufactured a chemical that would soon be classified as VX. It proved to be the most potent of all the nerve agents. VX has the viscosity of motor oil, although it can be turned into a fine aerosol by an explosive force. It is highly persistent, taking several weeks to evaporate. Because of VX's persistence, it can serve as an area-denial weapon. In this way, it can be used to secure flanks or as a chemical minefield. In 1956, the British relinquished the use of chemical and biological weapons; however, details concerning the manufacture of VX were passed on to the Americans. In response, the US built up large stocks of the nerve agent. It can be delivered as a binary agent, which is supposedly safer during transport. The two chemicals are then mixed together before deployment. The separate chemicals, although toxic in their own right, are nowhere near as poisonous as the final brew. 

The agent is considered a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations. Its manufacture and stockpiling have been prohibited by a UN resolution in 1993. Well, I'm sure the 'civilised' nations will comply, but what about rogue nations and terrorist organisations? This is not just a theoretical consideration. Read on and weep. Yep, nerve gas in its early stages will cause lacrimation.

In February 2017, the half-brother of the glorious leader of North Chorea, Kim Dim Sum, Kim Jong Nam, was awaiting a flight to his home in Macau when two women approached and smeared a mystery liquid on his face. Although prompt medical aid was rendered, he died after 30 minutes due to respiratory failure. Later, the chemical was identified as VX. I wonder who could have been responsible? Tis inexplicable. A mystery wrapped in an enigma, and coated with a puzzle. There have been other instances of VX use by terrorist groups and foreign governments, however. I don't have the space to go into detail here.    

I would like to finish this trilogy with a personal anecdote. Many years ago, I worked post-university as a researcher in the Botany Department at the University of Bath in England. What a wonderful position you will no doubt shout. Surely, after many years of higher education, I had obtained a distinguished position at an English University, pursuing research at the cutting edge of empirical knowledge. The salary will be grand and the prestige great as I wend my way through research designed to uncover the genetic secrets ingrained in the humble but enigmatic dandelion. Sadly, my salary was slim, but I was desperate for a job. My girlfriend had recently given birth to a healthy baby girl and was residing in a council flat in an unsavoury part of the West Midlands. But enough about me, for this story concerns a PhD student in the department. I've mentioned this character on this blog before; however, one aspect of the original story is relevant here and thus deserves reiteration.

This particular student was indeed very odd and very smart. He had previously studied at Oxford University, graduating with a 1st Class Degree. Because of his strange behaviour, he was disliked by students and staff alike. I have always attracted life's flotsam and jetsam, and perhaps because I didn't treat him with open contempt and derision, he began to hang around the section of the lab where I worked and engage me in conversation. He would regale me with stories about himself and matters arcane. He was anachronistic in his speech and demeanour, with the air of an eccentric Edwardian gentleman. This is difficult to convey in words; however, I will illustrate with an example: He considered himself 'Anglican High Church'. A highbrow form of Christianity, closely akin to Catholicism in liturgy and tradition. Not many 23-year-olds count as members. Indeed, few folk belong these days. Its adherents are generally old and patrician. Although not old, he did have the air of a gentleman displaced in time.

Here is His story

Apparently, as an undergraduate, he had determined the chemical composition of the VX nerve agent and the means of its manufacture. This is before the internet, and the nature of the agent and its production would not have been public knowledge. This information is classified and outside the public domain. Now, there are gifted chemists, engineers and smart weirdos who have the skill to work this out. However, given the sensitivity of the topic and the possibility of government censure, it would be prudent for the chemist to keep their findings to themselves. Our story's hero was not of this ilk. Instead, he wrote to the Ministry of Defence with a complete exposition of his undoubtedly important research. Not long after, two large men in immaculately tailored suits, both sporting the same well-coiffed, short hair, materialised at the door of our hero's dorm. They entered his room without being bidden. Without further ado, they asked for all the information pertaining to the topic at hand. They carried out the work with quiet, unsmiling efficiency, and dare I say it, aplomb. Once the task was done, they explained to our friend that if he ever felt the need to share sensitive information in the future, they would pay him a further visit. This time, they would take him away to a place replete with disused mine shafts. Thereafter, a freak accident would ensue, and the subject of the story would be whisked from our mortal existence to join the choir invisible. He took the hint. However, he considered the incident a badge of honour.

Furthermore, for some strange reason, the chemical production of mercaptoethanol interested him. This is the most unpleasant-smelling chemical in existence. I've had experience with this chemical. Even though the procedure involved minute amounts of the chemical placed in a fume cupboard, the smell permeated the entire laboratory. As the experiment had to be conducted every day for five days, I became the focus of ill will from my scientific colleagues.  

Moving On...

As my readers have no doubt discerned, the problem is stark and terrifying. Nerve agents are not difficult to manufacture with the proper knowledge and facilities. Random nutters, terrorists and governments can use these agents to horrendous effect. Nerve gases truly deserve their designation as 'The Poor Man's Atomic Bomb'.    

This concludes the trilogy on noxious agents. 

Enough tales of horrific, poisonous substances, the next post will be an uplifting Christmas tale in keeping with the festive season. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

The Poor Man's H Bomb

Now to the interesting stuff.

Science Stuff

I'm sure my readers are clamouring to know how nerve agents work on organic tissue. I will keep this explanation brief.

Nerves transmit messages throughout the body. Between nerve endings is a gap, called the synapse. Signals can be passed from nerve to nerve by the use of neurotransmitter chemicals. There is a whole family of chemical transmitters involved in this process. One of these chemicals is acetylcholine. Acetylcholine mediates signals across nerves controlling muscle contraction. Usually, after the transmission of the signal, acetylcholine is broken down by an enzyme with the predictable name of acetylcholinesterase. This is essential to prevent overstimulation. Nerve agents act by blocking the enzyme's action, leading to an accumulation of acetylcholine and therefore continuous muscle stimulation. Muscles will then contract uncontrollably, causing paralysis and asphyxia, eventually resulting in death. That's enough science stuff, Flaxen.       

Why didn't the Germans use nerve gas during the Second World War? Of course, during the Wunder Years, when victories were swift and the Wehrmacht seemed invincible, there was no need to resort to such extreme measures. However, by 1943, it was becoming clear that the Germans were on the long road to defeat. By mid-1944, the Germans were becoming desperate, and Hitler was raving about his Wonder Weapons. The V1 was about to be unleashed, and the V2 would soon follow. So why not unleash nerve gas? It would have been very effective on the Eastern Front against Soviet massed infantry and tank formations.    

Several reasons have been put forth for the Germans' lack of enthusiasm for using a potentially war-winning weapon. Here goes.

The Hitler Hypothesis

It is said that Hitler had a fanatical aversion to the use of gas as a weapon. This is supposed to have occurred after Hitler was gassed on the Western Front by the British using mustard gas. After the attack, Hitler, who experienced temporary blindness, was still in the hospital when the armistice was announced. If that is the case, why did Hitler allow the buildup of large stocks of nerve gas during the war? Surely if Hitler hated the idea of gas warfare, he would have halted research and the manufacture of these chemicals. Regardless of what he thought about unleashing nerve gas, it is undoubtedly true that if the Germans had used nerve gas in the later stages of the war, the consequences for the Allies would have been grim. Would Hitler have eschewed the use of a weapon with the potential to end the war based on emotional dislike? It has been noted that Hitler had, on occasions, made military decisions counter to military logic and heavily influenced by his intuition and his natural tendency to make rash decisions. In fact, by luck or by crook, many of these early decisions paid off, making career officers look like bumbling fools. I can't say I'm convinced by the Hitler Hypothesis.

Fear of Retaliation

As mentioned, the Germans stumbled upon nerve gas during their research for effective organophosphate pesticides. They were aware that the Western Allies were also conducting similar research during the interwar years. It is reasonable to assume that the British and Americans had also stumbled on these extremely potent nerve agents during their research. Indeed, before the war, it was noted that British patents and research papers relating to organophosphates had disappeared from publication. To the Germans, this was a clear sign that corroborated their suspicions. Of course, the Allies had not yet developed nerve agents; however, the Germans did not know this.

As mentioned, during the early years of the war, the Germans were victorious through conventional warfare. Following the catastrophic defeat at Stalingrad, the Germans were increasingly placed on the defensive and began to be pushed back in Russia and in southern Europe. The time would have been ripe for releasing agents such as Tabun and Sarin. The decision not to use this weapon was undoubtedly based on the erroneous view that the Allies would retaliate in kind. This made perfect sense. By 1943, the British and Americans were bombing the Reich by day and night. Both the British and Americans had concentrated on building up a strategic bomber force. The intent: to bomb cities to kill civilians; to destroy German morale and to destroy factories. Dead men can't make munitions. By day, the Americans made precision bombing raids on essential munition factories. By night, the RAF concentrated its bombing missions on the civilian population. A single RAF Avro Lancaster bomber could carry a 22,000 lb bomb load; however, 14,000 lb loads were more typical. By 1944, raids consisting of 1,000 bombers were commonplace. In contrast, the Germans never really concentrated on building up a strategic air force, although at times their two-engined bombers were utilised in this way. The Luftwaffe was essentially a tactical force designed for battlefield support. Their bombers were unable to carry the vast tonnage of British and American four-engined bombers. The bottom line is that the Allies, if they had nerve gas in their arsenal, could have devastated German cities and military targets in retaliation. There would be little doubt that the Germans would have come out second best. Even if the Allies had relied on first-generation gases, such as mustard gas, to bomb German cities, the results would have been catastrophic. The Allies certainly had large stocks of this agent for ready use. A bombing raid by the Luftwaffe on Bari harbour, Italy, sank 28 Allied cargo ships and damaged many others. One of the ships that sank contained 2,000 70lb bombs containing mustard gas. Mustard gas was released, killing and injuring sailors and civilians in the city of Bari. At the time, the cause of the casualties was covered up in order not to tip off the Germans.   

Logistics Hypothesis

This hypothesis is a variation of the 'Fear of Retaliation' as discussed above. During Herman Goering's interrogation by the Allies in 1946, he mentioned that the Germans were greatly concerned about the impact of a chemical attack on their logistical chain. Unlike the Western Allies and the Russians, the Germans were still heavily reliant on horses to move munitions, food, and to transport artillery pieces. It is remembered that the Russians had received 376,000 trucks as a consequence of American largesse. Horses would have been exquisitely vulnerable to nerve agents. It was already known that horses were non-compliant when fitted with a gas mask. In addition, protection would need to be applied to the horse's exposed skin, such as a drape impregnated with protective chemicals. Not only would a cover provide inadequate protection against nerve agents, but the horses would also likely have reacted negatively to the restrictive attire. 

An attack on the logistic 'train' with nerve gas would have had the potential to completely collapse German logistics, especially on the Eastern Front. It does not matter how highly trained an army is, a lack of food, ammunition and other essential supplies would result in disaster. Napoleon rightly observed: 'A good general attends to tactics, a great general attends to logistics'.

In conclusion, the Germans incorrectly surmised that the Allies could retaliate in kind when it came to the deployment of nerve agents. If utilised, they also realised that they were likely to be the worst affected by the deployment of these agents. The great question: What if, in sheer desperation in the latter stages of the war, Hitler had decided to use nerve gas? Perhaps he reasoned that if Germany was to be destroyed, then the Allies should also be scorched by the 'Devil's Breath', in one great final Gotterdammerung!

The strains of Wagner waft within my very soul...

Note to self: I don't have a soul.           

I'm taking a break from theology and related philosophical conundrums to consider a topic rarely discussed: Nerve Gas.  

Today, the word GAS came into my fevered, tortured brain. For what reason, I have no cogent idea. Regardless, I regarded the intrusion as a sign. I'm at a loss as to where this random thought came from. A cluster of neurons firing in concert directed my mind to spit forth this word. Mayhap, an imbalance of neurotransmitters was to blame. The originator may have been the dodgy vindaloo the night before. There is little doubt that said comestible wreaked horrendous physiological havoc. The clue is ingrained in the name of the very curry itself! May Woden furnish me with frozen suppositories and give me strength to leave the bathroom. I digress. The upshot: Regardless, the very word GAS inspired me to put pen to paper and write furiously about the topic of Nerve Gas. I have already put forth a post concerning the use of gas in the Great War. It is undoubtedly a capital idea to read that post first.   

Mayhap, before considering the subject matter of the title, a little recap about the first use of gas in warfare will help.

By late 1914, the Western Front consisted of a double trench system stretching from the Belgian coast to the Swiss border. Defence had become irresistibly strong, and both sides sought ways to break the stalemate and restore mobility. A notable German chemist, Fritz Haber, suggested to the High Command that the impasse could be broken with the use of poisonous asphyxiating gases. Many in the military hierarchy were against its use on moral grounds. But more importantly, Germany was a signatory to an international agreement banning the use of asphyxiating gases in war. However, expediency and the grim reality of the war persuaded the High Command to unleash the 'Devil's Breath'.     

On the 22nd of April 1915 at 5pm, gas cylinders, containing chlorine gas, were opened in the German lines, and a favourable breeze drove the chlorine cloud toward the French and Algerian lines near Ypres in Belgium. Within 10 minutes, 5,700 cylinders released 160 tons of gas. I have considered the consequences of the action elsewhere. Suffice it to say that a 7-mile breach was blasted in the French trench line. This novel form of attack had taken the French completely by surprise. Within minutes, 1,400 soldiers were killed, and many more were injured. Although a success, the Germans were not prepared to exploit the situation to any significant extent, and the gap was quickly plugged by Canadian troops.  Although Haber was hailed as a hero in Germany, the adulation was marred by the suicide of his wife, Clara, who was also a chemist. She begged her husband to abandon the use of poisonous gas, but Haber would not relent, and Clara shot herself through the heart with Haber's military pistol on the 2nd of May 1915.  

Several months post the German attack, the British would reply in kind, again using chlorine. Soon, the belligerents relied on delivering the gas by artillery shell. Other noxious agents would follow, such as phosgene and mustard gas. Although gas was used extensively between April 1915 and the end of the war, casualty rates remained low, with a total death tally involving all combatants of about 100,000. However, many soldiers would suffer long-term effects long after the war had ended.  

Once a major technical innovation had been developed in warfare, it would remain, be improved and would alter the course of warfare in general. This has been the case for the development of tanks, submarines, aircraft, and aircraft carriers. Pandora's box could not be closed, and once discovered and refined, the new weapon would remain as an integral part of war. Gas, however, is the exception to the rule, well, mostly anyway.

Poison Gas Development 2.0

During the late 1930s, German chemists were conducting research on a group of chemicals called organophosphates. This research focused mainly on developing more effective insecticides to protect crops. One chemical was manufactured under the quaint designation Tabun (a German word for Taboo). This chemical proved to be highly effective as an insecticide. In fact, it proved too effective and was deemed too toxic for use. However, the German chemists were quick to discern that it might have a role in warfare and quickly reported this finding to the German authorities. The Germans had discovered a particularly potent agent soon to be called 'Nerve Gas'. This class of chemical had a different mode of action compared to the chemicals used in the Great War. These older agents acted by destroying lung tissue and/or causing burns. First off, Tabun was highly effective at very low doses. As little as 0.01 mg/kg is considered lethal. Also, it did not require inhalation to exert an effect. This chemical could be readily absorbed through the skin, rendering conventional gas masks ineffective. The Germans quickly realised the gas's potential as a weapon of war. Further, more effective agents were soon discovered (Sarin). By the time hostilities began in September 1939, the Germans had small stocks of these agents. As the war progressed, the Germans amassed great quantities of these nerve agents that could be easily dispensed by bomb or artillery barrage. So, the burning question is: Why didn't the Germans release these gases upon the enemy? This is interesting in view of Hitler's obsession with Wunderwaffe. This question, along with others, will be addressed in Part II.

Again, this post is turning into a 'Long Read', and thusly, in my infinite wisdom, I have decided to divide the subject matter into two posts to avoid 'Reader Fatigue'. Therefore, the conclusion will follow on the morrow. This follow-up will be a thrilling instalment filled with a personal anecdote, and a few hot Gypo flamenco dancers thrown in to tempt the lurid imagination of my readers. Hola!

Stay tuned for more informative material interspersed with insights into my tortured, forever wandering mind, scarcely reigned in and barely controlled by the author. I seek peace, rarely found. Pity me as I seek solace from a mind in churning, roiling turmoil. I seek comfort and freedom through the written word. It is but a temporary release. I crave a peace that is rarely found. Arse, big sore arse.

' 

The second post has descended upon this platform with undeniable alacrity.

To maintain consistency and continuity, I respectfully request that the esteemed reader engage with this second post as soon as possible after reading the first. Hopefully, this will help with comprehension. It is to be remembered that the human brain is a vain and frail vessel and responds well to prompt succession, as an aid to ultimate understanding. Only then can a man succeed on the path to wisdom and, mayhap, enlightenment. Delay will foster mind lapse, and the connection between the two posts will be lost in a web of synapses that often misfire. Do not fall into the trap of delay and procrastination, as this will foster a slothful mind and, dare I say, a laggard, indolent countenance. Brook no delay and engage the posts in dogged sequence. Only a fool would digest the second before the first. Remain diligent for distractions and those who will divert you from my noble/ignoble composition. Remember, detractors and wastrels abound, ready to pounce and endeavour to veer you from your august literary quest. 

Some say I'm an unrequited genius. Why others aver that I'm a mad old man with a tenuous grip on reality who bothers check-out girls in Tesco. Only you can decide!

We have an evolutionary mechanism that thrives on waste and inefficiency. It is hard to square these problems with the Christian conception of god. Could god not have come up with a mechanism that negated universal suffering and waste? Mayhap god has limitations on his powers and must follow natural laws. This explanation does not sit well with the theologian, but they are unable to offer a solution that is satisfactory to both the biologist and the theologian.  

There is a common misconception that evolution is working toward 'perfection'. This would imply that evolution is somehow a directive process seeking a final goal. However, this is not the case; organisms are not optimal for many reasons. Often, structural limitations lead to suboptimal solutions for a specific function. Examples abound. Let us take the human body, for instance, and examine an anatomical feature that, from an engineering perspective, could be improved. I chose this particular example as it is the bane of many older men. Recently, I had a PSA test, due to my age, and luckily, I'm fine, for now.

The male prostate provides fluids for the ejaculate. It is a walnut-sized organ that surrounds the urethra, which conducts urine from the bladder to the outside. The prostate contributes nothing to the urinary process, yet there it sits. Unfortunately, not only is this organ prone to cancer in older men, but it also has a propensity to enlarge as we age, with the obvious adverse symptoms as it slowly strangles the urethra. Surely, god in his infinite wisdom and love could have devised an alternative anatomical location. A good engineer would have placed the prostate within the scrotal sac, next to the sacred/sacral testes. The products that leak from both organs act in concert to ensure the proliferation of the next generation. The prostate's position is notably sub-optimal. Why the prostate is positioned thusly is hard to fathom. Mayhap there was no selective pressure in the past to remedy the situation, as men did not live long enough to suffer the consequences of natural selection that could effect change. Perhaps it provides evidence that god is female with a wicked sense of humour. This example is just one of many instances where there is room for anatomical improvements in the human body. This is also true for many animal species. A quick Google search will reveal a plethora of such examples.

The above shows that evolution is capricious and often defies logical analysis. Optimisation is not a quest. Natural selection may produce a solution that, while not perfect, is good enough for the circumstances and purpose. The critical point to make is that if an Intelligent Designer had a role in the process, he did a piss poor job. In the final analysis, it makes it difficult to square theological evolution with naturalistic evolution. There is no need for a supernatural guiding hand, as nature has the whole situation covered. The theologian must either accept the evidence and suffer the consequences or retreat into the presbytery, and confront matters best suited to their temperament and intellect, and leave science to the scientists. What say ye?

I'll leave the last word to Darwin. Take note and heed.

“what a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!” & “there seems to be too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.” 

Fine words indeed, Mr D.