How Studying History and Art Improves Innovation and Understanding
Artificial intelligence is one of the biggest fields right now, and while modern artificial intelligence became a staple of popular culture in the 20th century, particularly with the medium of motion pictures, the idea is even older. In fact, the concept of intelligent, artificial creations that would serve human needs such as love, friendship, or assist in work first appeared in human stories as early as 600 BC. The same is true about flight; whenever I ask people to name the first person to conceptualize flight, many point to Leonardo Da Vinci. While he is probably the most famous person to draw serious design concepts, the idea of flight goes back to the dawn of humanity.
However, once the technology catches up to the idea, innovation takes off. Consider that in one person’s lifetime, we went from the Wright Flyer (1903) to landing on the moon (1969). But even while overcoming successive barriers, we applied new ones. When Chuck Yeager first broke the sound barrier in 1947, people STILL said, “ok, we did that, but we will never travel into space.” Which brings me to why history is important. Every time somebody floated around an idea, naysayers were plenty, and quickly chimed in. That is certainly not new. Learning how these innovators overcame obstacles is useful to study; after all, I used some of the same arguments as those in the past to advance innovative pitches I have made to improve processes.
Technology often advances faster than processes. Take Amazon’s plan to have drone delivery. The technology is already available. It is the processes that have to be sorted out. What is the FAA’s role? Will cities want to regulate drone flight? What about privacy concerns? We can view similar debates with past innovation from a historical lens. Not having a full appreciation of technology can lead to unintended consequences. Consider the AI debate. Top contemporary thinkers like Bill Gates or the late Stephen Hawking believe that the drive for artificial intelligence is going to lead to the end of human existence.
When Bombers first became viable weapons platforms in the interwar period, you had people who quickly embraced the technology. Italian General Giulio Douhet wrote “Command From the Air,” which embraced concepts like strategic, pinpoint bombing, and an entire group of air enthusiasts around the world embraced his ideas on aerial warfare. The most famous phrase from this book was, “the Bomber always gets through.” In his mind, which would be the same mindset adapted by American Air Force General Curtis LeMay and Army Air Force innovator Billy Mitchell, tactical air support to troops was irrelevant, because in the age of aerial warfare, troops themselves were irrelevant. Even Naval forces, in their minds, were only relevant in terms of being delivery platforms for aircraft. Douhet claimed that strategic bombing would “break the will of the population and lead to submission.”
Many early military aviation enthusiasts adapted this thinking. Strategic bombing certainly played a role in World War II, but the bombing of London did not break the will of the British people; many historians suggest that it merely increased their resolve. Warring countries also invested in anti aircraft guns and fighter planes to intercept bombers. In fact, it was the high casualty rate of the allied bomber force that led to the innovation of the P51 mustang, which had the range to accompany the bombers to Germany and back. I had mused in my Military History class at West Point that, “if the bomber always got through, why did the proponents of Air Warfare need to have a bomber escort?”
The lesson here is that technology, while leading to significant advances, does not always yield the promised results that the early adapters claim. Nor is there a discussion of the consequences or ethics. After all, it took the atomic bombs dropped by B-29s on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to bring the war with Japan to an end; these bombings combined two technologies — bombers and atomic bombs. However, it was only after the bombing that we started having a discussion about the ethics and dangers of nuclear weapons. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use atomic bombs in Korea; President Truman overruled him. Eisenhower made it clear to the French that if the U.S. did intervene to support them in Vietnam (which never happened), the U.S. was not going to resort to nuclear weapons. It was from the discussion and use of these weapons that the U.S. developed a nuclear deterrence strategy in conjunction with a nonproliferation strategy.
The contemporary reader wondering about whether or not we should use drones for delivery of packages or continue moving forward with the development of artificial intelligence will appreciate some of the debates about bomber innovation, uses, and consequences. There are even good lessons on how thinkers like Douhet convinced stakeholders to even consider his ideas. The air enthusiasts who embraced Douhet weren’t completely wrong; in WWII, naval forces essentially became transport services for aircraft. Today’s American Navy is centered around the aircraft carrier, although the cruise missile has emerged as the weapon of choice.
Leaders don’t often stay abreast of technology. General (Ret) Wesley Clark spoke to my class at West Point when he was Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. He told an anecdote about how one of his biggest disappointments as a General was that he had all these innovative ideas in his head as a new lieutenant, but now that he was in a position with the power to implement them, his ideas were obsolete. He then went on to say that as leaders, it is up to us to stay ahead of the trends, otherwise we will face real world consequences on the battlefield. Nowhere is this more important than the final attack in the Battle of Gettysburg.
On July 3rd, 1863, Confederate forces charged right against the center of the Union line through open terrain in what would become known as Pickett’s charge. Modern tourists look at the battlefield and cannot fathom how Confederate General Robert E. Lee would even contemplate such a suicide mission. The answer is simple: he relied on his studies of Napoleonic tactics but failed to appreciate the advances in Technology.
Napoleon pulled off such attacks in his day; here is why it made sense. Robert E. Lee first attacked the Union right flank. Union forces moved people from the center to reinforce the right. On the next day, he attacked the left; once again, the Union moved forces from the center to reinforce the left. Therefore, the weakest point WAS the center. However, Lee had to deal with something Napoleon did not — rifled weaponry. You see, instead of simple muskets and smooth bore cannons used by Napoleon’s forces, Lee was up against rifles and cannons which had rifling, which allowed the bullet to spin. This increased the accuracy of both weapons. Therefore, Lee’s forces were charging against smaller forces with much more accurate weapons. Because he did not appreciate how much technology advanced, he failed in a battle he may likely have won a decade or two earlier.
Our society will continue to develop new technology and ideas; the debates are nothing new; even the technology itself is often rooted into ideas that go back to the dawn of civilization. But history is full of examples to help us frame the debate, consider the consequences as well as the positives, and even help us consider bigger and bolder ideas.
