From the October 29, 1907 NYT:

How War Will Be Revolutionized

"The success of aerial navigation has been established," declared Major Squires at the afternoon session, "and the success of aerial navigation means the introduction of new and radical methods in warfare, extended possibilities of producing decisive results by strategic movements against untenable positions rather than by the loss of human life. It means the ultimate passing away of warfare in the present sense and the eventual dawn of the era of peace."

This is an eerily familiar statement. Perhaps if the objective function of the politicians who initiate warfare were consistent with the objective function of those who prosecute warfare, the simple biplane would have been the end of war as we know it. Alas, our good Major mistakenly ignored or failed to realize that the biplane was not the end of this technology - indeed, only the beginning.

"I have been serving for the past ten years at Fort Leavenworth, the headquarters of the three service schools of the army. The military authorities there have shown the deepest interest and the firmest belief in the future of military aeronautics. Its radical influence on the methods of warfare will compare only with the invention of gunpowder and the tactics of Frederick the Great.

"The last great war was conducted strictly in line with the textbooks, and was accompanied at times with terrific slaughter. The great object of war, however, is to bring about a decisive result with a minimum of destruction of human life. If we can utilize scientific principles to bring about this result without killing any one a great advance will have been made. We have but three military arms - infantry, artillery, and cavalry. The cavalry is designed to scout and develop information, and the other arms furnish the means of using the information thus obtained. Aerial navigation furnishes an additional and more complete means of obtaining information, and enables us to manoeuvre armies by strategic marches and surprises and bring about decisive results with a minimum destruction of life. Trained observers can leave a frontier, scout about an enemy's country, and secure information of vital importance.

All of this is true, if the other country doesn't have airplanes as well.

The Major recognizes the value of the plane in terms of a "terror" weapon but fails to recognize that those who are "terrorized" might not sit still for it:

Add to this the possibility of airships dropping high explosives on a defenseless people and their importance becomes at once apparent. It is possible,even now, to tow a load of high explosives with a dirigible balloon and drop the destructive load at such points as desired. Against such an attack there is no effective resistance, save by waging an aerial warfare, air fleet against air fleet. The possibilities are unlimited and they mean the revolutionizing of military methods with the result that decisive victories may be gained with a minimum loss of life.

I am not sure what would be required for the good Major's prediction to come true, but two world wars and about 30-40 million people (mostly civilians) would die despite these "scientific principles" aimed to reduce the motivation of war would come to fruition - at least in as much as the nuclear bomb reduces the motivation for total war.

While mutually assured destruction might preclude military engagement, it is obvious that hopes that the biplane would lead to an era of peace was misplaced. Moreover, the biplane seems to be only the first in a long procession of tit-for-tat technological advances which today conntinues apace.