"The bomber will always get through. The only defense is in offense, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly that the enemy if you want to save yourselves"

Stanley Baldwin's quote, "The bomber will always make it through. The only defense remains in offense, which suggests that you need to kill more ladies and children faster than the opponent if you wish to save yourselves", is a stark commentary on the ruthless realities and moral problems of modern warfare, particularly aerial warfare, as it was understood in the early 20th century. Delivered in 1932, this quote shows the dominating mindset before the full effect of World War II innovations were understood.

Baldwin's assertion, "The bomber will always get through", underscores the viewed inevitability of aerial attacks permeating protective procedures. Throughout his time, air defense technology, such as radar and anti-aircraft weapons, was limited. The belief was that, regardless of efforts at interception, some bombers would inevitably reach their targets, rendering cities vulnerable to battle raids.

The next part of the quote-- "The only defense remains in offense"-- conveys a strategic teaching that prevailed during the interwar years: deterrence through the hazard of retaliation. This approach stressed that the viewed finest method to avoid or minimize battles was not through advanced defense technologies but by having an offensive capability so devastating that it would dissuade opponents from initiating attacks.

The most controversial aspect of Baldwin's statement is his blunt reference of eliminating "more females and children". This expression exposes the grim reality of total war, where civilian populations end up being targets due to their function in sustaining industrial and military efforts, blurring the lines in between contenders and non-combatants. It recommends a cold, utilitarian calculus that aims at survival through superior force, at the cost of moral factors to consider.

Ultimately, Baldwin's quote acts as a somber reflection on the ethical intricacies of war, raising questions about the morality of actions justified by self-preservation and deterrence, and illuminating the inhumanity that war gives both sides included.