Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1920-12-31
Naval Disarmament

Naval Disarmament
Does the United States need the
largest navy? II so. why: What 10
to be done with It?
These questions and similar related
ones are just now occupying a large
share of attention both in the minds
of those who formulate the policies Of
the nation and in the interest of those
whose taxes pay the bills. 1t seems
impossible to answer them
satisfactorily until something definite
can be known regarding the place of
this country in world affairs and of
the plans for their conduct which are
to be presented by President Hard
ing for acceptance by the American
people and acquiescence by the pow
ers of the world.
If the United States is to undertake
to absent herself from the concert of
powers and to steer her course alone,
she undoubtedly needs an immense
naval equipment; our two long and
tremendously important coastlines
must be guarded and our numerous
colonial possessions and protector
ates must also be cared for; we must
be prepared to meet all contingent
cies.
II this country does join an asso-
citation of nations, as she probably
will, there may still be found valid
reasons for the maintenance of a
great navy. The presence of the Brit
ish navy on the seas in 1914 rendered
useless the grand fleet of Germany,
bottled up in the Kiel canal, and kept
open the ocean highways except
where the submarine got in it's work.
Had there been no such naval
strength among the Allied nations.
Germany would certainly have won
the war; There may never be anoth-
er such world war, and yet no man
dare say that the world has been
rendered immune from that danger.
The question whether the existence
of war equipment tends to prevent or
encourage the making of war is aca-
demic and depends on circumstances
and national temperament. Goose
stepping Teuton cadets and swollen
chested officers of Germany lived on
war and the anticipation of battle.
but a nation which is well prepared
to defend it's rights is less likely to
be attacked than an unprotected
state. The old-fashioned reasoning
that justified battleship building on
the ground that it provided employ
ment for labor is manifestly so spe-
cious that it no longer appeals to
anybody.
Warships are heavy burden, there
is no doubt about that, and they be-
come antiquated SO rapidly that the
''up-to-date navy is myth. No
sooner does one nation think it has
the last word in naval construction
than along comes an invention which
renders it useless and the whole pro-
gram must be changed. Navies are
an expensive luxury, but are they
also a necessity, and how much of a
necessity? Are they worth what they
cost?
At the present time, can the spend
ing Of money on warships be justi-
fed, when starving millions are cry
ing for food and life, when the vast
expenses of the late war are still
bending the backs of the nations,
when all the customary activities Of
business, industry and commerce are
sorely in need of rehabilitation:
Would not the proposed agreement
for a naval building truce among the
three naval leaders of the world be
an uncommonly sensible thing to
bring about and would it not have a.
most salutary effect on the whole
world?