New-York tribune., 1921-11-18
Rritai11 and US.
Divided Over
J1ndersea Craft
considered Likely Extend
ed Discussions Must Be
Had Before Agreement Is
Reached Over Restriction
legitimate, View Here
England's Delegates for
Adjustment Entirely
as an Improper Weapon

WASHINGTON, NOV. it by Ine AS
..oe;ated pressl.-Great Britain's antip-
.shy 70 submarines as naval weapon
.t;li loomed to-day as the outstanding
.c,nt Of disagreement between the
rr;tish and American points of view
!, connection with future restricted
naval programs.
Tac submarine question is being
dressed beyond any other in unofficial
xscassion in conference circles. and
views OF the two powers are so far
spsrt that it seems likely extended
: seusiderstion must be given before
..uutrsl agreement can be reached.
In the British view, submarines
.sould be abolished entirely rs an i'm
,,cner naval weapon. A wide range of
.ubiects has been covered to support
hat position.
In the American view. submarines
rrcpcrly used are as legitimate naval
weapon as battleships. No British ar
.eument yet presented has shaken that
ccnyiction, so far as can be told.
May Propose Tonnage Limit
The British delegation apparently
does not expect an agreement to aban-
don submarines. There is nothing to
Indicate that it has presented or will
sresent auy such proposal in a formal
xay. Failing that. however. the Brit
ish will advance project to limit the
United States and Great Britain to
probably $4,000 tons in submarines in
stead of the 10000 tons each proposed
By the United States. Coupled with
the proposal will be formal sugges-
ten to limit the size of individual sub
marines, perhaps to ESQ tons.
The American viewpoint rejects i'm
medistely both these suggestions.
The 10000 ton aggregate limitation
was derived from a study of American
needs Of the more than 10000 nau-
tieai miles OF coast line to be pro-
sected and of the need of the fleet
in underwater craft That being the
figure arrived at as necessary for de-
fensive purposes and to round out the
feet, it was entirely agreeable to the
United States that Great Britain
should keep the same tonnage.
Disagree With British View
American naval officers wholly disa-
gree with the suggestion of the Brit
ish that there is any inherent char
acterstic in submarines that makes
them unamenable to the rules of civ
ilized warfare.
It Is pointed out that tho United
States thrashed out that question with
Germany before German disregard Of
the American view that submarines
4 h. III /
try into the World War A battle =hi .
or cruiser could be guilty of iust AZ
grave violations OF the feaa irenlents Of
humanity, even in war.4it is. argued.
and the fact that submersibles have a
quality of limited visibility does not
deny them a place in legitimate war
fare
1t appears probable that American
efforts will tend toward putting the
whole question of use of submarines
over to the discussion of new agencies
OF war provided for in the conference
sgenda. Unless the American view is
radically changed, no agreement as to
tonnage limit in size which would pre-
vent seagoing submersibles being built
Is to be expected. Whether the United
states would be willing to reduce its
estimate of aggregate submarine ton
,-"eS HSOACu Ait o1uSA W DTlu& nnal
agreement, is another question.
An authoritative statement of British h
naval views obtained tonight disclosed
that aircraft are not regarded by the
British as having displaced capital
Ships in naval warfare. Aircraft have
distinct place in war, however, and
It was said that even aircraft bonn
eardment of cities might be justified
because of the pressure such attacks
sxerted on enemy governments. The
british spokesmen pointed out that
6ombardment of London and Paris
from the air during the war had been
effective in this way and it was indi-
ested that the British delegation would
not favor too sharp Limitation on air
craft operations if the question comes
up at the arms conference.
by contrast the British position of
sacncrrence of submarines was explain ed
-. due to the feeling that the sub
sMsrslble was mere instrument of
.ssassinstion" and incapable Of exert
xIng any such influence on peoples and
mar u governments as air raids ON
.uIlss. The British reply to the sug-
ssestion that the submarine was the
ssn snnespon Of the weaker powers was that
<.ne IN weak had never been oppressed by
s.as British navy when there were no
submarines.