The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1924-03-05

A
place US at the mercy Of nations
that look ahead while we are look.
ing backward-if we look at all.
1t was the fear of such an unfortu-
nate condition in the British navy
ten years ago that inspired the
late Admiral Sir John Fisher to
ask How many of our admirals
have minds?"
| Possibly Sir John may not have
been justified In this insinuation,
ne might perhaps be charged with
SELF conceit, but 1t is admitted even
by those in the English navy who
opposed him in many things that
the old sea dog had an uncanny
habit OF being right.
NOW that the final act in the
annual naval maneuvers have been
concluded at the Panama Canal
zone and in the Caribbean, it is
both interesting and alarming to
note the absurdity of certain fea.
lures OF these naval exercises and
70 review the published reports,
the general trend of which is to
put the cart before the horse in
our naval policies.
Emphasis in Wrong Place.
Instead of emphasizing the
things We need most we find en-
phasis placed upon things we need
least. or not at all. Instead of
exercises that would be forced upon
us by the conditions Of modern or
future wars we have exercises that
might have been possible in the
civil war or in the war with Spain,
but which were conclusively proved
to be disastrous and impossible in
the world war and which will lie
still more SO in wars to come.
And the deductions from these
ancient days upon the sea are, as
we might suppose, equally antique.
Instead of emphasizing the vital
| need of new weapons, our mis-
guided umpires. both professional
and laymen, have cried loudly for
more old ones! Instead Of building
upon the rock foundation of future
victory. they build upon the crumb.
ling sands of future disaster in war.
Let us briefly touch upon a few
points. A foreign" fleet, simulat-
ing the conditions Of 1893 at Santi-
ago, approached within a few miles
Of the Canal Zone in the Caribbean.
1t was bombed by tomatoes! Had
the tomatoes been 1000 pound
bombs-and they will be in 1926
this fleet would have been blown
off the sea! In other words, we
'have progressed-or the world has
since 1898. Why does not the navy
progress. Why does not the army
progress? II either of them had
been up-to-date they would have
realized that no foreign fleet would
have dared to come across $500
miles to attack us. 1t would have
been suicide. This fact is admitted
by admirals and generals in Europe.
Is 1t not time that admtrala and
| generals in the United States should
discover it?
| 1t is as plain as day that heavy
bombing planes at Panama, IL in
excess of the number than an
enemy fleet can bring across the
ocean, will completely defend the
Panama Canal.
And what was recommended 1t.
was decided that we should install
more 16-inch guns at Panama., To
be sure it also suggested that our
air force should be increased. But
if the air force, with an easy range
of 100 miles, is made adequate, why
waste money on 16-inch guns that
| Ntlh Ollly range ~ lilies. w he n we
have a long-range gun that can be
used night or day, why have a lot
of short-range guns that can be
used only in daylight, and which an
enemy in the air could blow TO
smithereens with ease? This is
like having two holes in a letter
box-a big hole for big letters and
a small hole for small letters. viii
not the big hole suffice for both?
Naval Problems.
The above is the defense. or
army problem. Now, take the Of
Tense, or navy problems. The fleet
landed marines at Panama and
| Culebra. This was done against
the Coreans after the civil war.
| The CoreanS had no army to speak
of and no navy. They had no
submarines. They had no bombing
planes. This was about fifty years
ago.
Today the navy could no doubt
land marines against the Hottentots.
or other nations that have spears
and bows and arrows-even rifles
perhaps. But troops cannot be
landed If modern submarines con-
troll coast, and If modern bombers
control the air! 1t would be mad
ness.
| 1t Is plain, therefore, that to
take the offensive-to dare to an.
proach a hostile coast properly
guarded by modern weapons, our
navy must have an overwhelming
submarine fleet and a dominating
air force. But the navy has neither
of these. 1t has no cruising sub
marines. 1t has an air force so
small that Cuba or Portugal, or
and other little up-to-date nation
could defy it. For this reason It
is as helpless in offense as the
army Is in defense against an up.to.
date enemy in the. year 1924.
What To DO.
Now what do the conservative
behind.the-times element in the
navy and the misinformed branch
or the press cry for? They cry for
more battleships; they cry for
money to elevate big guns that
can shoot only fifteen miles. Rut
we now have a good fleet of battle.
ships. Instead Of adding to the
one part that we have, why not
first get the other two parts that
we have not-submarines and air
forces? Without these two parts
that are lacking the one part we
now have is powerless! Adding to
the powerless part win not win the
next war. A hundred battleshins
unsupported by air forces and sub.
marines, will lose in battle.
The solution for the army and
navy Is easy. Give them new
weapons before adding to the old
ones. Give them the things they