Evening star., 1926-05-30
|GOLDSTR0M z DAYS. ASKS ARMS PARLEY
AHEAD OF RECORD CONSIDER TANGIBLE
Gen. Nolan Says Potential
Resources Cannot Be
Dealt With Properly.
BY the Associated Press.

GENEVA, May 2e.-The advice io
deal with what is tangible and Wis
BILE II useful results are to be oh
tanned In bringing about a reduction
and limitation Of arrnanents wa
given by Brig. Gen. Dennis r. Nolal
an American Army officer who ha
distinguished service in France. {"
his disarmament colleagues today.
Gen. Nolan was speaking in be
half OF the American delegation and
as chief of the American military
experts before the disarmament
commissions expert committee
fundamental question, What are
armaments?"
By tangible and visible arnaments.
Gen. Nolan explained. he mean
existing military and naval establish
ments, together with reserves Of
material. His idea was that these
are the things which can be reduced
or limited, whereas what are called
potential war resources cannot he
limited at any conference.
Two Problems Linked.
The question, however. or re
ducing the reducible' was linked
with the problem Of potential re
sources because the latter must b.
taken into consideration in dctermin
ing what weight should be given O.
potential power in fixing the ulti
mate reduction or armamentS for the
various countries
Examining the so called potentia
powers, Gen. Nolan said that the
American view was that the varioua
factors on which the power OF
country depends in war time include.
first. geography, topography and
climate: second, population and go
cial conditions; third, the political
situation; fourth, the economic stu
alton, and fifth, existing military ami
naval establishments.
Under economic situation he iisted
material resources, food, raw mate
rials, manufacturers, munition~
capacity for transportation and corn
munications, foreign commerce and
finance.
Only One Possible.
"Of the factors enumerated, Ge1
Nolan continued. "the one dealin-
with military and naval establish
ments is the only one which the
American delegation believes capa
BILE of satisfactory evaluation D
this subcommittee for the purpose "f
limiting or reducing arrnaments. An
attempt to evaluate other factors
such as those I have indicated.
would lead into such a maze of spec
ulative questions and diversity OF
opinions from the viewpoint OF linni-
tation Of arrnaments that 1t appears
very doubtful If such consideration
would serve q useful purpose at this
time
France, Sweden and Italy all sub
mitted memoranda today explaining
their views OH what constitutes
armaments. The French document,
especially detailed. caused some con
fusion by including in armamentS
the "totality of human and material
resources and resources or element"
of every nature which national cat
employ for conduct Of war.
French Stand Not CieaT.
This was tantamount to putting IL
every conceivable potential element
and was getting far away from the
American idea of restricting reduc-
ton to tangible, visible military.
naval and air establishments.
The French memorandum cor
| cludes by declaring that all potential
| elements cited in detail are inter
dependent and that it is Impossible
| to establish clear distinction between
| factors which are and are not purely
military unless examination is cor
fined to so-called peace-time arma-
ments.
The French will be asked, for fun
ther explanations as to their posi-
ton at the committee meeting Mon
day.