Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-01-03

the number of cruisers necessary for
safety would far exceed our present
strength or. any program ever con-
ceived for US.
The British cruiser fleet does not
menace us: II Is not a threat nor a
danger. Doubtless the British would
take the same view of our cruiser
feet. but Il would be for us to build
not for them to scrap. Therefore any
possible agreement as TO the number
of cruisers would mean an increase.
not a reduction.
On the other hand, submarines con-
stitute for US and for the French.
given our own conditions. valuable
arms, in the opinion of our naval au~
thorities. The British effort to have
the submarine outlawed is no more
than the natural desire to get rid
Of the weapon which alone imperils
her supremacy in European waters.
But the submarine is not only regard
ed as a useful weapon in view of
peculiar American and French condi-
tons: IL is obviously the weapon Of
the poor and small countries which
cannot afford battleshfps or even
large cruiser fleets. 1t Is the single
weapon they can hope to possess in
any considerable quantity.
Deadlock Expected.
Nations too poor to use battleships
will patiently clamor to have the bat
tleship banned: nations which are too
poor to have cruiser fleets or have
no need for them will argue against
the cruiser, while Britain, for patent
reasons. will seek to abolish the sub
marine. But there the deadlock which
arrived at Washington is almost GER
tain to reappear, for Britain will not
abandon cruisers or limit them below
her own conception of safety, while
France, Italy and all the smaller
states Will stand similarly on the
submarine, as we shall doubtless also.
In reality the question of the sub
marine must be settled by private
agreement. If at all. 1t is the French
submarine which alarms the British.
But Britain has now extended her
guarantee to France in case of ag-
gression. Therefore an adjustment
between France and Britain as to
submarine use and strength should
be simple.
The idea that the submarine. or
even poison gas. can be banned from
war use is in all human proba bility
vain. Nations fighting for their ex-
istence-and every nation at war is
fighting for it's existence-will not be
stopped from the use Of any weapon
which promises to bring victory or
to prevent defeat. There was a ban
against poison gas before the last war.
But il broke down and each side ae-
cuses the other Of responsibility.
Peace Idea Visionary.
In reality the conception of insur-
ing peace by disarmament or by the
limitation of armed strength is more
or less visionary. The great advan-
tage Of the Washington conference lay
not in the contribution of anything
material to world peace, but in the
avoidance Of colossal and futile ex-
penditure upon unnecessary naval pro-
grams. For the United States and
Britain to build against each other
was a bowling absurdity. since never
under any possibility could their fleets
be used against each other Never
would one attack the other because the
idea is foreign to both peoples. We
were not even fearful of attack, either
one of us. Moreover, Japan was finan-
cially unable to compete with either of
us, so once she had a feet adequate
to satisfy her own conception Of Sc
curity, more was not only useless but
destined to provoke COUNTER building
which would destroy her security.
No army in Europe today. not even
that Of Soviet Russia. constitutes a
menace to peace. But all armies are
an obvious burden and all treasures
are in a difficult condition. Any re-
duction of armies or navies which
can be made must, therefore, serve
useful turn. Some adjustment be
tween the various states. some stand
ard and system of military strength
must ultimately be reached, for, peace.
full as Europe now is, 10 or 20 years
from now conditions may we'll change
and the present is favorable moment
not to be lost.
Undoubtedly q n AZ Anormous