Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-06-26
OPTIMISM MARKS NAVAL
PARLEY'S FIRST WEEK
u. S. Holds Firmly to Demands With Talk
of Japanese.British Compromise.
Real Work Yet to Come.

| control over the sea lanes of the
world. The United States, however,
is an importer of more foodstuffs
than il exports, according to the De-
partment Of Agriculture. Further
more. the United States is compelled
to import huge amount of other
| raw materials needed in it's indus
tries. including rubber, manganese.
tin and nitrates, If these supplies
are cut off because of war. the in
dustries of this country suffer
vitality.
Attention may he called to the fact
that the British lines of communica-
ton to Canada are secure against any
European fleet equal to her own. The
British communica tons to South
Africa, South America and Australia
are secure against an equal American
fleet. Finally Britain has the whole
Econtinent back of her from which to
draw food. All OF which does not bear
out the argument that the British
need a navy greater than the 5--o-3
ratio, on the theory that otherwise
the English might starve.
Want Treaty Revised.
In their proposals 1t the naval con-
| ference, the British have urged that
! certain details of the Washington
naval limitation treaty of 1922 be
revised. They have proposed that the
| size of the capital ships be limited to
| 80. 900 tons, instead of $4,000; that
| these ships be armed with 1S.5-inch
guns instead of 16-inch; that the &C
cepted age of the capital ship be &c
years instead of 20.
| The effect of these proposals would
be to the advantage of Great Britain
and the disadvantage of the Unite~
States in naval strength. The United
States, for example. would be required
to retain battleships dating from 1911
and 1912 and armed with 12-inch
guns over an additional period of
six years, without the right to re-
place them with up-to-date ships.
Great Britain, with the approaching
addition to her navy of the Rodney
and the Nelson, 35.000.ton battleships
armed with 16-inch guns; thoroughly
protected against undersea and air
attack, is in a position to agree to
such limitations. Generally speaking
the battleships Of the United States
are older than those of Great Britain.
The proposal that the size of the
battleship be limited works to the
disadvantage of the United States be.
cause of the lack of naval bases and
limitation in cruising radius.
The British have proposed that the
accepted life of destroyers be 20
years instead of Is as urged by the
American delegation at Geneva. The
United States would be saddled with
it's war-time-built destroyers for five
years longer without replacement If
this plan were adopted. Both Britain
and Japan have built recently and
are building destroyers OF larger size
and greater speed than the American.
Propose Submarine Cut.
So far as submarines are concerned,
the British propose a reduction in the
size Of the undersea craft. curtailing
their radius of activity. In view of
the position to the United States in
connection with the Philippines and
| Americas lack of naval bases, the
long radius submarine is important to
this country.
1t is considered entirely unlikely
that the American delegation will
agree to open up at Geneva matters
which were settled at the Washington
naval conference. IL that be so, the
proposals of the British regarding
capital ships, limitation on size Of
cruisers and their armament will be
allowed to slide. Neither France nor
Italy, signatories to the Washington
treaty, is taking part in the present
conference, Furthermore, there is to
be a meeting of the five powers which
signed the Washington treaty in
August, 1881, prior to the time set
for laying down requirements for
battleships, and il these matters are
to be reopened. that is the time, not
now.
The Japanese proposal looks in the
main to maintenance of the status quo
in naval strength. The United States,
however, since the Washington con.
ference, has allowed both the Brit.
ish and the Japanese to go ahead OF
her in the matter of modern cruisers.
If the Japanese proposal should pre-
vail, the 5--5--3 ratio goes by the
board. In practical application. the
Japanese proposal would eliminate all
old cruiser tonnage of the United
States built prior to 1912 without per-
hitting replacement by modern
cruisers. 1t permits, however. the
completion OF cruisers now building,
or appropriated for, or included in
authorized building programs, AS
both Japan and Britain have such
programs and the United States has
none, it is not difficult to see where
this leaves Uncle Sam. On the basis
of this proposal, the United States
| would have 155. 1000 tons of cruisers,
Great Britain, asa 900 tons. and Japan,
211 900 tons. The approximate ratios
of the three countries. under the Jap
anese plan, for combined cruiser, de-
stroyer and submarines tonnage would
be for the United States, 6.5 for
Britain and 3.5 for Japan. Much OF
the tonnage of the United States
would be in war-time-built destroyers.
| The ratio in cruiser strength alone
would be for the United States, 1855
| for the British and $50 for Japan.
| Replacement Suggestion.
| 1t was intimated by the Japanese
I that the United States might use some
! of her destroyer strength in replace
ments, to build up her cruiser
| strength. But in the actual application
.. the United States would not be in
position to replace destroyer tonnage
with cruiser to any real extent until
1890. Furthermore, If this destroyer
tonnage is to be replaced by cruisers,
the United States would not be able to
construct new, up-to-date destroyefs,
| Another proposal Of Japan was that
ships not exceeding 700 tons be eX
cluded from the articles of limita ton
This would permit Japan to go ahead
| with the construction OF large num-
! her of submarines not exceeding 700
tons, useful to the Japanese in the
| Far East. 1t has been intimated by
the Japanese at Geneva, however.
that this exemption would not be in
sisted on. Japan also proposed that
| there be no limitation on aircraft car
riers of not more than 10000 tons.
! The American delegation at Geneva
has proposed limitation of auxiliary
naval craft, which would leave the
| three navies on the 5-5-3 ratio
basis--a basis which seems fair to all
| three powers. 1t has proposed to re.