Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-20
BY RAYMOND LESLIE BUELL..

BY RAYMOND LESLIE BUELL.
AS far as auxiliary craft Is concerned,
the Forthcoming London Conference
will attempt to stop naval rivalry and,
second, to secure concrete reduction.
If only the first Of these aims Is Sc
cured, the conference will not have
labored in vain. AS far as battleships
that constitute the backbone OF a. fleet
the problem Is different.
The Washington Conference of 1921
brought an end to competition in bat
tleships. 1t definitely fixed the num-
Der that each Of the five powers
might maintain. Nevertheless, the
London Conference will be confronted
with the question whether the huge ex-
pense involved In the replacement Of
battleships in accordance with the
Washington treaty should not be re-
duced.
Quotas In Battleships.
Under the Washington treaty 1t was
decided that the British Empire might
retain following the completion of the
Rodney and the Nelson) 20 battleships
of 558950 tons, and that the United
States might retain 10 battleships Of
525,850 tons. The reason the British
Empire was allowed to retain two more
battleships than the United States was
that with the exception of the Rodney
and the Nelson, all the British battle
ships were completed before 1918. But
z of the Is battleships of the United
States were constructed between 1918
and 1928. Moreover, the American bat
tleshipS, though two fewer in number
than the British, carry 1872 large guns
in comparison with 1873 guns for the
British.
Until 1891 the British and American
battle fleets are to remain at the above
figures. In that year, however, re-
placements will commence. And be-
tween 1881 and 1912 the British En-
pire and the United States will each
construct Is new battleships to replace
obsolescent vessels.
This new battleship construction,
which is scheduled to start next year,
involves the expenditure of enormous
of $4,000 tons costs between $35, 000, 600
and $4,000, 900. Thus the cost to the
American people Of constructing the IS
new battleShips contemplated in the
Washington treaty will be nearly $780,
10000. In addition Congress will be
obliged to appropriate for such battle
ships, once constructed, the annual
sum of s30,000,000 for maintenance
purposes.
offensive instruments.
If the present sized battleships were
essential to naval defense the element
Of expense would be q secondary con-
sideration. But people are beginning
to argue that fundamentally the bat
tleShip Is an offensive instrument of
warfare, and as such is out of place
in an era of anti-war pacts.
It Is also argued that in view Of the
submarine and the airplane the large
size battleship has become a handicap
simply because it is such good target.
Such naval experts as Admiral Sir
Herbert Richmond of the British Navy
declare that the smaller the vessel, the
more immune 1t viii be from torpedo or
air attack.
Finally, 1t is argued that If every
country reduces its battleships to the
same extent the relative position of
each would remain what 1t was before.
Because Of these financial and tech
nical reasons campaign against the
battleShip has arisen. And the Ques-
ton whether or not the battleship
shall be reduced In size, whether or
not the construction Of new battle
ships shall be postponed for term
OF years, or whether the number Of
such vessels In the American and Brit
iSh navies should be reduced from IS
to say. 2, is bound. to come UP at
London.
The British government was the first
TO raise the question. At the Geneva
Conference or 1927 the British pro.