Evening star., 1935-01-20
BY WILLIAM r. CASTLE, Jr.,

BY WILLIAM r. CASTLE, Jr.,
Former United States Undersecretary OF
State.
T IS years since the world, and
particularly the United States
began to talk of the necessity
L of limitation of armament-or
loosely, of disarmament. Every
body knows that uncontrolled naval
competition between Great Britain and
Germany was one of the reasons for
the World War. Everybody, except
disarmament fanatics, knows that it
was not the only reason, or even the
main reason; that actually the naval
race was symptomatic of an under
lying antagonism that was bound to
break out some day.
But this is often lost sight Of. And
because the League Disarmament Con-
ference has been dismal failure;
because the recent naval conversations
in London among the United States,
Great Britain and Japan have got
exactly nowhere, there are many good
people in America who see the next
war looming large-and too many of
them are making it more probable by
loudly proclaiming that they will find
some way to keep their sons or hus-
bands or cousins out of it.
The failure to make any progress in
practical reduction of armament is
not going to bring on another war,
but there can be no doubt that it is
a visible and disturbing proof OF the
fact that the nations of the world are
not in a trusting mood To say that
the failure to disarm will bring war
Is to put the cart before the horse; 1t
would be truer to say that the clouds
of war overshadow any and all ques-
tons Of disarmament. But. even so,
we must remember that clouds are far
more likely to pass away than they are
to bring rain-or war. The point is,
that in the shadow of anything it is
vastly important to walk circum-
specify.
Fundamentals Recommended.
Deeply as I believe in limitation of
armament, sure as I am that in pro-
portional reduction of armament there
cannot possibly be any national danger,
I, nevertheless, feel that now we
should all do we'll by ourselves and
by the rest of the nations of the earth
if for season We should stop talking
about question that has been more
or less discredited through failure of
accomplishment 1t is time to go back
70 1.n do v,aanfa1 rar,,fcitn ,f iy,tnr-
national peace. which is international
understanding.
If we can achieve a measure of
moral disarmament we shall not have
to struggle for material disarmament.
It will happen inevitably. Ratios
and comparisons in armament, which
obseSs the valiant peacemakers In
Geneva and in London, have horrid
habit of suggesting comparisons In
national worth.
remember that in the old days men
in the consular service were judged
on a percentage basis, and one of the
qualities so rated was honesty. A good
many people were shocked when said
that man was either honest or dis
honest, and that If he were dishonest
he should not be in the service; I said
that I should rather be rated at zero
in honesty than 80 per cent.
These comparisons in naval ratio
have much the same effect on the ma
tions involved that the rating in
honesty had on me. Those figures,
5-5-3, for example, irritate Japan
because they seem to rate Japan as,
somehow, an inferior nation. And
they are by no means wholly salts
factory to Great Britain or the United
States, because deep in the national
heart each knows that it has no
earthly peer. And, after all, what does
parity imply except that one is willing
to trust the other just as long as
neither has any advantage in material
strength? What we need is parity In
the amount Of confidence each gives
the other.
In other words, we have reached the
point where the endless and useless
discussion as to numbers of ships and
guns and tomahawkS and slingshots
to be permitted the different nations
Is becoming so Irritating and futile
that we are all growing more and more
suspicious of each other just because
of the discussions. Let's take a rest!
Denunciation Unnecessary.
Just recently Japan has stridently
denounced the Washington naval
treaty Of 1922. Everybody knows that
there is no real necessity for this, for
the reason that under the treaty the
nation is absolutely safe from attack
and is not planning to attack any one
else. Japan now demands equality in
number and size of ships with both
Great Britain and the United States.
In 1921 1t was satisfied with the 5-5-
3 ratio, knowing that this ratio gave
it full protection and that this was
what Mr.. Hughes and Mr.. Balfour in
tended. Ten years later, in London,
the japanese navy insisted that the
nation could be fully secure only if
1t had q ratio of 5-5-3k.
In Toxic I discussed the matter
endlessly with both naval men and
civilians, pointed out that mathemati-
cal accuracy in the ratio which would
mean security was impossible, and
suggested that after few years Japan
might well want 5-54 or be sat-
isfied with $50. But the answer
was, always, that the J5-3k
formula had been worked out scien-
tifically and that it would forever
satisfy.
At that time the demand had been
worked up By means Of propaganda.