Evening star., 1938-02-13
Arms and Peace.

fAx I1S o11O VoSCs
The United States confronts situa-
tion-not theory-as the question of
national defense arises today. Treaties
for the peaceful settlement of interna-
tional disputes have been cast into the
discard as they have ever been in the
past when national necessity" or ma
tional pride has been advanced as cause
for war. An undefended America today
is something more than target-it is
temptation to nations which have the
acquisitive instincts of a gunman.
Opponents of President Roosevelts
naval program say that (a) the expan-
sion Of the Navy and Army contem-
plated is not needed, and 90 that arma-
ments in the end merely lead us into
war. These opponents, however, are
not experts in the matter of ornaments
or as to what country like the United
States requires for national defense.
They merely offer an opinion that the
proposed expansion is excessive, despite
the fact that men who have spent their
lives in the study of national defense
needs have proposed the program.
Do ornaments necessarily lead a ma
ton into war? They have not led this
Nation into aggressive war. Because we
we're not armed we were unprepared
for the World War, in which this coun-
try finally became involved. The big
question, put simply, is whether ma
ton is forced into war because it arms
itself or because it fails to arm itself.
No thief is as likely to attack man
who Is armed as one who is unarmed,
and no nation is as likely to attack an
armed United States as 1t is to attack
an unarmed United States. So far as
the American people are concerned, they
are not inclined to force an aggressive
war on any other nation. 1t has not been
their history, and after all, it is possible
sometimes to Judge the future by the
past.
Unfortunately for the cause Of ma
tional defense the Presidents Chicago
speech has been interpreted as meaning
that this country will move with others
in making war. The President may have
meant that this country would move
with others in the cause of peace. The
cause of war and the cause of peace,
however, seem invariably to become in
terchangeable, depending upon who
does the constituting. So the opponents
of bigger Navy have seized upon the
Presidents remarks to insist that what
he is preparing is not adequate national
defense, but a strong force with which
to make aggressive war.
Repeatedly the Secretary Of State
and other officials of the Government
have insisted that this country has en-
tered into no agreements, no alliances,
for war. However, the opponents Of
more adequate national defense drag
rumors Of such agreements, like red
herrings, across the trail.
Men like Senator Hiram johnson Of
California, who believe in national de-
tense and in an adequate Navy but who
are strongly opposed to the involvement
OF this country in the disputes of others
and to alliances with other nations, are
asking now whether the proposed naval
increases are to carry out agreements
for concerted action with another or
other nations. The little Navy group
finds aid and consolation, therefore, in
the ranks Of those who have opposed
them in the past.
Congress, which makes the appropri-
ations, will have to decide whether it
prefers to take chance on an inade-
quately armed America in a day and
age when war threatens to sweep
throughout the world. The American
people will have to decide whether they
wish to take out insurance against at
tack or are willing to pay the attacker