AIR AS FIRST LINE

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 83, 7 April 1936, Page 12

AIR AS FIRST LINE

INQUIRY NEEDED

(To the Editor.) I Sir —There is reason to fear that the vast 'majority of the public in New Zealand pay little attention to the subiect of defence. The end of the war was followed by a widespread dislike of the whole idy ea of further warfare and this established a mental habit which has everywhere required the pressure of anticipated danger to break i t down. Here we still anticipate no danger; but we cannot escape the conclusion that another great war might bring us into grave danger. And whatever form of armed force is brought against New Zealand we lie in Kipling's.telling words, "bare as the paunch of the purser's sow to its blows. Our trifling naval force Uf we still had it) could not hold off a naval attack; our coastal fortifications would fare no better than such establishments have usually done against naval attack, to say nothing _of aerial bombardment; and our shipping facilities would quickly be ruined. There is nothing to show that our enemy could not establish himself ashore, as our own troops did at Gallipoh, and give us an exceedingly difficult job. It may or may not— according to one's convictions—have been proved that New Zealand's ,best form of defence is aerial, but whether proved or not, a sufficiently strong case has been made out to demand a thorough and prompt investigation. It is clear that since 1918 the whole structure of warmaking has undergone a tremendous change. Mechanisation of land forces has made the army into a new instrument, so that tactics have been revolutionised. The air school looks further still and declares that strategy, on the grandest scale, has been made over by the development of air power. How are we meeting these conditions? We have a new Government, which cannot be charged with being afraid of new ideas. The defence problem is so urgent that even at this- early stage of its life, the Government should undertake an inquiry. It will quickly become apparent that our present military system is, from the viewpoint of defence, inadequate; and that from the viewpoint of using it as the root of an expeditionary force, as in 1914, it is of, at best, doubtful value for an expeditionary force from New Zealand may never again reach port in the face of aerial attack. We are, it seems, compelled to recognise that we are thrown back upon our own defensive powers. Is it, or is it not, safe to xely upon a few small warships, a few fixed guns, and a handicapped land force? Can we, or can we not, defend ourselves by means of aircraft?

These questions are fundamental, and as the safety of the country is .vital, the question of cost becomes subsidiary. -At the same time the economic aspect cannot be overlooked. New Zealand cannot herself maintain a navy, nor establish munition works capable of satisfying the tremendous appetite of modern guns. But she can much more easily afford aircraft and the less expensive ammunition they require.

Let us beware of saying that this is a matter for the experts to decide. There is a classical story about the expert who, .wrapped up in his own trade, declared that there's nothing like leather. But today the world does its travelling, when it really wants to travel on land, on indiarubber tires. The problem before us is one that calls ior the experts to produce their evidence so that an impartial and intelligent tribunal may reach a decision.

There is no time to lose. If we are to carry on and trust the forms of defence we have, well and good. But if we are to scrap them and adopt aerial defence, every day counts. Aerial defence cannot be organised in a week or a month. —I am,, etc.,

A.D. 1036.