CRUISER CRUX

Grey River Argus, 5 February 1930, Page 5

CRUISER CRUX

EUROPEAN LIMITS Too Rigid for France and Italy SUBMARINE PROBLEM. (Aus. and N.Z. Cable Assn.) LONDON, February 3. There are indications that this Week’s Naval Conference discus-ions of elastic tonnage will produce the hardest nut of the whole agenda. In the French suggestion, there would be one scale for Britain. , America an 1 Japan, and another for France and Italy. It is safe to say that the former Powers will oppose the application of the French idea to trausfer battleships and eight-inch cruisers, 'whicn Would mean giving France and Italy freedom to interchange the whole range 'of ships. The major Powers are intent <on confining elasticity to six-inch cruisers and submarines, to which the French mind is apparently strongly ‘redded. Behind the idea of the separate Continental scale is the right to transfer 20 per cent., while Britain, America and Japan would be limited to 10* per cent. Such wider elasticity naturally raises the point, that France and Italy, by building large cruisers, could upset the balance of British, American anti Japanese reckonings. Similarly, x t might embarrass Britain, whose com merce protection needs to extend beVond the mere Mediterranean and African interests. France, so far. has not discussed the nature of her claims in regard to submarines. It is felt that this problem must arise immediately because the l quotas cannot be tackled until it is seen what strength in submarines she find Japan desire. i The preparatory meeting of th-j 'first committee will be held to morrow morning. Mr Stimson will see Mr MacDonald this afternoon. No great progress is expected as the result of this meeting, as M. Tardieu and M. Briand are still in Paris. No fresh proposals have been circulated, owing to the elucidation necessary of the French and British formulas.

CHEMICAL WARFARE A BRITISH ADVOCATE. LONDON, February 3. “Dreadful as it is, gas is far more humane than high explosives. It caused less temporary and permanent suffering in proportion to the military reI suits of the war ” says Dr Herbert Levinstein, President of the Society of Chemical Industry, criticising th*“illusory character” of the treaties regarding gas warfare. He declared that the Geneva Protocol enabled the use of smoke screens, and perhaps tear gas and poison gas fumes. He contended that the limitation of naval armaments increased the importance of the chemical arm, and he pointed out the methods of using gas couiJ quickly be adopted, including the large stocks of gas cylinders immediately available in all countries where the alkali industry existed. These could be thrown out from aircraft, tanks, ar moured cars and other vehicles. He urged that the War Office should keep in close contact with chemical research. The improvisation of chemical war material might be vital to ou r existence. He added: “It is therefore satisfactory to know that the British chemical industry emerged from th? war stronger and greater in capacity, production and research.”

FRANCE’S SUBMARINES. U.S.A. STELL HOSTILE. LONDON, February 4. The “Daily Telegraph’s” naval correspondent states: In anticipation of France’s insistence upon a fleet of submarines comprising 126 thousand tons, there is a strong probability that the American delegates will raise the question of the so-called Root resolutions, which form an appendix, to the Washington Naval Treaty, where there are incorporated seven articles, four relating to submarines, and another to the use of poisonous gas. In view nf France’s gigantic submarine programmes, questions which will be put to France in regard to her intentions towards the Root Resolutions might be embarrassing.