NAVAL DEFENCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 21 April 1934, Page 2

NAVAL DEFENCE

A FORM OF INSURANCE This nation, if it would be sure of its existence, must (put its defences right, and give up the folly of believing that it cajj make itself safe by Disarmament Treaties and the League of Nations, says the “Morning Post.” Moreover, as Great Britain cannot isolate herself from the rest of the world, but must play her part in its affairs, armaments are necessary, in peace, to give weight to policy. They are, indeed, a form of insurance which no country —and least of all a world-wide Empire—can afford to be without. There is too much at present of a superfluous controversy as to the respective value of Army, Navy and Air Force. It seems to us that we have an impartial authority in the Committee of Imperial Defence, which should be able to settle without any squabbling, their relative proportions in the general scheme. But, if we consider the question of urgency, then surely it would be wise to do first that which takes longest. To build a cruiser takes two or three years; soldiers can be trained in less, and the Air Force can also be expanded much more rapidly. Therefore it would seem to be wise policy to push on vdth the building of cruisers and destroyers. As to the building of battleships, our statesmen have inhibited themselves from building any before the end of 1936. The unwisdom of that limitation is sufficiently suggested by the fact that, if. the Navy is to be kept up to strength, it will be necessary to lay down 12 capital ships in 1937.