Spirit of the Press

Northland Age, Volume 1, Issue 10, 11 December 1931, Page 10

Spirit of the Press

EXTRAVAGANCE IN ARMS

A group of British leaders of thought have issued a manifesto which ably puts a point that must surely have puzzled the man in the street. What is true of Great Britain is, of course, even more true of many other countries, and in fact has almost world-wide application. If, say the manifestants, the finnancial situation is as unsatisfactory as it is represented to be, why are not the politicians in agreement on proposing a drastic reduction in expenditure on armaments ? It is shown that, allowing for change in prices, as much is being spent on arms as before the war, when the preparations for the impending conflict were at their height. In some cases, it might have been added, the expenditure is greater today than it was then. Yet we profess to have abandoned warfare, and it would therefore appear that these sums are illog-ically, wastefully, and indeed dangerously employed. Apart from the obvious contradiction between profession and practice, the immediate argument is that in the present financial situation, when nations are called upon to reduce their budgets, they cannot afford to indulge in huge armaments. If it is admitted that they were necessary in 1913, they were a luxury in 1930, and they are now an extravagance beyond the national resources. If an ordinary household, faced by poverty, and menaced by beggary, were to engage a staff of private policemen to preserve it from the depredations of neighbours who have no hostile, intentions and who would, at any rate, be prevented from executing them by the ordinary process of law, such medieval icily would appear to be ludicrous. It is no less ludicrous when it is practiced on a national scale. It is generally accepted that there is a need for the reduction of governmental expenditures. Surely if

any nation is to choose between a * reduction of armaments and a reduction of fees, salaries, wages and social benefits, no sensible man would insist on retaining armaments. Shall there be smaller battleships or greater income taxes ? More guns or more homes? Shall soldiers or teachers be discharged? It seems incredible that these questions can be answered in any other way than they would be answered by the advocate of disarmament. m There is, therefore, a call for a reduction of at least 25 per cent in ' the' expenditure on armaments. Does that seem too much? It seems, on the contrary, too little. If there is need for drastic economy, it is orr * armaments that we should begin. For, as Viscount Cecil has pointed out, the reduction of expenditure on armaments will not only -save money, but, by increasing confidence and cooperation among nations, will tend to restore the prosperity which is now sadly lacking. There are economies which may prove unprofitable, but here is an economy that is doubly profitable.--Christian Science Monitor.