LAND DEFENCE POLICY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 81, 5 April 1930, Page 17 (Supplement)

LAND DEFENCE POLICY

No official statement has been made concerning the lines to be followed in the Government’s new land defence policy; but it is understood that complete abolition of the present territorial training system is contemplated and that some of the money thus saved will be applied in strengthening th e air defence arm. No hint is given as to the land forces to be substituted for the territorials, er even whether there are to be any land forces at all. It seems necessary to sound a note of caution. The territorial system has met with some opposition lately, from a heterogeneous band of conscientious objectors pacifists, internationalists, socialists and even short-sighted business men who have objected to the slight inconvenience to which they arc subjected by annual training periods. Of these objectors none has prepared a plan for an alternative system. Labour ha* no plan beyond the vague statement that it will face the problem in the light of circumstances prevailing when it assumes office. The church supporters of conscientious objectors have been carried away by the fervour of a disarmament spirit which even the British Labour Government is unable to accept. On the fringes of this motley army of opponents of the present system* are some amateur strategists with half-bak-ed ideas as to the resolution in defence metho.is following the development of flying am! the mechanisation of armies. They think that an air force is all th it is necessary lor defence, forgetting that the nations which have the greatest air forces have still the greatest land operating armies. The point we wish to emphasise however, is that the Governnent should not allow this army of opponents with mixed motives to plav tavoc with our present system. Reports

trom the Dif.nee experts should be ■ailed for and published for the guidance of puldie opinion. Admittedly our present system can be improved, but it an also be made much worse than it is It present if pacifists, nor. nationalists, and amateur strategists are allowed Io practise their pet theories on it— Lvening Post. Wellington. SUBMARINES It seems certain that, whatever hanges nmy be effected bv the Naval ,'onferen.-.- now sitting in London, the ibolition of submarines will not be •Breed on. France and some of the •mailer naval Powers are the great unnolders of submarines on the ground hat they are comparatively cheap to build and have great defensive value. Ihe picture drawn bv these people i s one torpedo from ’a submarine sinkng a large battleship. British experts “eply that, with the methods of discov•ring the position of submarines which were developed .luring the war and ifter-.vards. there is no chance of a submarine getting near enough to endanger a battleship. The greatest evidence for the tact that submarines are not really a successful weapon is that both Britain n ’ te4 Statcs wish to abolish tncm. 1 he reason put forward for this eonrsc is that they cannot be used without great inhumanity. This is a very strong argument, but we cannot help believing that the naval experts of both Powers are of opinion that the methods of defence against submarine attack are now so perfect tha- vessels of this type are not a serious menace. This does not mean that submarines could not do

a considerable amount of damage to unprotected ships, but that properly organised measures can reduce their danger to a minimum. Similarly the agreement at the Washington. Conference to limit the number of battleships and the size of guns, which -was considered, a triumph for the advocates of reduced armaments, was largely due to the fact that experts were becoming doubtful about the value of very costly vessels with enormous guns, which had the disadvantage that they could not enter many harbours and could not pass through the Panama Canal. Whatever the real reason for opposing submarines and very big battleships, we may be content to accept the movement for their abolition as a real gain for humanity and economy, and regret that France still believes in a form of vessel which is not only a cause of inhumanity. but is also made obsolete by the methods of defence against it.—Taranaki Herald.