NAVAL POLICY

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20248, 17 July 1937, Page 23 (Supplement)

NAVAL POLICY

AMERICAN INTENTION. EQUALITY WITH BRITAIN. The present naval policy of the United States Government might he described in a phrase made famous by President Wilson more than twenty years ago: "Watchful waiting,” writes the New York correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. It is no secret that the authorities in Washington are dismayed by the proportions to which the international armament race is growing. They would like, If it could possibly be achieved, another general agreement for limitation of naval armament. Even the most optimistic among them recognise's that there is almost no hope of bringing about such an agreement at the present moment. It is considered, however, that when the present naval programmes are completed, perhaps a year or two hence, it might be possible to embark upon a new agreement that would prevent, the chief Powers from bankrupting themselves by their expenditure. As the matter is viewed in Washington, the Important thing about tlie world’s navies is not their absolute size, but their relative strength. Once an approximate equilibrium lias been achieved there seems no real reason for continued increase’ in tonnage, although it is recognised that there will always be certain groups in every country to argue that other nations are in fact possessed of superior equipment and that this unbalance must be rectified, no matter what the cost. Limited Interests. The United States’ general policy continues to be one of matching Great Britain, both in total tonnage and. approximately. In each of the various categories. It is recognised, however, that such a programme may encounter great difikulties in the future, since the necessities of British naval policy are entirely different from those affecting the United States. Already many voices are heard in this country to the effect that Great Britain has a worldwide empire and must deal with an extremely dangerous situation close at hand—ln Western Europe. The United States, on the other hand, has undertaken to set free the Philippines and has drastically reduced her commitments In the Caribbean. As for European affairs, no American political figure would dare to suggest active participation by this country on any basis that would make appropriate an increase in American naval strength The argument is therefore being heard that this country should abandon the endeavour to match the British Fleet, and should coniine Its naval strength to the character and amount of tonnage necessary to protect its continental area and Hawaii. There is no doubt that such voices will become stronger and more numerous as time goes by. It may be useful to recall that American and British naval experts have always disagreed as to the desirable tonnage both for cruisers and for battleships, and this difference would presumably be reflected if another naval conference were to be called. Argument from Bases. The Americans have advocated cruisers of 10,000 tons and battleships of 35,000, when British policy would indicate somewhat smaller vessels in both categories. The American argument is that Great Britain has numerous naval bases throughout the world, and can therefore afford smaller ships with a more limited cruising radius. The Americans are without such bases and require ships that can fight at a greater distance from home. This difference of opinion nas carried over into the field of gun sizes. The Americans have constantly sought to arm their ships with comparatively large guns and have not changed this aspect of their policy in recent times. Present building plans call for what naval authorities regard as a minimum of construction In the immediate future, until the possibilities of new agreements for limitation have been explored. Two new 35,000-ton battleships are now under consideration and, while no definite decision ha-s yet been made, it seems probable that they will carry iG-inch guns, In view of the refusal of the other Powers to agree to a smaller calibre. American naval authorities dispute the view that 16inch guns are too large for a 35,000ton ship. They point out that the United States, Great Britain and Japan all have battleships of 35,000 tons or less with batteries of guns of this size. No Pledges Given. Thus far, the United States Navy has given no Indication that it intends to build ships of more than 35,000 tons; but it has, of course, made no pledge that it will refrain from asking funds for larger ships If similar plans are announced for the other chief navies of the world. It has frequently been argued that the American Navy is limited to 35,000-ton ships by the size of the locks in the Panama Ganal. Those who hold this view contend that larger vessels could not go through the canal in safety unless this waterway were to be enlarged, a process that would cost a staggering sum and take years to carry out. It would, of

course, be. possible to build ships for use in the Atlantic or the Pacific only, or to send them on the long voyage around Cape Horn, but the disadvantages of such a policy arc obvious. American naval authorities admit that the size of the Panama Canal is a limiting factor, hut they deny that the limitation begins at 35,000 tons. Plans

have been made by the American Navy, although never carried out, for a number of vessels of 4 0,000 and even 12,000 tons, which were intended to

go througli the canal. It should bo strongly emphasised that there is no present intention, however, of building any ship of more than 35.000 tons, or employing guns of more than 16-inch calibre.