AEROPLANE WARFARE

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 250, 22 November 1929, Page 6

AEROPLANE WARFARE

Ifc is somewhafc sfcrange to note tliafc during all the discussions which preceded the convening of the Five-Power Conferenee ifc was not suggested, even by the United States, that one of the subjects which should be considered is the problem of aerial warfare. Several nations, of which perhaps Germanv ranks first, are, and have been for somc time, energetically adding to their fleets of aeroplanes. Germany has explained that in her case the additions are niainly to commercial fleets, but as it has been made clear, if we can trust many recent cable messages, that all of these so-called commercial 'planes are so designed as to be easily convertible into war 'planes, the value of the "explanation" is highly questionable. Leaving this, the main point is that the limitation of means to make war from the air has not been suggested as a subject of consideration by the Five -Power Conferenee. It is to be noted that not only is this ignored, but that one of the collafceral contingencies involved, the use of poison bombs by aeroplanes, is also neglected. Practically all the Power s have huge supplies of poison gas in store, and recently Germany 's share in this was emphasised by an explosion at a poison gas storage, resulting in tremendous destruction of property and loss of life and a big crop of injured. Another subject practically ignored by limitation advocates is that of the size of armies. In this matter, since the war ended, Britain has greatly reduced its land forces, and, so far as we have been able to discover, Japan has not added to liers. On the other hand, Italy and France and the United States have substantiall-y strengthened their land forces. As to Italy and France, perhaps we should not be surprised, but in the case of the United' States, with its loudly professed desire to bring aboufc disarmamenfc, its action is somewliat surprising. What this means in the case of Italy and France is easily seen by the latest suggestion, that Italy and France and Britain should enter into an agreement by which Britain should guarantee France against atfcack by Italy and Italy against attack by France. Obviously the suggestion is that, apart from such a guarantee, tliere is a danger of war between Italy and France, a conclusion buttressed by some recent fire eating speeches by . Mussdlini and by strategic movements of the troops of both countries on the frontier. It is generally predicted by the British press that Britain will definitely refuse to have anything to do with the suggestion, a forecast, we may assume, likely to be fully justified. But if such a war occurs it will be fought not only on land by ships of war, including submarines, of course — in which France is specially strong— but also by aviation warfare. This brings us back to our original point, that ifc is remarkable none of the Powers represented at the conferenee has tried to get set down on the agenda paper consideration of the limitation of flghting air machines, to say notliing of the prohibiticn of the use oi poison botnbs by them. They may be justified m thus ignoring the question. They may feel assured that any such suggestion would be hopeless, if only because the five Powers, if assumed to be willing to discuss limitation of naval armaments— this, however, by the action of France, barring submarines — would not agree to tie their hands in the matter of aerial armaments. Both Italy and France are very strong in submarines— France " being the stronger— and both are well eqtupped with fighting ships for use in the air. Takrng into account the professed desire for peace and for limitation of armaments proelaimed by the United States so loudly, it is indeed remarkable that Washington has not suggested limitation of air fighting ships. The cynical may be disposed to sdggest that the United States, whieh has substantially increased its land forces, and has perfected arrangements hv whieh existing cndres eould be, mullipliect and provided with olfieers— all this has been dealfc willi in cable messages during the. last few months is anxious only to obtain what the Five-Power Conferenee will never grant even if it •pernaits it to be dipcussed. This is the claim by the Cnited States that during warfare 'she shall be entitled to freely supply by sea to combatants commodi-, tles which will help them to- remain at war. Of course, the cynical may be wrong here — it has to be borne, in mind that Washington claims the same rights for all neutral nations, which conceivably might apply to Britain in certain circumstances— but on the whole it is not to be wondered at that Washington is regarded with suspicion.