ECONOMY—AND DEFENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 76, 31 March 1933, Page 6

ECONOMY—AND DEFENCE

Few people could have failed to be impressed by Sir Charles Kingsford Smith's technical and national" arguments in favour of aerial defence a» a defensive arm specially adapted to the needs of isolated islands like New Zealand. For small population countries remote from the Great Powers and' their armaments, war lessons make interesting reading, and the. two new factors in warfare—the air fighter and ,the underwater fighter—have a double appeal

on the ground of effectiveness and cost. Sir Charles Kingsford Smith has tried to suit the times by stressing the relative cheapness of. aerial defence. Economisers will replythat the immediate question is not whether New Zealand can spend money on'the cheapest defence, but 'on any defence—having regard to [ bread-and-butter needs. At the same time—as an Australian representative pointed out in an article followjing the New Zealand comments of the trans-Tasman aviator—a new dc,fence scheme is being introduced by the Common wealdi Government. There is no bread-and-butter argument valid here that is not equally valid in Australia. Clearly the Federal Government is impressed by the war possibilities of the future. The depression that has curtailed finances has not ended war, and may even create" new causes of quarrel.