THE SUBMARINE.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 November 1921, Page 5

THE SUBMARINE.

A SOURCE OF ANXIETY. AUSTRALASIA CONCERNED. Received Nov. 16, 5.5 pin. Washington, Nov. 15. As far as Australia is concerned perhaps the most interesting feature of Mr. Balfour’s speech was the declaration that it might be advisable to forbid the construction of super-submarines. It is an open secret that the possibility of the existence of this type of craft, with a cruising range of over 10,000 miles, carrying both torpedoes and mines, is a source of much perturbation to the oversea delegates. The British view is that the submarine is a very undesirable form of naval weapon, and should be confined to defence purposes, the tonnage to be limited as in the case of battleships. Some misunderstanding was cleared up to-day over the question of replacement. The British view is that naval shipyards should always be kept in readiness, their size being limited to the capacity of one ship yearly, instead of maintaining large private yards. Such yards might be used at any time during the naval holiday, whereas naval yards with a strictly limited personnel could not. A high naval authority explained to-day, regarding Mr. Balfours remarks about cruisers not connected with a battle fleet, that he referred to the necessity of policing the sea and protecting the trade routes. Such ships would be practically useless for fighting purposes.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

SOUTH AFRICA’S VIEWS. PRESS WELCOMES PROPOSALS. A NOTE OF CAUTION. Received Nov. 16, 5.5 p.m. Capetown, Nov. 15. The Press warmly welcomes the disarmament proposals, although the first enthusiasm was slightly dampened by the discovery that America will possess three post-Jutland ships against the British one. The Argus says that little as the Dominions seem to recognise the fact, the question of the relative strength of the British fleet to-day, owing to the shifting centre of naval gravity, is even more vital to the Dominions than to the Mother Country. Even Australia, which spent more on sea defence than the rest of the Dominions together, acknowledges that her navy is ludicrously inadequate for the defence of her shores. Therefore it would be a serious matter if the British Navy sinks to second mark in these circumstances. It is regrettable that all the Dominions are not represented at Washington, forming part of what might have been a united British Empire delegation.— Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.