Both the League of Nations and President Coolidge have given expression
to the universal desire to reduce the burden of armaments in the
interest of economy and world peace. Armaments, speaking generally,
express a nation’s fears or the ambitions of its controlling classes.
Reduction of armaments will follow increasing world security and
still more extensively an increasing sense of security, which is a
very different matter. We are used to our armaments as we are used to
locking our doors at night. Neither actually gives security, although
we have been brought up to think both do. I have shown above that
armaments cannot give security from another world war, and that is the
only security that would be worth having.
Increase of armaments increases the general sense of insecurity.
Therefore, while waiting for another conference on the limitation of
armaments, we should not hold “defense days” nor competitively multiply
our cruisers, submarines, and other arms. President Coolidge is right
in “standing pat” on the vast sum of $550,000,000 as enough for war
preparation for the year 1926.
On the other hand, drastic reduction of armaments, except by
international agreement, is psychologically impracticable for us in the
present state of things. Hence another conference for the reduction and
limitation of land, sea, and air forces is necessary. To be fruitful,
it must include all nations. France cannot disarm unless Russia does.
Although it might seem that Washington would in some respects offer
the best atmosphere for such a conference, it must be remembered that
France has not yet ratified some of the important treaties adopted here
three years ago (1921). Delegates achieve nothing permanent if they go
beyond public sentiment at home. Consequently, as the League of Nations
is considering such a conference, I believe it might be well for it to
meet in Geneva. There would, perhaps, be greater probability that its
decisions would be accepted by the powers represented.