FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1932
1932 - 0134.PDF
FLIGHT, FEBRUARY 12, 1932 as an electioneering move than as a contribution to the cause of world disarmament. The utterances of a nation which is on the eve of a general election must always be scrutinised with much care, for the Government which makes them is like a sick man, preoccupied with his own chances of recovery. Before considering the British proposals, let us turn to Article 28 of the Draft Convention. This contains four paragraphs which deserve careful study. The first lays down that Parties shall "refrain from prescribing" the embodiment of military features in civil aircraft material; the second that the Parties shall " not require " civil aviation enterprises to employ personnel specially trained for military purposes; the third that they shall not subsi dise, directly or indirectly, air lines " principally " established for military purposes; and the fourth that they shall encourage the conclusion of economic agreements between civil aviation undertakings in different countries. So far as the letter of these articles goes, it would be easy for any Power to drive a coach-and-four through all of them. If the spirit of them were observed loyally up to its logical conclusion, it would impose some very hampering restrictions on British habits and ambitions. For instance, accord ing to the spirit of paragraph 2, we ought rather to discourage test pilots and air line pilots from joining the Reserve of Air Force Officers, and the Air Ministry Appointments Board ought not to try to find posts in flying concerns for Short Service officers who have completed their term. All this would be very unreasonable. Canada, who uses her Air Force chiefly for forest patrol and similar civil services, has already reserved her agreement to this paragraph. Then, as regards subsidising air lines, after next April Imperial Airways may not be allowed to use the aerodromes in Persia. This, it seems, would drive them to use a flying-boat service down the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf, and it would be very much to the advantage of the Royal Air Force that such a route should be developed. It is a necessity of the British Empire that our R.A.F. flying-boats should be able to reinforce British stations in a different country as speedily as possible. It is only common sense that where possible the civil and military route should coincide, and in the Persian Gulf we may soon have a concrete case. This article of the Draft Con vention endeavours to hamper such a common-sense proceeding so far as it can. If the Arabian coast route has to be developed, it will be subsidised by the Government, and it will certainly be used by the Royal Air Force. Will the League of Nations con sider that it has been principally established for military or for civil purposes? And what about the Africa airway, which was first established by the Royal Air Force? Sir John Simon pointed out that limitation of arma ments could only be effected by two methods, first the fixing of limits, and the second by excluding certain means of warfare, and he said that Great Britain advocated both methods. For the purpose of limiting numbers he was not in favour of a per centage reduction. In this connection we may refer to our leading article in our issue of January 29, when we commented on the theories put forward by Die Luftwacht that France and some other nations had overstated their strength in aircraft in order to discount any percentage reduction. We have made l: some enquiries, and we are satisfied that the returns made by France may be accepted as accurate. But Japan avowedly included in her return aircraft which will come into being when she completes her present programme, but which now exist only in anticipation. Sir John alluded in veiled language to ttus type of return, and advocated limitation by the Datum Line process rather than by a percentage reduction, which, " applied to an assumed figure in the future, will only tend to make that assumed figure bigger than it ought to be." In excluding certain methods of warfare, it may be noted that Sir John, beyond the expression " these new methods of warfare—the use of gas and sub marine and of bombing from the air," made no definite allusion to aircraft. He proposed to abolish the use of gas and chemical warfare, which can be operated from the air as well as from the ground, but said nothing about any other restriction of air craft. He merely left the Draft Convention as a basis of discussion. Our own feeling is that Sir John Simon was very well advised to go no further than he did in this matter. If aircraft are to be used for attacks on civil popula tions, they will earn the epithet of " Hell's Angels." So long as their activities are confined to the destruc tion of military objectives, they are quite legitimate weapons of war. The validity of this position is not affected by the fact that a bomb may miss a factory and kill some civilians. Such accidents may happen when any missile weapon is discharged. There is, however, a world of difference between such an accident and a deliberate onslaught on residential areas with gas bombs. The crucial point is the type of bomb to be used, and the British proposal would rule out attacks on a civilian population. Sir John made the point that the object of the Conference should be to strengthen defence at the expense of attack, and it is very significant that he did not include bomber aeroplanes among the formidable weapons of attack. Others, who are not such clear thinkers as Sir John, have made the error or regarding bombers as most aggressive weapons. There is nothing more aggressive than a munitions factory, and to destroy such factories is a most effectual means of weakening attack. If factories are situated out of the reach of the artillery, and Sir John proposes that the calibre of the guns is to be limited, the only weapon which can destroy the factories is the bomber. To forbid the use of legitimately armed bombers would not, in actual fact, tend to reduce the horrors of war. The argument has often been put forward that it is useless to forbid the manufacture of a certain weapon in peace time because it can easily be made after war has been declared. There is truth in that: but it must be remembered that if no submarines, for example, are made and used in peace time, there can be no progress in the technique of design and use of submarines. Moreover, experience has shown that if the rules of international law are framed on reasonable lines and do not attempt to forbid what are obviously legitimate military operations (e.g., shelling or bombing an ammunition dump) these rules will usually be observed by belligerents. When reasonable operations are forbidden, the rules will certainly be disregarded by both sides, and all inter national law will in consequence lose some of its prestige. One great merit of Sir John Simon's pro posals is that they do not attempt to forbid too much. \
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
