Is Disarmament Practicable? A Debate By Blaine Ramsden IF Abel had possessed a club Cain could could not have slain him. On the other hand, if Cain had not possessed a club Abel would not have been killed. This analogy expresses the two different opinions regarding world disarmament. The purpose of the affirmative in a discussion concerning complete disarmament of the nations of the earth is to justify the opinions of those who believe that if Cain had not had had a club Abel would not have been slain. But, to simply justify, or to estabish the essential rightness of such an idea is not adequate until the practicability of that ideal is in some way indicated. Before this problem can be discussed, however, it is necessary that the terms which are used in expressing the question be understood. In a question of complete disarmament the factor as to what constitutes armaments must be established. Ar-maments are interpreted by most authorities to mean those instruments of warfare which are burdensome in time of peace. Knowing what armaments are gives us a tangible aspect to the problem. This becomes even more concrete when a plan of achieving the goal is suggested. The following outlined plan is presented because its greatest merit is its practicability: 1. An international court of reconciliation and arbitration. A. An international constitution. B. An enforcement arm in the form of an economic boycott. C. An educational program. D. A long time period to accomplish its goal. Each provision of this plan definitely aids and assures the ultimate success of the plan. Each is included to take care of such situations as might arise to impair the functioning of the court. An international constitution would safeguard the just national policies of the states who were members of the court. The function of an international constitution would be similar to the function of the constitution of the United States in its guarantees to the individual states. Substiantiating the constitution and enforcing the decrees of the court, should such procedure become necessary would be the power of the court,-to enact an economic boycott against the offending nation. An educational program is self explanatory. The purpose of such a program would be to instill the idea of peace with disarmament in preference to armament and its hazards of war. Of course it must be realized that it would not be feasible to disarm the world competely over night. The wise solution would be to extend the period of disarmarmaments over several years reducing the armaments of the world each year until the idea of complete disarmament be accomplished. As a further indication of the feasibility of the plan there is the attitude of the mass of public opinion which has definitely expressed itself in favor of world wide disarmament. This sentiment is proclaimed by such world leaders as President Hoover, Premier MacDonald, and Chief Justice Hughes. Its echo is heard in the voice of 130,000,000 people endorsing the Russian Peace Pan which advocated complete disarmament. And finally, there is the evidence of a world stirring itself to throw off the yoke of armaments. Such evidence is found in the accumulative treaties outlawing war, limiting naval armaments, and increasing the means of arbitration. Striking examples of such treaties are the Pact of Paris, signed by the leading nations of the world, renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, and the recent London Naval Conference limiting the size of the world's existing navies. These events demonstrate the practicability of complete disarmament. Returning to the question of essential rightness of disarmament we find involved the benefits which the world must receive through the abolition of armaments. Outstanding among these benefits to be attained by a condition of peace is the increased opportunity for world peace. A careful analysis reveals how world peace may be aided by a world existing in an unarmed state. By removing the means of waging immediate war, arbitration, the only sensible method of settling disputes, would become the accepted practice. A period of delay would be provided between the time of any outbreak between nations and the time when they could actively engage in warfare during which the dispute could be peacefully settled. Approaching the problem from another angle it is readily seen that a psychology of peace among the citizens of the world would emerge and demand the peaceful settlement of world probems. True, a state of complete disarmament cannot be achieved in a day, but if the amount of time and money now utilized in the construction and maintenance of burdensome armaments were directed towards a sound practical plan of disarmament, its ultimate success would be assured. In Defense of Armaments A Debate By Grant Syphers In supporting the case of armaments I should like to make it clear that I am not in any way advocating war as a means of settling international disputes. Neither am I upholding any system of competitive armaments. I might go even further and state that undoubtedly there are defects or disadvantages in any system of armaments; but, on the other hand, the same is true of complete disarmament. In this mortal world of ours everything we do is defective. Man has never yet turned out a perfect product in any line of government. Accordingly, if it is shown that a system of armaments has its bad points, can this be any reasonable justifi-cation for disarming completely? Such a step would be folly unless a better plan were provided-a practicable plan. And so, it shall be my purpose to show why the nations of the world should not disarm, because disarmament is an impracticable substitute. In showing the impractability of disarmament I maintain that I am also attacking any benefits from the plan which might be presented; for certainly, a plan must be in operation before it can have any good results. Hence the supporter of disarmament must show how the plan can be put into operation or else his arguments are futile. Consider, for a moment, the factors now existing in the world which would make it impracticable to disarm. Scan the general condition of world affairs and it will readily be seen that there are certain governments existing which are very unstable. They have very litte control over their respective countries; they cannot enforce their laws; in fact, is is a very difficult task for them to remain in authority. Now the problem presents itself. If certain governments are weak and unstable, can they disarm the countries they are attempting to control? Of course, the answer to the above question is self evident. Disarmament would be a tremendous task for a strong govern-ment such as that of the United States or Great Britain; it would be a human impossibility for an unstable government. Suppose that the government of China should attempt to disarm China. Suppose further, that it did disarm its own forces. What would happen? It would be overrun by the opposition and would no longer be in power. In China today we find that there are two strongly armed factions struggling for supremacy. At present one of them is controlling the government. However, the one in control is not strong enough to suppress the other faction to any degree. The only way the controlling faction can hold its supremacy at present is to maintain arms to subdue the opposition. In the face of these facts, how can China disarm? In a similar way there are other nations in the same predicament as is China. Russia presents a scene of conspiracy, uprisings and political intrigue; the Mexican government is on a shaky foundation; India presents a very unstable and unorganized governmental condition; there are at least four governments in the world today which are in such unstable and weakened circumstances that it would be utterly impossible for them to disarm. This condition of instability of governments has, furthermore, a much broader effect than the mere prevention of these governments from disarming. It has a broad economic effect upon practically every great nation of the world. All of the great nations are investor nations; the United States has money invested in every foreign country on the globe; so has England, France, and other world powers. A large portion of the foreign investments of these nations is placed in the unstable countries which I have previously discussed. Therefore, if it is impossible for these unstable nations to disarm, and if the world powers have capital invested in these nations, how will the world powers protect that capital unless they maintain arms in these unorganized nations? And so, it is evident, that in spite of the boasted benefits of disarmament, such a plan is not possible under the existing conditions; and if disarmament is not possible then surely it is futile to talk of its prospective good results. Perhaps in future years the world may become more idealistic than it is at present. Men may free themselves from petty grudges and differences and establish their social life upon a system of love rather than competition. But until that time,disarma-men will be something a little out of human grasp, an ideal to struggle for but not to reach, a dream of paradise for men to think about but not to realize.