Extracts from summary of Department's attitude regarding Naval Disarmament.
 
G:B. No. 438-2 (Serial No. 1521-LL:1)
 
               I. GENERAL ATTIDUDE
 
     1.  The Department favors limitation and reduction of naval amaments if in accord with
the fundamental naval policy, "to maintain the Navy in sufficient strength to support the national
policies and commerce, and to guard the Continental and overseas posessions of the United
States." (4)*
 
     *(This subsequent numbers refer to pages in the Gray Book, reference (a), containing
discussion of these respective items.)
 
     2.  It believes that the geographic location, territorial distribution, political situation and
economic interests of each nation must be considered in the determination of the respective naval
strengths agreed upon.  (90)
 
     3.  It believes that our Navy should be second to none in size and strength.  (91)
 
     4.  It believes that the basic ratios of the Washington Treaty should be maintained so long
as the restrictions contained therein, as the fortifications, and the collateral treaties, declarations,
and resolutions, remain in effect. (90)
 
     5.  It believes that no departure from the ratios of the London Treaty other than toward
the fundamental ratios established by the Washington Treaty should be considered acceptable by
the United States.  (90)
 
               II. METHODS OF LIMITATION.
The Department-
 
     (1) Favors limitation of naval armament by tonnage per category. (9)
 
     (2) Is opposed to limitation by global tonnage.  (9)
 
     (3) Is opposed to separate consideration of air armaments but favors adding the category
"airplanes" to naval armaments. (9, 10)
 
     (4) Is opposed to limitation of naval personnel as a basic method, but is willing to consider
it as an indirect secondary limitation based upon full needs of material naval amrmament. (10, 11)
 
     (5) Is opposed to global budgetary limitation as a direct method of limitation, and
considers that under present conditions the indirect limitation of material by means of budgetary
limitation is inpracticable. (13, 242)