weeks were necessary to manufacture and make use of the products in warfare, and, again, "artillery shell and similar projectiles for gas would take several weeks to make."
One sees a number of statements which could find no support whatsoever in the history of armament production and development up to date, even under the excessive speeds of the war itself. It is a serious question whether there was really any proper examination of the technical details of the subject before these very damaging and blocking generalisations were brought forward. Did anyone take the elementary precaution to examine the records of armament production, as we have done in support of our conclusions? There is only one proper method of procedure, and negligence in this and in consequent action will involve the gravest censure from future generations, especially if a war which might have been avoided by disarmament is inflicted upon them.
Criticism is easy, and one hesitates to apply it to the patient efforts in the official movement towards disarmament. But there is one very strong, valid, and constructive criticism which can be made without regret, because it is implied, almost self-imposed, at many points in the long chain of official records. Time after time we find important conferences failing and breaking up on the note that further technical investigation on disarmament is required. It may be that at Geneva or in some national Government the systematic exploration of the field is going on, but the poverty of results would certainly lead an expectant world to conclude that in ten years of work the search has been inadequate.
There are two obstacles to world disarmament: the inheritance of the past and the failings of the present broadly classified under political difficulties, and, secondly, the total absence of any reasoned scheme which might satisfy the dual needs of effective disarmament and retention of national security. We have fluctuated like a pendulum, with much waste of time and effort, between the two problems, political and technical; at one time giving the former precedence and at others the latter. Sometimes the slogan has been "Security, then disarmament" and at others, but rarely, "Disarmament first." The recent Italian answer to the proposed European Federation is "First disarm."
But neither viewpoint is correct. There is a position of minimum