Page:Sunset volume 32.pdf/779

784 and take several weeks, or even months, to remove. The administration buildings at Culebra and the headquarters, storehouses and barracks of the troops could be easily destroyed. Even the emplacements of the big guns would offer excellent targets—and who will say that five hundred pounds of high explosive, placed on or near a disappearing gun carriage, would not do serious harm?

But why continue? We may rest assured that the enemy would make the destruction as complete as possible, under the circumstances. If it should take a whole day to batter down a single lock and if all the machines should be lost in the fight, would not the results justify the price paid?

But, you ask, is it not possible to bring down an aeroplane from a height of a mile by artillery or rifle fire? Opinion is divided on that point, but many authorities be lieve that it would be extremely difficult. The latest high-powered, small-winged ma chine offers a very elusive target when fly ing at a height of a mile at speeds of over a mile a minute. Moreover, recent experiments with transparent wing-coverings indicate that machines may be made almost invisible at even moderate heights. Undoubtedly, an occasional machine could be brought down at great expense of ammunition, but, so far, experiments along these lines have not been very satisfactory. The writer remembers watching French artillery firing at a free balloon floating in a stiff wind over the plains at Mourmelon, but the gas bag floated out of sight without mishap.

It will probably be necessary to fight aeroplanes with aeroplanes. For example, if we should have a preponderating air fleet of fast machines on the Isthmus, lightly armored underneath as a protection against rifle fire and armed with rapid-fire guns, it would be possible to meet and fly above the heavier, more slowly moving bomb-carriers and pick them off, one by one. The aerial battle of the future is not an improbability, and the writer ventures to predict that many a deed of heroism and daring will take place in the blue above contending armies.

Consider, for a moment, an enemy's fleet lying off New York, San Francisco or other large coastal city. A fleet of hostile aeroplanes, flying at a height of two miles, if necessary, and carrying high-explosive and incendiary bombs, could soon produce havoc in the business district, probably starting a conflagration that could not be checked. No great accuracy would be needed in the congested areas, and the loss of life from fire, high-explosive bombs and panic would be appalling. Without aerial defense, such a bombardment could be continued until the city were completely destroyed. Of what use would our present costly fortifications be, under such circumstances?

Has the picture been painted too strongly? The writer does not think so—that, however, is for others to. decide. He does not wish to be taken as an alarmist, but asks that the case be considered in the light of present aeronautical development and of what we may reasonably expect in the future. He does not wish to say that the danger is imminent, but considers it his duty to warn his countrymen that, in his opinion, a real menace does exist and that little has been done, so far, to meet it. Last year, six great powers spent nearly $25,000,ooo on military aeronautics, France leading with nearly eight millions and Japan forming the sixth with a million, while our beggarly appropriation was $140,000. Is it to be supposed that those nations, already overburdened with taxation, are spending this money foolishly? Nations, as well as individuals, may be "penny wise and pound foolish." Are we, in this case?

Within a decade after the terrible Russo-Japanese and Boer wars and on the morrow after the fratricidal Balkan struggle, while other nations are feverishly adding to military and naval armaments, is it wise to lull ourselves to sleep with melodies of world-peace? With more serious inter national questions than any other nation—the Panama Canal Policy, the Mexican Situation, the Japanese Alien Question, the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine—is it not imperative that we be thoroughly prepared? Is that not the surest way of guaranteeing peace? All the world knows that, in our recent unpleasantness with a decadent power, we were fortunate rather than formidable. If, in the future, we should lie prostrate at a powerful enemy's feet, whose fault will it be? Surely not the fault of our brave officer-aviators who have begged Congress for a loaf and have been given a stone!