500.A4b/548½
Memorandum by the American Naval Experts
In reply to the paper submitted by Vice Admiral Kato at the informal meeting of the Naval Advisors on November 30th,65 the United States Naval Advisors wish first to point out that if relativity is treated from the standpoint of what each nation conceives as its national needs, agreement as indicated by Mr. Hughes would be an impossibility.
There are certain minor points brought up by Vice Admiral Kato, but he says:—
“Japan greatly appreciates the sincerity of the United States, manifested by her willingness to sacrifice great expenditures by [Page 73] scrapping her ships under construction. It is for this reason that Japan has joined most heartily to make the great sacrifice of scrapping her own ships under construction. But the opinion of the American experts, that these sacrifices should be taken into consideration in calculating the existing strength, is opposite to the opinion held by the Japanese experts. It is true that there are some differences, also, in minor elements, but the chief factor affecting the final result lies on this point.”
From Admiral Kato’s own statement, as above quoted, it is clear that it is this differential that gives the different ratios indicated by Japan. In her table which follows, though there are minor differences, it is this which has affected the ratios. If tonnage under construction be added as calculated by the United States for the United States, and by Japan for Japan, the percentages will be as given in our previous memoranda. The whole question, therefore, hinges on whether ships under construction should be counted as part of the existing naval strength. This matter the United States Advisors submit is not even susceptible of argument. We have expended over three hundred and thirty millions of dollars on capital ship construction. We have fifteen ships averaging approximately 53% completed and some of them ranging as high as 88%. By no logical process of thought can these be considered as non-existent.
| United States | Japan | |
| Ships building | 346,374 | 83,330 |
| Dreadnaughts built | 500,650 | 334,700 |
| Pre-dreadnaughts | 227,740 | 214,496 |
| 1,074,764 | 632,526 | |
| Ratio | 100% | 59% |
Using the Japanese formulae, ⅓ (Pre-dreadnaughts)+⅔ (dreadnaughts)+(Super-dreadnaughts)+½ (Ships Building), and raising Japan tonnage to American measurement.
United States
| ⅓ Pre-dreadnaughts (Michigan and down) | 98,828 |
| ⅔ Dreadnaughts (Wyoming to North Dakota) | 90,435 |
| Super-dreadnaughts (Texas to California) | 365,000 |
| ½ (Ships building) (Colorado to Ranger) | 173,174 |
| Total | 727,437 |
| Ratio | 100 |
Japan
| ⅓ Pre-dreadnaughts (Aki and Settsu down) | 71,499 |
| ⅔ Dreadnaughts (Settsu) | 14,266 |
| Super-dreadnaughts (including Mutsu completed as per Japanese tables) | 313,300 |
| ½ (Ships Building) | 41,665 |
| Total | 440,730 |
| Ratio | 60566 |