From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Treaties.
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 UsClintons@aol.com wrote: > You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Why would Actually the Washington treaty was a limit on the Tonnage (individual and combined), weapons fit and quantity of Fighting Ships. There were limits in the treaty on BBs, CAs, DDs, and Carriers. Sounds like it attempts to preclude an arms race to me. for example, Only cruisers could carry 8in guns. Anything larger and it was classed as a BB. > OTHO perhaps you should "look it up" anyway. Because to answer your > I don't think so. Their main over-riding consern had nothing to do I think you are putting the horse before the cart on this. The treaty was to establish a status quo. The basis for the Ratios was partly determined by the need to defend far flung holdings of each signatory nation. When one nation began to expand, it screwed the balance and led to a war. When you get into an arms race its because you want to keep enough force around so that your enemy doesn't feel strong enough to attack you. Sounds like not wanting to pay for more ships and relying on a document goes the same distance (on paper) as going ahead with the arms race in the first place. If you keep parity, you most likely won't go to war, however, get an agressive neighbor and poor balance then watch out. At the time Japan was ignored as being a potential foe due to their race[another ball of wax]. I can site several books on the matter. ie R. Adm. King's Book, Naval Engineering and American Sea Power and Clash of Wings, (the author's name escapes me). The terms of the washington treaty placed limits on the size and tonnage of various types of ships to stop an arms race. In the end the arms race was merely postponed, not stopped. If a signatory of a treaty things its unfair, then it will quite likely ignore or break the treaty. Several of the potential nations that were to sign the test ban treaty were likely to find it dis-advantageous. If Pakistan felt it was being constrained by the treaty and didn't sign, do you really think that India would abide if they had signed? > So, yes the tready did work, exactly as crafted. None of the Japan Violated the treaty in 1934 as they saw it as unfair. They officially withdrew from the treaty. Japan WAS a signatory. US, UK, Japan, France, Italy. Germany was precluded from building warships by the Treaty of Versalliess. the US and UK went according to the treaties and later regretted it to a degree. The Treaty that had limits on Naval size didn't stop Japan from Attacking the US with Carriers and other warships. Sounds like blind faith in a piece of paper didn't do squat in the end did it? Also, germany built a whole hell of alot more than the Bismark. Can we say more U-boats, the Scharnhorst class (Scharnhorst AND Gneisenau), Bismark class (Bismark AND Tirpitz), Deutschland class (Lutzow, Admiral Scheer, Graf Spee) and work on the CV they never finished. > Now what that 90 year old weapon size limitation tready has to do with The BB's and Naval power are the parallels to now. They are the large expensive weapons that arms races revolved around. When the US built the Wampanog (sp?) the British had to match it as it was the pre-emminent commerce raider and was able to out strip any british ship able to fight it and destroy any British ship capable of catching it. AS my example illustrates, when you sign a piece of paper that limits > > If you don't know about this history, then look it up before you > Yeah, nice advice why don't you take it. You obviously aren't paying attention. I'd think more people would find it galling to hear france bitch about the US Senate not ratifying a treaty after they detonated several Nukes in someone elses back yard after eveyone else agreed not to perform such above ground tests. [spelling and line feed flame omitted]