Treaties.

On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> You really don't know what you are talking about do you?  Why would 
> anyone even try to compare these two treadies?  One was a mainly a 
[snip]

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 
>question again (I beleive I already stated this in a previous email), 
>YES.  Yes, as a matter of fact the Washington tready did EXACTLY what 
>the crafters of the tready enteneded.	Do you even know what that was? 

>I don't think so.  Their main over-riding consern had nothing to do
with 
>stopping a global arms race for the sake of 'world peace'.  Perhaps
that 
>is what your high school History teacher told you, but that is not the 
>case.	No, it had every thing to do with money.  None of major powers
that 
>signed wanted to  spend the MONEY a global naval arms race would cost 
>considering the (possible) unlimited size of the new class of 
>battleships being produced.

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
singnatory 
>countires violated the tready with the single exception of Germany and
its 
>construction of the Bismark (Japan did not sign).  That's it.	That is 
>all the tready was SUPPOSE to do and it did it (for the most part), 
>understand?

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
a 
> test ban on 21 century nuclear weapons I don't know... > 

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
gripe 
> > about the recent senate action.  

> 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]

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------