Search results

I mean...in the grand scheme of things, warships aren't actually that expensive. We just spent about six billion on two aircraft carriers and, let's face it, if we built two more it would still be like pissing in the ocean even in times of economic hardship. Whatever was spent on battleships...

No...no, no, no, they weren't still actually trying to disarm in the 1930s? You know, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are around and outright ignoring treaties left right and centre, whilst the Japanese Empire expands. What breed of imbecile was running us in the aftermath of 1918? Edit...

Yes. Globalist treaties aren't worth the paper they're on when someone doesn't play ball, and that's exactly what happened with the Washington Naval Treaty.

And it permitted the Japanese an overwhelming naval advantage in the late 1930s and early 1940s which cost the allies dearly.

Interestingly (aside from when for god knows what reason we signed the Washington Naval Treaty, or a Labour government is in office), it's the inverse with the House of Commons. The Royal Navy tends to get taken care of, whilst our poor British Army gets shafted.

...why'd they do that? Four billion dollars (her cost in today's money) is like pissing in the wind for the United States and gives the Navy an invaluable asset. And if you carry out the program over the course of years, it's not going to sting that much, if it even stung much to begin with.