On Oct 1, 2020, at 2:03 PM, Thomas RUX < xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:

Hi Phil,

On 10/01/2020 1:44 PM Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via tml list) < xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

My experience is that a 'common sense' approach to military budgets & spending doesn't work so well.

After all, wasn't that attempted with the various Naval Treaties of the 20's & 30's?

Didn't really work so well.

My recollection from my world history college course was that the treaties were to ensure that major naval powers stayed the top dogs and to keep the smaller and or WW I losers from being able to challenge them in another war. Of course not having to build a lot of ships also reduced budgets, which unfortunately as you mentioned really did not work out.

Tom Rux

Yes, the main reason for the Naval Treaties was to freeze the naval supremacy status quo post WWI, much like the Treaty of Versailles attempted to freeze the Military status quo in Europe. Reducing Naval budgets was not really anything more than a side effect as it was essentially a series of disarmament treaties.

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=zZOCJCw2BI9jPrGTB4OJoibiHbbTEiok