Read all of these then report back for pop quiz.[/QUOTE]
Ships belong to countries and they should't ask anyone what to install on them. A treaty on nuclear weapons(like if you can deploy nukes to the earth)is something else...
02-22-2012
artjomh
[QUOTE=MUSHROOM123;6045744]Ships belong to countries and they should't ask anyone what to install on them.[/QUOTE]
Do I need to spell it out? I feel like I am getting trolled.
[QUOTE]The Treaty put strict limits on both the tonnage and construction of capital ships and aircraft carriers, and also contained limits on the size of individual ships.
The tonnage limits defined in Articles IV and VII (tabulated) gave a strength ratio of approximately 5:5:3:2:2 between Britain, the USA, Japan, Italy and France.
The qualitative limits on each type of ship were as follows;
[LIST][*]Capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) were limited to 35,000 tons standard displacement and [SIZE=4][B]guns of no larger than 16-inch calibre.[/B][/SIZE] (Articles V and VI)[*]Aircraft carriers were limited to 27,000 tons and could carry [SIZE=4][B]no more than 10 heavy guns, of a maximum calibre of 8 inches[/B][/SIZE]. However, each signatory was allowed to use two existing capital ship hulls for aircraft carriers, with a displacement limit of 33,000 tons each. (Articles IX and X)[*]All other warships were limited to a maximum displacement of 10,000 tons and a[SIZE=4][B] maximum gun calibre of 8 inches.[/B][/SIZE] (Articles XI and XII)[/LIST]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty[/url]
The [B]Washington Naval Treaty[/B], also known as the [B]Five-Power Treaty[/B], [SIZE=7][B]was[/B][/SIZE] a treaty to limit naval construction and prevent an [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race"]arms race[/URL] among the victorious powers in the wake of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I"]World War I[/URL]. The treaty was negotiated at the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Conference"]Washington [/URL]ers of other categories of warships, including [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser"]cruisers[/URL], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer"]destroyers[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine"]submarines[/URL], were not limited by the treaty but could only be built up to 10,000 tons [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement"]displacement[/URL].
02-22-2012
artjomh
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?
02-22-2012
MUSHROOM123
Write in English and don't bring outdated treaties...
02-22-2012
zg18
[QUOTE=MUSHROOM123;6045744]Ships belong to countries and they should't ask anyone what to install on them. A treaty on nuclear weapons(like if you can deploy nukes to the earth)is something else...[/QUOTE]
Well , Iranians think that their nuclear programe is their sovereign right (and [U]civillian[/U] programe is indeed a right) and shoudn`t ask anyone to go ahead with it.... so you see different countries=different objections.
02-22-2012
Maximmmm
Bah all this talking doesn't mean a thing. We've (Russia) been having pretty good relationships with our Scandinavian neighbours. Hell we even settled a territorial dispute with norway a year or so ago.
This is probably pandering to the electorate before the elections.
02-22-2012
MUSHROOM123
[QUOTE=zg18;6045791]Well , Iranians think that their nuclear programe is their sovereign right (and [U]civillian[/U] programe is indeed a right) and shoudn`t ask anyone to go ahead with it.... so you see different countries=different objections.[/QUOTE]
It's their right,but not nukes.
02-22-2012
zg18
[QUOTE=MUSHROOM123;6045800]It's their right,but not nukes.[/QUOTE]
But they claim they don`t develop nukes, even if that is true ,all parties with some interest want to control every step Iran is making in that sphere. I simply don`t see any difference ,yes Norway can put what ever they like in their ships like Iran has a right to develope nuclear programme like all other countries before them but you see things are not so simple. Legimitimate concerns and objections do exist to balance such situations if some third country feels it`s national security or interest are being threatened even if we talk about sovereign rights.
02-22-2012
Universals
ArtJ, you are getting trolled. ;)
02-22-2012
Maximmmm
[QUOTE=artjomh;6045773]Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?[/QUOTE]
Shame on me I had to google that
02-22-2012
Alpheus
I find this amusing, given how Russia boasts about their new missiles that they claim can penetrate ballistic missile defenses.
02-22-2012
DasVivo
[QUOTE=Alpheus;6045886]I find this amusing, given how Russia boasts about their new missiles that they claim can penetrate ballistic missile defenses.[/QUOTE]
Given that said missiles have not fully replaced older missiles and BMDs by nature of competition would force them to step up replacement programs and updatates its not that amusing as it is logical
02-22-2012
Print
i will buy a car next week, but maybe i should ask russia first ? lol
02-22-2012
DasVivo
[QUOTE=Print;6045904]i will buy a car next week, but maybe i should ask russia first ? lol[/QUOTE]
