> Also, the Washington Naval Treaty was a complete failure? It set the stage for japan to build more resentment which led to ww2. 1. Attributing the whole of

> Also, the Washington Naval Treaty was a complete failure? It set the stage for japan to build more resentment which led to ww2. 1. Attributing the whole of Japan's imperial ambition to the Washington Naval Treaty is farcical. 2. This chart of battleship displacement by date of construction plainly reveals that the Washington Navy Treaty was a massive success. Yes, treaty-breaking ships were constructed, but you cannot look at this graph and conclude that the treaty did not succeed in substantially disrupting the arms escalation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#/media/File:Battleship_building_scatter_graph_1905_onwards.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty#/media... FWIW, I agree with you that the development and research into chemical and biological weapons never stopped. However it is likely that most countries no longer maintain up-to-date stockpiles of these weapons. Research continues for game theory reasons, but the treaties (and moreover the general public sentiment against such weapons, particularly the sentiment that use of those weapons would constitute the use of "WMDs" to which a nuclear response would be warranted) had the effect of greatly reducing the risk that such weapons would be used en masse. To this point; these sort of weapons have not yet been used in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite most late-cold war analysts believing that the Soviet Union would use chemical weapons during their anticipated war with NATO.