A negotiating victory too complete to last

The negotiators' desire to prevent another war is treated as sincere in this critique. The objection is that persuasive rhetoric and intelligence advantages secured terms too restrictive for the naval powers to sustain. Routine false declarations would undermine confidence in the remaining rules. Sovereign states could accept enforcement voluntarily, but imposing the agreement through war would contradict its stated purpose. British use of the treaty's wording and advantages in the later London agreements are presented as responses that leave the original problems unresolved. The proposed alternative bases peace on states retaining enough capability to feel secure and respect one another's strength.