A 10-inch cruiser limit reshapes every treaty category

Would Alaska still be built if treaty cruisers could carry 10-inch guns?

Probably not in historical form; larger cruiser and battleship limits erase her niche and redirect tonnage toward true capital ships, advanced cruisers, or carriers.

A treaty permitting 10-inch cruiser guns raises the question of whether an Alaska still offers enough advantage to justify her cost. An earlier Alaska could help a carrier escape a Kongō, although the escort might be lost in the process. Fleet initially proposes enlarging the cruiser-killer into a battlecruiser with nine 14-inch guns, while Clarke questions the value of an intermediate ship approaching battleship displacement. Their disagreement turns on how the treaty's other limits would change. Clarke argues that negotiators would use existing ships as benchmarks, suggesting about 40,000 tons for battleships rather than scaling every category by a fixed percentage. A cruiser-killer of roughly 30,000 tons would then sit uncomfortably close to contemporary capital ships. The discussion converges on buying more full capital ships or capable cruisers around 15,000 tons, using Des Moines as an illustration of what that displacement can accommodate.