Using an equitable treaty counterfactual to test history

The opening frames the exercise as a way to learn from choices that were possible but not taken. The Washington settlement supplies an inequitable starting point, while the London negotiations reveal how economy, rivalry with Japan, and political willingness to spend shaped naval limits. The comparison keeps the alternate settlement close to real institutions and constraints rather than treating it as unconstrained fleet design. The gap between HMS Hood's displacement and the treaty's 35,000-ton capital-ship ceiling shows how political bargains could override recent operational evidence.