Even orderly democratic governments could redirect procurement after elections or ministerial changes. States vulnerable to assassination or regime change were less predictable still. A coup might replace the government that signed an agreement with little warning. Naval treaties nevertheless depended on all participants continuing to interpret and enforce their promises in good faith. Because warship design and construction extended across political cycles, every fleet plan rested on assumptions no navy could fully control.
Notable Point · 20:40-22:12
Why arms-control promises were difficult to trust
Treaty planning depended on governments and defence policies remaining reliable even as dictatorships, coups, elections, and ministerial changes could overturn commitments.