.The negotiations to limit naval armament were very difficult. To be honest, if everyone hadn't been very restrained, the negotiations would have long turned into fights.

According to Li Mingyang's instruction, Mu Haoyang proposed on the first day of the negotiation that the size of the navy should be determined based on the economic strength of each country, and the restrictions should be adjusted according to economic development, not just for the economic strength when signing the restricted arms agreement.

The reason is very simple: the scale of the navy is constrained by economic scale and its correlation with other factors is not obvious.

It must be admitted that Mu Haoyang's proposal makes sense. Unlike the army, the navy has almost nothing to do with the population and has little to do with a country's resources. Being able to maintain a large-scale fleet is basically determined by the country's economic strength, especially industrial strength.

The problem is that the United States cannot accept such a proposal.

The reason is also simple: It is expected that by 2035, China's total economic output will exceed that of the United States. If the naval armament is restricted according to Mu Haoyang's proposal, then by 2035, the United States will automatically become a number two naval power, and China can become the maritime overlord without a single soldier.

In history, no ocean overlord would willingly hand over hegemony to the rising stars.

You should know that, more than 20 years before the outbreak of World War I, Germany surpassed Britain and became the largest economy in Europe.

According to Chandler's proposal, the method of restricting nuclear weapons should be adopted to limit naval arms.

To this end, Chandler even promised the five nuclear powers that they had the same maritime rights, that is, they could conduct unrestricted military operations in international waters.

In return, China and Russia must accept other terms proposed by the United States.

The most important thing is to limit the scale of the navy in proportion.

This is not unacceptable for China and Russia. The reason is very simple. The naval construction of China and Russia is still in the planning stage, and its existing strength cannot be compared with the United States. Even in twenty years, it will not be able to reach the same height as the United States.

More importantly, as a rising star, it takes a greater price to catch up with the front-runner.

Conservatively estimated that if the Chinese Navy wants to catch up with the US Navy by 2040, its investment in 20 years will be three times that of the US Navy.

In this way, even if China's economic scale surpassed the United States in 2035, the arms burden would be very heavy.

For rising stars, a period of peaceful development that is long enough is the most important.

Affected by this, China and Russia successively accepted Chandler's proposal, but there were still obvious differences between the two sides on the scale of the naval.

With his extremely obvious strength advantage, Chandler first proposed that the validity period of the treaty is at least twenty years.

This is not a problem. Everyone knows that the construction cycle of the navy is extremely long. It is based on peacetime. Not to mention twenty years, fifty years are not long.

Later, Chandler proposed a more specific restriction clause, that is, China and Russia can only have a fleet equivalent to 35% of the US Navy.

Now, China and Russia are quit.

Judging from the tonnage of the main ship, what does it mean to be 35% of the United States?

At the end of 2019, the total tonnage of the main ships of the US Navy was 3.25 million tons, and 35% was about 1.14 million tons. China and Russia are both nuclear powers. In the previous agreement on sea-based strategic nuclear power, each obtained 70% of the strike capacity of the United States. Due to the performance limitations of nuclear submarines, China and Russia need to use 300,000 tons of total tonnage to build sea-based strategic nuclear power and attack nuclear submarines that escort strategic nuclear submarines. Therefore, there are only about 800,000 tons of total tonnage to build conventional fleets. Excluding amphibious projectile forces, the total tonnage used to build main warships is definitely less than 600,000 tons. After the United States eliminated these, there were at least 2.4 million tons. The conventional fleet of China and Russia was not 35% of the United States, but 25%.

Even as a regional power, the proportion of 25% is significantly lower.

Chandler is very smart. If China and Russia accept this proposal, it will not be a threat to the United States within the next twenty years.

As for twenty years, the gap will not narrow, it will only widen.

This time, Russia is rushing in the front.

After Chandler's proposal, the Russian Minister of Defense directly proposed that conventional naval armaments should be restricted according to the proportion of sea-based strategic nuclear forces.

Of course, this is just talking big.

With Russia's economic strength, especially its development momentum, it will be difficult to reach this scale even if the time limit is relaxed to forty years in the next twenty years.

With Russia charging into battle, Mu Haoyang proposed a more rational solution.

Of course, it's not just for Chandler's proposal.

According to Mu Haoyang's proposal, the total size of the contracting states' fleet must be restricted first. Because the United States is the benchmark, the total size of the US Navy must be determined in the next twenty years. Secondly, the size of the fleets of each country must be restricted and adjusted according to the speed of the development of the United States.

At that time, Mu Haoyang proposed the standard that the Chinese Navy was 50% of the US Navy.

In fact, this requirement is not high.

Based on 2019, deducting strategic nuclear power and amphibious projection power, the Chinese Navy can build up to 1.1 million tons of main warships, which is only about 46% of that of the US Navy.

However, this ratio is enough to allow the Chinese Navy to move towards the ocean.

Also based on 2019, a fleet of 1.1 million tons can build at least six aircraft carrier battle groups, second only to the US Navy. In terms of tactical applications, the six aircraft carrier battle groups are enough to ensure that the Chinese Navy wins large-scale local wars under any circumstances.

As long as the Chinese Navy has this capability, the United States' hegemony will be threatened.

Obviously, it is difficult for the United States to accept such a result.

To put it simply, if the plan proposed by Mu Haoyang is adopted, the United States will recognize China's global influence and will also give China a global influence.

At this time, the negotiations almost broke down.

The deadlock lasted until the end of May before new progress was made.

Chandler first accepted Mu Haoyang's first request, which was to make clear restrictions on the total naval size during the validity period of the treaty, and to use the United States as a benchmark.

On June 2, the United States formally proposed the standard for total naval scale.

It is estimated that by the end of 2040, the total displacement of large U.S. Navy ships will reach 4.8 million tons. As a formal negotiation document, the U.S. Department of Defense also provides annual fleet size data, and uses it as a reference data for other countries to develop naval scale.

The problem is that on the second issue, the differences between the two sides are still very obvious.

Chandler only agreed to raise China's standard to 40%, while Mu Haoyang proposed the minimum standard to 48%. Because only when the United States reaches 48%, the Chinese Navy will be able to build six aircraft carrier battle groups and in any case, it will be able to invest enough naval fleets.

As for Russia, not only did not accept forty percent, but did not agree with forty percent, but insisted on obtaining a ratio of seventy percent.
Chapter completed!