STRENGTH THROUGH COOPERATION
         Military Forces in the  Asia-Pacific Region

CONTROLLING ARMS IN ASIA: A Means for Regional Stability
        Eugene D. Santarelli  

As we well know, arms control efforts found their origins at the end of the Second World War, when we successfully demonstrated the capability to employ weapons of mass destruction and threaten the survival of nations.  In order to establish stability and security with the availability of the weapons, we turned to arms control.  At the time, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found primarily in the European Theater.  Hence, our attentions were primarily Eurocentric, where this military strategy fit. 

As we approach the new century, I believe we must shift our focus from that region to the Asia-Pacific area, not just because the Cold War has ended but because the Asia-Pacific region is today the world's most dynamic.  Producing one-third of the world's gross product, it's a region of tremendous growth―and as that growth will continue during the next century, the Asia-Pacific states will compete within themselves for world markets and limited world resources.  This competitive region of the world has enjoyed some amount of peace and stability but poses some key ingredients for conflict.

Not only is this region globally influential, but it is a region that directly affects millions of American jobs (one in eight today¹) and continues to expand because of continued peace

Lieutenant General Eugene D. Santarelli, USAF, is Vice Commander, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.  He has commanded a numbered air force, an air division, and three wings and served as executive officer to the Air Force Chief of Staff.  He is a command pilot with more than 3,500 flying hours in fighter aircraft.

and stability.  This peace and stability have been strongly dependent on an appropriate U.S. military presence, a presence that recently faced daily challenges.

On the Korean peninsula are a million soldiers, postured for combat, facing each other along the demilitarized zone.  North Korea, a nonsignatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, stands on the brink of collapse while South Korea progresses economically.  The pertinent questions remains, "Is there a way out without an 'explosion' or 'implosion'?"  It's the last place in the world where the traditional model of front lines and war of attrition still applies, where the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty may hold some valuable lessons.  It's also a place where an alternative to "all or nothing" is desperately needed.

China is striving to play an increasing role in the Asia-Pacific area and wants very much to replace the United States as the region's foundation for stability.  Additionally, as it grows, Asia-Pacific consumption of natural resources will increase exponentially, while nearly 75 percent of the oil and natural gas consumed by Japan and Korea² passes by its borders.  The area's focus is likely to turn outward rather than inward in the long run.  How can arms control help them to grow peacefully?

In Southeast Asia, the growing economies there could spend an estimated trillion dollars in the next decade on infrastructure and modernization.³  Military modernization alone could amount to an estimated $40 billion in just the next 5 years.  These countries, like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand, are able to reach their potential only through peace, a peace maintained through a virtual parity in military capability.

There is a fine and delicate line between force modernization and an arms race.  Maintaining stability in this region is dependent on confidence and trust.  The concern is that trust disappears quickly if one of the countries in the region gains a capability over the other.  Again, how can arms control aid stability?

These snapshots of the Asia-Pacific region bring home a point.  Arms control is not just a military issue―it's an issue that affects all aspects of the world's stability and prosperity.  It affects countries as diverse as Japan, Korea, and Thailand.  It can and does affect each world citizen by impacting factors that affect economic growth and political stability, indeed it impacts people's daily lives.  In America alone, nearly 2.8 million⁴ Americans are directly dependent upon the stability and subsequent export trade with Asia-Pacific countries.

Arms control, particularly strategic arms control, not only takes weapons away from an arsenal but adds to it.  The specter of WMD causes worry about tripping the wire on the use of those weapons.  Now, through arms control agreements, we can be relatively free from the worry of WMD being used by organized states, the issue of rogue nations and nonstate terrorist groups notwithstanding.  The use of WMD to target and destroy centers of gravity was realistically not a viable option; the collateral damage was too great and unacceptable.

In today's and tomorrow's warfare, as expounded through the U.S. Air Force's vision of global engagement that capitalizes on its six core competencies, air commanders can target and attack an aggressor's centers of gravity quickly and effectively with precision.  The objective is to quickly and decisively halt enemy actions, before the extensive loss of ground forces.

Superiority in space gives the additional capability to monitor the world's activities.  The mobilization of armies won't go unnoticed, and we'll at least have a chance, through diplomacy, to end a crisis before it starts.  If we are forced to react to aggression, we can act quickly and precisely because the calamity of WMD is removed.

Through information superiority we will know the key centers of gravity and, through precision engagement, be able to target and destroy them with minimum collateral damage.  Our capability and freedom to act mean we can act quickly and decisively with appropriate military force to end a conflict before it expands beyond control.

Now some may draw the conclusion that strategic arms control can actually make use of conventional force more likely and thus conflict more likely.  True, we are more likely to use force but this does not necessarily mean that strategic arms control measures increase the potential for conflict.  The fact that we are more likely to use force creates a more effective deterrent and thus reduces the likelihood of a major regional conflict.

| Contents |

---

Notes

---