EDWARD P. WARNER, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Aëronautics, 1926--29; now Editor of Aviation
IN THE disarmament equation aviation is still a factor x. It is still preëminent among the difficulties, and so among the obstructions to success on a comprehensive front. In 1932, as on every other occasion since the World War when the matter of arms limitation has received concerted attention, the technical problems of the air arm are the most baffling that have to be solved. In air forces there are no universal units of measurement. There is no sharp distinction between one type of aircraft and another such as can be drawn, for example, between battleships and cruisers. There is no generally acceptable yardstick, corresponding to tonnage in naval vessels, for the simple expression of relative collective strength. There is not even any sharp line of demarcation between military and non-military craft.
Limitation, difficult enough at best for technical reasons, is made harder by the mystery which envelops the possible uses and effectiveness of aircraft in war. Opinion is by no means agreed on these points. Some military men and a vast number of civilians have come to take it for granted that the next war will be fought almost exclusively in the air, and that it will be ended within a few hours or a few days by the destruction of all the great populous centers in the territory of the less well-prepared of the combatants. Opposed to this opinion is that of most students of military and naval affairs, who take such forecasts with many grains of salt. Those responsible for national defense are not persuaded that aircraft make other arms obsolete. Uncertainty is inherent in the nature of the air arm and in the conditions under which aircraft are constructed. An air force, unlike a navy or a powerful army, can conceivably be built under cover; and in the hands of a treacherous neighbor it can strike in the dark.
Confronted by technical difficulties, by divided opinions, by lively fears, it is not surprising that responsible government officials, or at least most of them, are inclined to rely on air forces of their own rather than on pledges as a safeguard against the aërial threat. Hence, statesmen and soldiers alike are highly suspicious of any attempt to restrict their nation's development of air power...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Does the United States need to update its nuclear arsenal so that it can destroy an enemy's nuclear weapons? Or should Washington instead work to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether? Keir Lieber and Daryl Press take on their critics.
THREE new and powerful weapons of warfare were developed in the World War -- aëroplanes, gas and submarines. It is fortunate for the world that two of these -- aëroplanes and gas -- are bound up with the development of the industries of the world. It is axiomatic that every effort should be made to prevent war; but if war cannot be prevented, then it is very much better for the world that when it comes it should be fought with weapons that have not required an immense outlay of funds during years of peace.
THE conflicts of armies have left their mark across history from the plains of Marathon to the woods of the Argonne. Sea power has guided the course of nations, often dominant over all other factors, from Salamis to Jutland. To war by land and sea we have added combat in a third element, more dreadful in its potentialities than either of the older forms, warfare in the air.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.