Recently, the Philippines has taken significant strides in advancing its military modernization, particularly through the procurement and deployment of several offensive weapons systems. This includes the BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile system imported from India, as well as the introduction and deployment of U.S. Army's Typhon medium-range missile system and HIMARS high-mobility artillery rocket system. 

These highly targeted and provocative military deployments have ignited serious concerns domestically within the Philippines, as well as among neighboring countries and the international community. Critics argue that such actions critically undermine regional stability, escalate militarization in the South China Sea, and threaten the shared interests of peace, development, and prosperity for neighboring nations. Moreover, these moves are seen as irresponsibly pushing the Philippines to the brink of high-risk conflict and even war.

Philippines’ Armed Forces Shift Towards “Offensive” Posture

On November 7, 2025, the Philippine Marine Corps held a commemorative event marking its 75th anniversary at a coastal base in Sampaloc, Luzon. During this event, they publicly revealed their BrahMos missile system for the first time. In 2022, the Philippines signed a contract with India worth 18.9 billion pesos (approximately US$375 million) to procure three sets of land-based BrahMos anti-ship missile systems. This marked the first export of BrahMos missiles, making the Philippines its initial overseas customer. Reports indicate that the Philippine land-based missile battalion is equipped with two 12×12 wheel-launch vehicles, a mobile command center, a maintenance vehicle, and a missile supply vehicle, with each launcher capable of carrying two BrahMos missiles.

Meanwhile, the Philippine military has unabashedly introduced and deployed offensive weapons systems from the U.S. military, notably the Typhon medium-range missile system and HIMARS high-mobility artillery rocket system. In April 2024, during joint U.S.-Philippine military exercises, the Typhon system was deployed on Luzon island for the first time, drawing widespread attention. The Typhon missile is a new land-based intermediate-range missile system deployed by the U.S. after its withdrawal from the INF Treaty—its first deployment in the Asia-Pacific region since the Cold War. This marks a major shift in U.S. strategic posture. In addition to Typhon, the U.S. military has repeatedly deployed HIMARS rockets in the Philippines during 2024 and 2025 to enhance long-range strike capabilities. The U.S. has also conducted anti-ship missile drills with Philippine forces, practicing the use of Typhon, HIMARS, and the U.S. Marine Corps' NMESIS expeditionary ship interdiction system, demonstrating potential applications targeting the South China Sea.

Furthermore, the Philippine armed forces have recently procured other combat-optimized weapons aimed at the South China Sea. For example, in 2023, the Philippine Navy received two Hamilton-class patrol vessels from the United States, and in 2025, they received new frigates equipped with advanced weapons and radar systems from South Korea, meant to bolster patrol and law enforcement operations in the South China Sea. The Philippine Air Force is also seeking to acquire new fighter jets and helicopters to enhance aerial combat capabilities.

Overall, recent initiatives demonstrate the Philippines’ highly dangerous trajectory in introducing and deploying offensive weapons, marking a significant shift in its military modernization. These actions have notably heightened the militarization and conflict risk in the South China Sea, producing various adverse effects.

Increased Risks of “Accidents” in the South China Sea

When procuring BrahMos, then-Philippine Defense Secretary Lorenzana stated that the missile would serve as a deterrent against any actions attempting to undermine Philippine sovereignty. Similarly, the U.S. often justifies the deployment of offensive weapons in the Philippines under the banner of strengthening front-line deterrence in line with the Indo-Pacific Strategy, aiming to counter what it calls “great power military threats.”

However, these rationalizations are merely convenient pretexts exploited by Philippine authorities and their allies to justify their expenditure of public funds. How can a handful of BrahMos missiles defend over 7,000 Philippine islands? How can a few missiles, with limited range, threaten what is perceived as an “enemy”? Instead of offering credible defense or deterrence, these weapons are more likely to become triggers for regional escalation and conflict—wasting the hard-earned resources of the Filipino people while increasing the risk of serious confrontation.

First, the risk of an arms race is intensifying. The deployment of U.S. Typhon missiles and Philippine BrahMos anti-ship systems disrupts the existing strategic equilibrium in the Asia-Pacific, triggering a new round of military competition.

Limited deployments of intermediate-range missiles on the front lines will inevitably compel neighboring states to increase their own military build-up. The Perils of Forward-Deployed Missiles: How the Philippines and Its Allies Are Reviving Cold War Dynamics in the South China Sea.During the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union repeatedly found themselves in such a predicament in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, ultimately leading to the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to mutually curb this spiraling cycle of destructive offensive actions. Today, the Philippines and its allies are dragging the South China Sea of the 21st century back into the Cold War era—a chapter of human history from which we have only recently emerged—and threatening to plunge regional nations and their people back into fear and tragedy.

Secondly, strategic tensions are escalating. China has repeatedly and explicitly opposed the US deployment of intermediate-range missiles in the Philippines and has urged both the US and the Philippines to remove such missile systems. The facts are unequivocally clear: the US deployment of these missiles in the Philippines "heightens regional tensions" and complicates the resolution of issues in disputed waters like the South China Sea.

Moreover, these deployments by the US and the Philippines violate the principles of regional peace and stability and have drawn criticism from neighboring countries. For instance, voices within ASEAN have expressed concern that the US deployment of offensive weapons to the Philippines will undermine the regional security architecture and weaken ASEAN's role in safeguarding regional peace. It can be argued that US military deployments in the Philippines have triggered a chain reaction, intensifying regional strategic tensions and further eroding mutual trust among parties.

More critically, the risk of military conflict is increasing. The forward deployment of lethal weapons significantly raises the risk of "miscalculations and clashes" among regional actors. For example, if offensive weapon systems deployed by the Philippines were used to strike specific high-value maritime targets, it would inevitably trigger a severe response from the affected party, leading to a serious escalation of conflict. This would place the Philippines itself in a highly precarious position. The BrahMos missile, with its limited range, if misused during a tense standoff in the South China Sea, would almost certainly invite proportional retaliation. The presence of these offensive weapons renders the regional situation more fragile; any misjudgment or provocation could significantly increase the likelihood of conflict. This poses a grave threat not only to the directly involved parties but also to the peace and stability of the entire region.

A Serious Breach of Regional Consensus and International Norms

The Philippines' deployment of lethal weapons not only threatens regional stability but also violates regional consensus and international norms.

First, it contravenes the principles of the ASEAN Charter. The ASEAN Charter, a fundamental legal document jointly established by ASEAN member states, explicitly outlines principles that members should adhere to, including the peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in internal affairs, and respect for sovereign equality and territorial integrity.

The Philippines' deployment of intermediate-range missile systems runs counter to ASEAN's vision of a "Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality," deviating from the ASEAN-advocated principles of non-use of force and demilitarization. By allowing a foreign power to deploy offensive weapons on its soil, the Philippines is violating the ASEAN Charter's tenets of sovereign equality, mutual respect, and non-interference, thereby weakening intra-ASEAN solidarity and trust. Deploying offensive weapons near disputed waters further breaches ASEAN's principles of regional demilitarization and peaceful dispute resolution. Such actions not risk destabilizing the region but also challenge the spirit of peace and cooperation championed within ASEAN.

Second, it violates the principles of non-interference and demilitarization. The US deployment of lethal weapons in the Philippines also involves interference in the Philippines' internal affairs and the militarization of the regional security environment. According to the UN Charter, no state should deploy military forces on the territory of another state without its consent. While the US deployment of facilities at Philippine military bases under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is ostensibly based on a bilateral agreement, it substantially undermines Philippine sovereignty and independence, as the use of these bases is not entirely determined by the Philippine government.

More importantly, ASEAN has long advocated for resolving regional disputes through peaceful dialogue and cooperation. The Philippines' pronounced trend towards military bloc formation, crossing clear red lines and thresholds, runs counter to the cooperative ethos of the "ASEAN Way." This will lead to divisions within ASEAN regarding security responses, affecting its centrality in the regional security architecture. It will inevitably complicate and destabilize the environment for regional security cooperation, posing severe challenges to the collaborative efforts of ASEAN and related countries.

The Philippines Is Steering Itself into the Maelstrom of Conflict

As a party involved, the Philippines also faces risks to its own security from deploying these lethal weapons.

First, it is playing with fire and could become a military target. Intermediate-range missiles and advanced anti-ship missiles are high-value military assets that would inevitably become priority targets in any conflict. The US deployment of Typhon missiles in the Philippines essentially turns Philippine territory into a frontline position in a potential conflict, posing a serious threat to Philippine national security and civilian lives. Similarly, the Philippines' deployment of BrahMos missiles could make it a target for potential adversaries. The rhetoric of using these weapons for "deterrence" only serves to position the Philippines at the epicenter of potential conflict.

Second, it damages relations with neighbors and risks isolation. The Philippines' military modernization measures, particularly its enhanced military cooperation with the US, have caused concern and unease among some neighbors, potentially isolating the Philippines further on the South China Sea issue. Other ASEAN members particularly hope to resolve disputes through peaceful dialogue, not an intensified arms race. If the Philippines continues recklessly down the path of bolstering offensive capabilities and over-relies on external military alliances for its security, it risks losing support within ASEAN and becoming isolated in regional diplomacy. This is detrimental not only to the Philippines' long-term security but also to its regional image and influence.

Finally, and most importantly, are the economic burdens and resource consumption. Large-scale military modernization requires massive financial investment, placing a heavy burden on the Philippine economy. The Philippines' continued increase in defense budgets for purchasing advanced weapons and infrastructure development diverts resources that could otherwise be allocated to vital sectors like education and healthcare.

The Philippine economy is not particularly robust, and excessive military spending could lead to widened fiscal deficits, increased debt, and ultimately impact national economic stability and public welfare. Furthermore, the maintenance and training for this weaponry require sustained funding, representing a long-term drain on Philippine resources. If these weapons fail to deliver their intended effectiveness, the Philippines would face a disproportionate cost-benefit outcome, negatively impacting its own security and development.

In reality, the security challenges that have long plagued the Philippines originate primarily from within, not from external threats. While the Philippine government pours substantial resources into defense modernization, domestic security issues may be increasingly neglected. For instance, separatist movements in the southern Philippines, if not properly addressed, will pose increasingly severe challenges to national security in the coming period. Over-reliance on external military protection to counter external threats, while neglecting internal security governance, could exacerbate domestic contradictions and undermine overall national stability.

Dialogue, Consultation, and Cooperation Are the Right Path Forward

Resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue is the fundamental way to safeguard regional peace and stability. This serves the common interests of all parties and represents the direction of efforts by most South China Sea coastal states. As the incoming ASEAN Chair, the Philippines should lead by example and fulfill its corresponding national responsibilities.

First, adhere to the peaceful settlement of disputes and avoid military confrontation. The Philippines should strictly abide by international law and regional consensus, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries, and resolve disputes like those in the South China Sea through peaceful negotiations and consultations—not through force or an arms race. It must particularly avoid provocative actions that could escalate tensions.

Second, reduce the deployment of offensive weapons and return to the path of demilitarization. To ease regional tensions, the Philippines should take the initiative to reduce or refrain from deploying offensive weapons that could fuel an arms race. By doing so, the Philippines can demonstrate to the international community its genuine commitment to regional peace, which would, in substance, enhance its own security level.

Finally, earnestly advance dialogue and cooperation to safeguard regional peace. In the current complex and volatile international landscape, peace and dialogue remain the optimal path for resolving security issues and a shared responsibility and obligation of all nations. By persisting with peaceful dispute resolution, strengthening multilateral cooperation, reducing offensive weapon deployments, enhancing domestic governance, and promoting multilateral security mechanisms, the Philippines can contribute significantly to regional peace and stability while protecting its own security. The Philippines should take concrete actions at the earliest opportunity to contribute positively to regional peace and prosperity, rather than continuing further down the wrong path.

(Author: Yang Xiao, Research Fellow at China Institute of Contemporary International Relations; Guest Research Fellow at China Institute of International Strategic Studies; Special Invited Researcher at CMG Expert Committee on South China Sea Studies )