The Republic of Korean Navy (ROKN) started from scratch. However, ROKN demonstrated its Blue Navy capabilities successfully to the entire world by conducting "Operation Early Dawn" at the Aden Bay, Yemen in Jan 2011. On the event of the 70th anniversary of the ROKN, I would like to retrospect past gleaning from voyages and challenges we had in the past. At the very inception of the ROKN, Korean government as well as senior military leaders recognized that it had no time to spare to clean up military those were insinuated deeply by communist agents. It was the top priority of the government. The Mongumpo Operation which was not well known, conducted by ROKN was one of the clean-up drive. The Korean War sometimes called as "a fire from land put-off at the sea". The world famous "Incheon Landing" which reversed war situation from the Nakdong Perimeter also done by Sea Power. ROKN conducted various maritime operations including not only Incheon Landing, but amphibious operation at Hungnam, mine sweeping, sea convoy, Wonsan Withdrawal. On the same day of the Korean War started, 25th June 1950, unless the victory of the ROKNS Baekdusan (PC 701) at the Korean Strait, the waning lamp light of Korea could not be rekindled by the participation of the U.N. The ROKN rescued the 17th regiment of Korean Army from the isolation at the Ongjin Peninsular and transported gold and silver bars stored at the Bank of Korea to the Navy supply deposit in Jinhae safely. ROKN special intelligence unit conducted critical HUMINT which led Incheon Landing success. One of important mission ROKN conducted successfully was not only transporting war fighting materials but also U.S. provided grains to starving Koreans. ROKN participated Vietnam campaign from 1960s and conducted numerous maritime transportation operations supplying materials to Vietnam military forces along the long coastal lines. Experienced Naval Officers and enlisted men who discharged and acquired as merchant marine certificate supported most of the U.S. sea lift operations throughout the Vietnam campaign. ROK-US Combined Forces which had been honed and improved its war fighting capabilities through the Korean War and out of Vietnam jungle playing key deterrent against threat from north Korea. However, those threat level will be completely different when north Korea finish its nuclear weapon ambition. In order to stand firm against north Korean nuclear threat, I would like to expect strong political leadership supporting nuclear submarine for ROKN.

This paper examines the types and trends of North Korea's military provocations and regional maritime threats against South Korea, and is focusing on the Republic of Korea's naval development and modernizations by the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) on future actions, what directions of the ROKN has taken thus far in response, as well as an examination of how the ROKN might respond to vulnerabilities identified throughout modern history. Importantly, this paper does not consider the domestic, bilateral, multilateral, regional and global political dimensions of the situation on the Korean Peninsula; nor does it consider the North Korea's transitional power politics, but including North Korea's nuclear program and submarine-launched ballistic missile developments, as a caveat, this paper is based on open sources in Korean and English language, and thus information concerning provocations is indicative only.

This study is an attempt to look into the future role of the ROKN and to provide a strategic way forward with a special focus on naval strategic concept and force planning. To accomplish this goal, this research takes four sequential steps for analysis: 1) assessing the role and utility of naval power of ROKN since its foundation back in 1945; 2) forecasting features of various maritime threats to influence the security of Korea in the future directly or indirectly; 3) identifying the roles to be undertaken by future ROKN; and 4) recommending Korean way of naval force planning and the operational concept of naval power. This study seeks to show that ROKN needs comprehensive role to better serve the nation with respect to national security, national prosperity and development, and future battle-space management. To safeguard the national security of Korea, it suggests three roles: 1) national guard for the peaceful unification; 2) protector of the maritime sovereignty; and 3) suppressor to maritime threats. Three more roles are highlighted for national prosperity: 1) escort of the national economy; 2) guardian for national maritime activities; and 3) contributor to the world peace. These roles need to be closely connected with the role for the battle-space management. This paper addresses the need for a dramatic shift of the central operational domain from land to maritime in the future. This will eventually offer future ROKN a leading role for developing strategic concept and force planning rather than merely a supporting one. This study finally suggests 'balanced' strategy both in concept development and force planning. A balanced force planning is a 'must' rather than an 'option' when considering a division of function between Task Fleets and Area Fleets, constructing cutting-edge conventional forces such as Aegis destroyer, CVs, or submarines, and the mix of high-profile platform and low-profile when composing future fleets. A 'balance' is also needed in operational concept. The fleet should be prepared to fulfill its missions based on two different types of force operation i.e., coercive or cooperative application of the utility of naval force. The findings and recommendations of the study are relevant today, and will be increasingly important in the future to achieve various political goals required by enhancing the utility of naval power.

China's new grand strategy, the "One Belt, One Road Initiative" (also Belt Road Initiative, or BRI) has two primary components: Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the "Silk Road Economic Belt" in September 2013 during a visit to Kazakhstan, and the "21^st Century Maritime Silk Route Economic Belt" in a speech to the Indonesian parliament the following month. The BRI is intended to supply China with energy and new markets, and also to integrate the countries of Central Asia, the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the Indian Ocean Region - though not Northeast Asia - into the "Chinese Dream". The project will be supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), due to open in 2016 with 57 founding members from all around the world, and China has already promised US$ 50 billion in seed funding. China's vision includes networks of energy pipelines, railways, sea port facilities and logistics hubs; these will have obvious commercial benefits, but also huge geopolitical significance. China seems to have two distinct aims: externally, to restore its historical sphere of influence; and internally, to cope with income inequalities by creating middle-class jobs through enhanced trade and the broader development of its economy. In South Korea, opinion on the BRI is sharply polarized. Economic and industrial interests, including Korea Railroad Corporation (KORAIL), support South Korean involvement in the BRI and closer economic interactions with China. They see how the BRI fits nicely with President Park Geun-hye's Eurasia Initiative, and anticipate significant commercial benefits for South Korea from better connections to energy-rich Russia and the consumer markets of Europe and Central Asia. They welcome the prospect of reduced trade barriers between China and South Korea, and of improved transport infrastructure, and perceive the political risks as manageable. But some ardently pro-US pundits worry that the political risks of the BRI are too high. They cast doubt on the feasibility of implementing the BRI, and warn that although it has been portrayed primarily in economic terms, it actually reveals a crucial Chinese geopolitical strategy. They are fearful of China's growing regional dominance, and worried that the BRI is ultimately a means to supplant the prevailing US-led regional security structure and restore the Middle Kingdom order, with China as the only power that matters in the region. According to this view, once China has complete control of the regional logistics hubs and sea ports, this will severely limit the autonomy of China's neighbors, including South Korea, who will have to toe the Chinese line, both economically and politically, or risk their own peace and prosperity.

In September 2013, President Park Geun-hye announced her controversial "Look North" policy, of which the most salient aspect is the "Eurasia Initiative". This comprises various proposals designed to overcome existing constraints by developing new markets and creating new economic partners in continental areas from which South Korea has been alienated since the end of World War II, and this dovetails nicely with China's One Belt, One Road Initiative. The concepts of the "Silk Road Rail Express (SRX)" and the "East Sea Rim Maritime Community (ESRMC)" have also been discussed. SRX is at present a purely symbolic railroad project intended to encourage individual, cultural, trade and diplomatic exchanges. ESRMC is a model for establishing an ad hoc community to promote regional economic cooperation around the East Sea. President Park's Eurasia Initiative will provide South Korean investment for the Northeast to complement Russian plans, like the "Northern Energy Road" being built by Gazprom, and Chinese plans, like the Chang-Ji-Tu Development Plan for the North Korean port of Rajin. China's trade, as well as its energy and food supplies, pass through the Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean, and are thus vulnerable to interdiction by India or the US. China is therefore trying to reduce its exposure geopolitical risk by establishing a network of corridors between the Belt and the Road to provide alternative paths. The "China-Pakistan Economic Corridor" and the "China-Myanmar Economic Corridor" provide such connections, and South Korea hopes that SRX and ESRMC can become part of a "China-South Korea Economic Corridor". This concept could do much to revitalize the underdeveloped northern provinces of China and Russia's Far East, not to mention North Korea. By linking up the Trans-Siberian Railway, the Trans-China Railway, the Trans-Mongolian Railway and the Trans-Korean Railway all these Asian countries will be connected to one another, and ultimately to Europe. An interim connection between China and South Korea using a rail-ferry has also been proposed.

The Chinese government portrays the One Belt One Road Initiative (BRI) and South Korea President Park Geun-hae's Eurasia Initiative as a win-win opportunity which will hurt nobody's interests, but some South Korean commentators have interpreted it as much more than just a trade and development deal: they focus on the geopolitical implications and the possibility that the balance of power in Asia will be disturbed. South Korea depends upon its maritime-oriented Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) in focusing on its alliance with the US to deter North Korean threats and explore its export-based economic growth and development, and yet cannot afford to be left out of these initiatives which could transform the economic and logistical linkage between South Korea and Europe. Given its negative reception by the some pundits, however, South Korea should be more precautious for expressing only full-fledged supports for the BRI and Eurasia Initiative. Opponents of these two initiatives doubt that its putative benefits can be realized, at least in the short term, arguing that creating the necessary rail interconnections may be too costly.

China, Japan and Korea are the world's top 10 energy consumers, and so very interested in the development of seabed hydrocarbon resources in order to meet their energy demands. The East China Sea is the tri-junction area where three countries' entitlements on the maritime boundaries are overlapped. There are abundant oil reserves in the East China Sea, and therefore competitions among countries are growing to get control of them. Although these countries have concluded the bilateral agreements to jointly develop resources in the East China Sea, they do not function as well. Because joint development and management of seabed petroleum resources can lead to stable development system, and to lower possibility of legal and political disputes, the needs for joint development agreement among three countries are urgent. Meanwhile, Northeast Asian seas are semi-closed seas, which are geographically closed and vulnerable to marine pollution. Moreover there are a lot of nuclear power plants in coastal area, and seabed petroleum resources are being developed. So it is likely to occur nuclear and oil spill accidents. Fukushima nuclear disaster and Bohai Bay oil spill accident in 2011 are the cases to exhibit the potential of major marine pollution accidents in this area. It is anticipated that the risks become higher because power plants and offshore oil platforms are extending gradually. Therefore, the ways to seek the joint marine environmental protection agreement focused on regulation of nuclear power plant and offshore oil platform have to be considered. In this paper, we try to find the way to make joint development and joint environmental protection agreement in Northeast Asian seas. We concentrate on the measure to drive joint development of seabed petroleum deposits in East China Sea's overlap area, despite of maritime delimitation and territorial disputes, and we try to drive joint marine environmental protection system to respond to marine pollution and accidents due to offshore oil platform and nuclear power plants. Through these consideration, we seek solutions to deal with lack of energy, disputes of maritime territorial and boundary delimitation, and marine pollution in Northeast Asia.

2015년 5월 수중발사 탄도미사일(SLBM) 발사시험을 통해 북한은 전 세계의 이목을 또 다시 집중시켰다. 북한은 2013년 제3차 핵실험을 감행한 이후 최근까지도 탄도미사일과 로켓 발사 등의 무력도발을 지속해 왔다. 이와 같은 북한의 무력도발은 한반도의 안정뿐만 아니라 미국 본토의 안보에도 매우 부정적인 영향을 미치고 있다. 지금까지 미국은 북한의 핵미사일 개발 저지를 위해 경제적 또는 군사적 방안들을 선별적으로 적용해 왔다. 그러나, 이러한 미국의 노력에도 불구하고 북한은 여전히 핵미사일을 개발하겠다는 꿈을 포기하지 않고 있는 것이 사실이다. 본 논문은 북한의 핵미사일 개발에 대한 미국의 대안적 전략(Alternative Strategy)을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다. 필자는 대안적 전략 제시에 앞서 북한의 핵과 탄도미사일 개발현황을 내용(Contents)과 맥락(Context) 차원에서 분석하고 미 오바마 행정부의 대북전략을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 그리고 대안적 전략으로 동맹국과 함께 경제적(Sticky Power), 군사적(Sharp Power) 수단의 동기화(Synchronizing)를 통해 북한이 감당하기 힘든 전략적 환경을 조성(Shaping the Strategic Environment)하는 것이 '북한의 핵개발 포기' 라는 전략목표를 달성하는 방안 임을 강조하고 있다. 미국이 대안적 전략목표를 달성하기 위해서는 경제적 수단으로 ① 북한의 자금세탁 및 위조지폐 발행국 지정, ② 북한을 지원하는 모든 해외자산에 대한 제재조치, ③ 북한의 테러지원국 재지정, ④ 북한 제재를 위한 미국의 입법추진, ⑤ 대량살상무기 관련 금수품목의 확대를 적용함과 동시에 군사적 수단으로 ① 대량살상무기 비확산 활동 강화, ② 대탄도미사일 전략 개발 및 정보(ISR: Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance) 공유, 맞춤형 억제전략(TDS: Tailored Deterrence Strategy)의 구체화 등을 통한 한·미 군사 억제방안의 강화, 그리고 ③ SM-3, THAAD(Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) 등 한·미·일 3자간 MD(Missile Defense)체제의 구축 등을 동기화하여 적용해야만 할 것이다. 미국의 대안적 전략은 ① 북한의 핵미사일 개발에 대한 중국의 협력방지, ② 한·중간 경제관계의 악화, ③ 한·일간의 역사적 긴장관계라는 위험요소를 내포하고 있는 것 또한 사실이다. 따라서 미국이 대안적 전략목표인 '북한의 비핵화' 달성을 위해서는 이와 같은 위험요소를 완화시키는 노력도 병행되어야 할 것이다. 끝으로, 미국은 북한의 김정은이 핵미사일 개발 포기라는 상이한 방향의 전략적 결정을 할 경우에 대비하여 한·미 연합훈련의 보류, 북한에 대한 경제제재조치 해제 등 북한과의 협상 가능성도 열어두고 이에 대해서도 철저하게 준비해 나가야 할 것이다.