• 제목/요약/키워드: Japan's Maritime Strategy

검색결과 57건 처리시간 0.022초

국가 제재수단으로서 평시 해상봉쇄의 효과성의 분석에 대한 연구 (A Study on the Effectiveness of Naval Blockade as a Method of Sanctions - Focusing on the Analysis of Peacetime Naval Blockades after WW2 -)

  • 박진성
    • Strategy21
    • /
    • 통권44호
    • /
    • pp.254-290
    • /
    • 2018
  • Why did Kim Jong Un turn his foreign policy upside down in a sudden? US naval blockade became one of candidates for the reason since it had been threatened by Trump administration for the first time in December 2017. Has the blockades worked well like that in the international politic history? This paper reveals the effectiveness of naval blockade on sanctioning in the peacetime. This research analyzes three hypothetical arguments about the naval blockade based on the result of empirical tests with TIES Dataset. First, sanctions by blockading are more effective in gaining political benefits than the other economic sanctions. It was ranked the 4th effective way of sanction out of 9. And 56.3% of pacific naval blockades without packaged economic sanctions were succeeded, whereas the possibility of success increase up to 61.2% when blockade has been imposed in accordance with the other type of economic sanctions. Second, blockades deter military collisions, even war. When it comes to military provocation issue, blockading sanctions gain political interest far more than the other type of economic sanctions. The possibility of the success reaches up to 74%. Also, there wasn't any historical cases of war incurred by blockading sanctions within 5 years after the blockade end. Third, policy makers just need 1.2 years on average to see the end of sanctions when they choose the naval blockade as the method of imposing sanction on the adversary. It is impressively short span of time in achieving political goal compared to the other types of sanctions which are need 9 years on average. North East Asia sea could be the next stage for a naval blockade sooner or later. Because China and Japan not only possess capabilities of blockade but also have will to impose blockades to the others if conditions are set. And even the North Korea with lots of submerging forces could be a blockading threat in the specific area. So, the Republic of Korea has to pay more attention and be prepared for naval blockading sanction.

세력균형(power balance)에서의 군사력 수준과 동북아시아에 주는 함의 (Balance of Power and the Relative Military Capacity - Empirical Analysis and Implication to North East Asia -)

  • 김명수
    • Strategy21
    • /
    • 통권38호
    • /
    • pp.112-162
    • /
    • 2015
  • This study began to confirm or review the balance of power theory by applying scientific methods through experiential cases. Though there are several kinds of national power, this study supposes military power as a crucial power when it comes to war and peace. This research covered balance and imbalance through comparing relative military power between nations or nations' group. Comparison of relative military power can be achieved by statistically processing the values of which has been converted into the standard variables in same domain, then calculating the values of nation's power which has been synthesized different experiential factors. In addition, the criteria of experiential experiment is highly dedicated to European countries, USA, Japan prior to 1st and 2nd World War, as well as USA, Soviet Union and North East Asia during Cold War era. In addition, the balance of power theory has been redefined to review the action of the state upon the changes of power as mentioned in the theory. To begin with, the redefined theory states that relative level of military power between nations defines the consistency of peace and balance of power. If military power is enough to be on the range of level required to keep the power in equilibrium, peace and balance can be achieved. The opposite would unbalance the military power, causing conflicts. While the relative military level between nations change, nations seek to establish 'nations group' via military cooperation such as alliance, which also shift relative military power between nations group as well. Thus, in order to achieve balance of power, a nation seeks to strengthen its military power(self-help), while pursuing military cooperation(or alliance). This changes relative military power between nations group also. In other words, if there exists balance of power between nations, there is balance of power between nations group as well. In this theory, WWI and II broke out due to the imbalance of military force between nations and nations group, and reviewed that due to the balance of military force during the Cold War, peace was maintained. WWI was resulted from imbalance of military cooperation between two powerful states group and WWII was occurred because of the imbalance among the states. Peace was maintained from cooperation of military power and balance among the states during the Cold War. Imbalance among continental states is more threatening than maritime states and balance of power made by army force and naval force also is feasible. Also the outcomes of two variables are found military power balanced ratio of military power for balance is 67% when variable ratio of balance is 100% and standard value for balance is 0.86. Military power exists in a form of range. The range is what unstabilized the international system causing nations to supplement their military powers. These results made possible the calculation and comparison between state's military power. How balance of power inflicted war and peace has been studied through scientific reviews. Military conflict is highly possible upon already unbalanced military powers of North East Asian countries, if the US draws its power back to America. China and Japan are constantly building up their military force. On the other hand, Korean military force is inferior so in accordance to change of international situation state's survival could be threatened and it is difficult to achieve drastic increase in military force like Germany did. Especially constructing naval force demands lots of time; however but has benefit that naval force can overcome imbalance between continental states and maritime states.

한국형 원자력 추진 잠수함 도입방안 (Method's to introduce ROKN Nuclear Propulsion Submarines)

  • 장준섭
    • Strategy21
    • /
    • 통권42호
    • /
    • pp.5-52
    • /
    • 2017
  • Debates about introducing nuclear submarines have been a main issue in Korea. The highest officials and the government has started to think seriously about the issue. Yet there were no certain decision to this issue or any agreements with US but it is still necessary to review about introducing nuclear submarines, the technologies and about the business. The reason for such issues are the highest officials of Korea to build nuclear submarine, nK's nuclear development and SLBM launching. ROKN's nuclear submarine's necessity will be to attack(capacity to revenge), defend(anti-SSBN Operation) and to respond against neighboring nation's threat(Russia, Japan, China). Among these nations, US, Russia (Soviet Union), Britain, France had built their submarines in a short term of time due to their industrial foundation regarding with nuclear propulsion submarines. However China and India have started their business without their industrial foundation prepared and took a long time to build their submarines. Current technology level of Korea have reached almost up to US, Russia, Britain and France when they first built their nuclear propulsion submarines since we have almost completed the business for the Changbogo-I,II and almost up to complete building the Changbogo-III which Korea have self designed/developed. Furthermore Korea have reached the level where we can self design large nuclear reactors and the integrated SMART reactor which we can call ourselves a nation with worldwide technologies. If introducing the nuclear submarine to the Korea gets decided, first of all we would have to review the technological problems and also introduce the foreign technologies when needed. The methods for the introduction will be developments after loans from the foreign, productions with technological cooperations, and individual production. The most significant thing will be that changes are continuous and new instances are keep showing up so that it is important to only have a simple reference to a current instances and have a review on every methods with many possibilities. Also developing all of the technologies for the nuclear propulsion submarines may be not possible and give financial damages so there may be a need to partially introduce foreign technologies. For the introduction of nuclear propulsion submarines, there must be a resolution of the international regulations together with the international/domestics resistances and the technological problems to work out for. Also there may be problem for the requirement fees to solve for and other tough problems to solve for. However nuclear submarines are powerful weapon system to risk everything above. This is an international/domestically a serious agenda. Therefore rather than having debates based on false facts, there must be a need to have an investigations and debates regarding the nation's benefits and national security.

동북아시아의 세력균형과 군사력 수준 변화 연구: 세력균형이론에 기초한 2030년경의 동북아시아 안보환경 전망 (A Study on the Balance of Power and Changes in Military Strength in Northeast Asia: Prospect of the Northeast Asian Security Environment in 2030 Based on the Balance of Power Theory)

  • 김명수
    • 해양안보
    • /
    • 제3권1호
    • /
    • pp.73-114
    • /
    • 2021
  • 본 연구는 현실주의의 대표적 이론인 세력균형이론을 기초로 군사력을 국가의 핵심 힘으로 전제하여 동북아시아의 힘의 분포를 살펴본다. 이전 세력균형과 군사력 수준에 관한 연구결과를 고찰하고, 그 연구한 결과를 활용하여 2020년까지 미국, 중국, 러시아, 일본, 한국과 북한의 힘의 변화를 분석하여 2030년경 안보환경을 전망하여 본다. 세력균형이론에서 국가(nation)나 국가군(a group of power) 간에 힘의 균형이 무너지면 전쟁 가능성이 높고, 그 불확실성과 불신이 높은 국제사회에서 생존과 안전을 확보하기 위하여 국가는 힘의 증강(자조, self-help)과 더불어 협력(cooperation)과 동맹(alliance)을 더욱 강화하는 행동을 한다고 본다. 동북아시아의 국가들도 자국의 군사력을 지속 증강하고 있으며, 특히 중국의 급속한 부상으로 국제 안보환경의 급격한 변화에 주변 국가들은 촉각을 세우고 경계심을 늦추지 않고 있다. 중국은 2030년대 중국 창군 100주년과 더불어 '국방 및 군현대화'를 실현하고, 2050년대 건국 100주년에 '세계일류군대건설'을 목표로 하고 있다. 그리고 미국은 국제사회의 협력과 동맹 강화 등 중국 견제에 분주하다. 미국과 중국이 패권경쟁이 진행되고 있는 상황에서 동북아시아의 안보환경과 힘의 역학관계도 서서히 변하고 있다. 세력균형이론에 기초하여 2030년 이후 동북아시아의 힘의 분포 변화와 함의를 살펴보고자 한다.

  • PDF

후쿠시마 원전 오염수 방류에 따른 지자체 대응 전략: 부산, 울산, 제주 사례 위주로 (Local Government Response Strategies for Discharging Fukushima Radioactive Water: A Case in Busan, Ulsan, Jeju)

  • 정원조;남호석;좌민석;정인회
    • 한국항해항만학회지
    • /
    • 제47권3호
    • /
    • pp.174-181
    • /
    • 2023
  • 일본 도쿄전력의 후쿠시마 원전 오염수 해양방류에 대해 한일해엽 연안 5개 지자체(제주, 전남, 경남, 부산, 울산)는 합동 대책위원회를 운영하고 있다. 본 연구는 제주연구원, 부산연구원, 울산연구원에서 일본 후쿠시마 원전 오염수 해양방류에 따른 대응 방안 연구의 일환으로 수행한 시민 설문조사, 대응 전략, 세부실천과제 등을 비교 분석하여 향후 타 연안도시 정책 입안자들이 실효성 있는 방안 마련을 위한 기초자료를 제시하는데 목적이 있다. 인식조사 결과 모든 지자체 시민들은 과학적 연구결과에 상관없이 해양방류에 대해 부정적 인식이 강한 것으로 나타나 향후 수산업, 관광업계의 피해가 클 것으로 예상된다. 지자체별 대응전략에서는 모든 지자체 공통으로 컨트롤 타워 구축이 가장 시급한 과제로 나타났다. 이는 실효성 있는 대응을 위해 공무원 조직 한계인 직제 중심에서 탈피하여 기능 중심 대응이 필요하기 때문이라고 판단된다. 또한 대응방법에 있어 제주와 부산은 분야별 대응방안을 수립한 반면, 울산시는 방류시점에 따른 단계별 대응방안으로 실질적 대응에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 내용적으로는 수산물 방사능 검사체계 구축, 국민의 불안감 해소를 위한 홍보가 중요한 것으로 나타났다. 향후 2030년까지 지속적으로 후쿠시마 원전 오염수의 해양방류가 예정되어 있는 만큼 지자체 연구기관 간 연구결과 및 성과 공유를 위한 네트워크강화가 필요할 것으로 판단된다.

동북아 경쟁항만들의 선호도 분석에 관한 연구 - 부산항을 중심으로 - (A Study on Analysis of the Preference of Container Ports in Northeast Asia - with the case of Busan Container Port -)

  • 정태원;곽규석
    • 한국항해항만학회지
    • /
    • 제26권4호
    • /
    • pp.363-372
    • /
    • 2002
  • 최근 동북아지역에서는 상호경제협력이 증가되고, 대외개방 및 고도성장 등 경제활동이 활성화되고 있으며 단일경제권의 형성이 점차 가시화되고 있다. 특히 이 지역에서는 중국의 고도 성장에 따른 물동량 증가가 예상되는 가운데 수심 등 항만의 물리적 조건과 사회간접 자본이 열악한 중국상해 이북과 극동 러시아 등 동북아 지역의 환적물량을 유치하기 위해 우리나라, 일본, 대만이 경쟁하고 있고 우리나라도 국가적인 정책으로 부산항을 동북아 중심항으로 육성하고자 하는 동북아 물류기지화 전략을 추진하고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 부산항이 동북아에서 경쟁적 우위를 차지하게 하기 위한 전략방안을 제시하는데 목적을 두고 있다. 이를 위하여 첫째, 화물유치 경쟁 하에 있는 동북아 항만들의 고객 선호도와 경쟁력을 분석하고 둘째, 항만선호요인의 중요도 평가를 수행하였다. 본 연구 결과 첫째, 부산항은 항만시설을 집중적으로 확충해야 할 것이다. 고객 선호도를 고베나 카오슝 수준까지 올리기 위해서는 컨테이너 선석을 확장하고 CY의 능력을 늘리고 선진하역장비를 확보하여야 할 것으로 판단된다. 둘째, 부산항은 선사나 대형포워더를 대상으로 적시성을 강조하고 클레임에도 친절히 반응해야 하며 화물이 손상되거나 멸실되지 않도록 노력하여 전체적인 서비스의 질을 높일 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 셋째, 부산항의 요율은 상해항과 더불어 경쟁항만과 비교할 때 매우 낮은 실정이므로 탄력성 있는 요율정책을 세우거나 일정비율 요율을 높임으로써 요율을 통한 수입을 증대시켜서 그것을 시설이나 서비스 향상을 위하여 투자하는 전략도 검토해 볼 필요성이 있다고 생각된다.

한국전쟁의 교훈과 대비 -병력수(兵力數) 및 부대수(部隊數)를 중심으로- (The lesson From Korean War)

  • 윤일영
    • 안보군사학연구
    • /
    • 통권8호
    • /
    • pp.49-168
    • /
    • 2010
  • Just before the Korean War, the total number of the North Korean troops was 198,380, while that of the ROK(Republic of Korea) army troops 105,752. That is, the total number of the ROK army troops at that time was 53.3% of the total number of the North Korean army. As of December 2008, the total number of the North Korean troops is estimated to be 1,190,000, while that of the ROK troops is 655,000, so the ROK army maintains 55.04% of the total number of the North Korean troops. If the ROK army continues to reduce its troops according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the total number of its troops will be 517,000 m 2020. If North Korea maintains the current status(l,190,000 troops), the number of the ROK troops will be 43.4% of the North Korean army. In terms of units, just before the Korean War, the number of the ROK army divisions and regiments was 80% and 44.8% of North Korean army. As of December 2008, North Korea maintains 86 divisions and 69 regiments. Compared to the North Korean army, the ROK army maintains 46 Divisions (53.4% of North Korean army) and 15 regiments (21.3% of North Korean army). If the ROK army continue to reduce the military units according to [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of ROK army divisions will be 28(13 Active Division, 4 Mobilization Divisions and 11 Local Reserve Divisions), while that of the North Korean army will be 86 in 2020. In that case, the number of divisions of the ROK army will be 32.5% of North Korean army. During the Korean war, North Korea suddenly invaded the Republic of Korea and occupied its capital 3 days after the war began. At that time, the ROK army maintained 80% of army divisions, compared to the North Korean army. The lesson to be learned from this is that, if the ROK army is forced to disperse its divisions because of the simultaneous invasion of North Korea and attack of guerrillas in home front areas, the Republic of Korea can be in a serious military danger, even though it maintains 80% of military divisions of North Korea. If the ROK army promotes the plans in [Military Reform Plan 2020], the number of military units of the ROK army will be 32.5% of that of the North Korean army. This ratio is 2.4 times lower than that of the time when the Korean war began, and in this case, 90% of total military power should be placed in the DMZ area. If 90% of military power is placed in the DMZ area, few troops will be left for the defense of home front. In addition, if the ROK army continues to reduce the troops, it can allow North Korea to have asymmetrical superiority in military force and it will eventually exert negative influence on the stability and peace of the Korean peninsular. On the other hand, it should be reminded that, during the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was attacked by North Korea, though it kept 53.3% of troops, compared to North Korea. It should also be reminded that, as of 2008, the ROK army is defending its territory with the troops 55.04% of North Korea. Moreover, the national defense is assisted by 25,120 troops of the US Forces in Korea. In case the total number of the ROK troops falls below 43.4% of the North Korean army, it may cause social unrest about the national security and may lead North Korea's misjudgement. Besides, according to Lanchester strategy, the party with weaker military power (60% compared to the party with stronger military power) has the 4.1% of winning possibility. Therefore, if we consider the fact that the total number of the ROK army troops is 55.04% of that of the North Korean army, the winning possibility of the ROK army is not higher than 4.1%. If the total number of ROK troops is reduced to 43.4% of that of North Korea, the winning possibility will be lower and the military operations will be in critically difficult situation. [Military Reform Plan 2020] rums at the reduction of troops and units of the ground forces under the policy of 'select few'. However, the problem is that the financial support to achieve this goal is not secured. Therefore, the promotion of [Military Reform Plan 2020] may cause the weakening of military defence power in 2020. Some advanced countries such as Japan, UK, Germany, and France have promoted the policy of 'select few'. However, what is to be noted is that the national security situation of those countries is much different from that of Korea. With the collapse of the Soviet Unions and European communist countries, the military threat of those European advanced countries has almost disappeared. In addition, the threats those advanced countries are facing are not wars in national level, but terrorism in international level. To cope with the threats like terrorism, large scaled army trops would not be necessary. So those advanced European countries can promote the policy of 'select few'. In line with this, those European countries put their focuses on the development of military sections that deal with non-military operations and protection from unspecified enemies. That is, those countries are promoting the policy of 'select few', because they found that the policy is suitable for their national security environment. Moreover, since they are pursuing common interest under the European Union(EU) and they can form an allied force under NATO, it is natural that they are pursing the 'select few' policy. At present, NATO maintains the larger number of troops(2,446,000) than Russia(l,027,000) to prepare for the potential threat of Russia. The situation of japan is also much different from that of Korea. As a country composed of islands, its prime military focus is put on the maritime defense. Accordingly, the development of ground force is given secondary focus. The japanese government promotes the policy to develop technology-concentrated small size navy and air-forces, instead of maintaining large-scaled ground force. In addition, because of the 'Peace Constitution' that was enacted just after the end of World War II, japan cannot maintain troops more than 240,000. With the limited number of troops (240,000), japan has no choice but to promote the policy of 'select few'. However, the situation of Korea is much different from the situations of those countries. The Republic of Korea is facing the threat of the North Korean Army that aims at keeping a large-scale military force. In addition, the countries surrounding Korea are also super powers containing strong military forces. Therefore, to cope with the actual threat of present and unspecified threat of future, the importance of maintaining a carefully calculated large-scale military force cannot be denied. Furthermore, when considering the fact that Korea is in a peninsular, the Republic of Korea must take it into consideration the tradition of continental countries' to maintain large-scale military powers. Since the Korean War, the ROK army has developed the technology-force combined military system, maintaining proper number of troops and units and pursuing 'select few' policy at the same time. This has been promoted with the consideration of military situation in the Koran peninsular and the cooperation of ROK-US combined forces. This kind of unique military system that cannot be found in other countries can be said to be an insightful one for the preparation for the actual threat of North Korea and the conflicts between continental countries and maritime countries. In addition, this kind of technology-force combined military system has enabled us to keep peace in Korea. Therefore, it would be desirable to maintain this technology-force combined military system until the reunification of the Korean peninsular. Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that blindly following the 'select few' policy of advanced countries is not a good option, because it is ignoring the military strategic situation of the Korean peninsular. If the Republic of Korea pursues the reduction of troops and units radically without consideration of the threat of North Korea and surrounding countries, it could be a significant strategic mistake. In addition, the ROK army should keep an eye on the fact the European advanced countries and Japan that are not facing direct military threats are spending more defense expenditures than Korea. If the ROK army reduces military power without proper alternatives, it would exert a negative effect on the stable economic development of Korea and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsular. Therefore, the desirable option would be to focus on the development of quality of forces, maintaining proper size and number of troops and units under the technology-force combined military system. The tableau above shows that the advanced countries like the UK, Germany, Italy, and Austria spend more defense expenditure per person than the Republic of Korea, although they do not face actual military threats, and that they keep achieving better economic progress than the countries that spend less defense expenditure. Therefore, it would be necessary to adopt the merits of the defense systems of those advanced countries. As we have examined, it would be desirable to maintain the current size and number of troops and units, to promote 'select few' policy with increased defense expenditure, and to strengthen the technology-force combined military system. On the basis of firm national security, the Republic of Korea can develop efficient policies for reunification and prosperity, and jump into the status of advanced countries. Therefore, the plans to reduce troops and units in [Military Reform Plan 2020] should be reexamined. If it is difficult for the ROK army to maintain its size of 655,000 troops because of low birth rate, the plans to establish the prompt mobilization force or to adopt drafting system should be considered for the maintenance of proper number of troops and units. From now on, the Republic of Korean government should develop plans to keep peace as well as to prepare unexpected changes in the Korean peninsular. For the achievement of these missions, some options can be considered. The first one is to maintain the same size of military troops and units as North Korea. The second one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea in terms of military force index. The third one is to maintain the same level of military power as North Korea, with the combination of the prompt mobilization force and the troops in active service under the system of technology-force combined military system. At present, it would be not possible for the ROK army to maintain such a large-size military force as North Korea (1,190,000 troops and 86 units). So it would be rational to maintain almost the same level of military force as North Korea with the combination of the troops on the active list and the prompt mobilization forces. In other words, with the combination of the troops in active service (60%) and the prompt mobilization force (40%), the ROK army should develop the strategies to harmonize technology and forces. The Korean government should also be prepared for the strategic flexibility of USFK, the possibility of American policy change about the location of foreign army, radical unexpected changes in North Korea, the emergence of potential threat, surrounding countries' demand for Korean force for the maintenance of regional stability, and demand for international cooperation against terrorism. For this, it is necessary to develop new approaches toward the proper number and size of troops and units. For instance, to prepare for radical unexpected political or military changes in North Korea, the Republic of Korea should have plans to protect a large number of refugees, to control arms and people, to maintain social security, and to keep orders in North Korea. From the experiences of other countries, it is estimated that 115,000 to 230,000 troops, plus ten thousands of police are required to stabilize the North Korean society, in the case radical unexpected military or political change happens in North Korea. In addition, if the Republic of Korea should perform the release of hostages, control of mass destruction weapons, and suppress the internal wars in North Korea, it should send 460,000 troops to North Korea. Moreover, if the Republic of Korea wants to stop the attack of North Korea and flow of refugees in DMZ area, at least 600,000 troops would be required. In sum, even if the ROK army maintains 600,000 troops, it may need additional 460,000 troops to prepare for unexpected radical changes in North Korea. For this, it is necessary to establish the prompt mobilization force whose size and number are almost the same as the troops in active service. In case the ROK army keeps 650,000 troops, the proper number of the prompt mobilization force would be 460,000 to 500,000.

  • PDF