• Strategy21
• /
• 통권40호
• /
• pp.190-215
• /
• 2016

As North Korea's asymmetric threats are growing, there have been numerous discussions to find out effective counter-measures and many official plans and procurements efforts have been established. However, discussions on ROK Navy's roles in countering North Korea's asymmetric threats have been taken place very limitedly. Decision makers and military planners put enormous efforts in getting counter-measures, however, most of the options on the table are systems of Army and Air Force. This is true if one looks at components of Kill-Chain, KAMD, and KMPR. With worsening security environment of the Korean peninsula, it has been said by many commentators that ROK Navy needs to consider expanding its roles in countering against North Korea's asymmetric military threats. They asked ROK Navy to go beyond the mind-set that has confined Navy's roles in deterring North Korean naval threats. That is, ROK Navy should fight 'from the sea' as well as fight 'on the sea.' If ROK Navy begins to think about fight 'from the sea,' there would be many possibilities for the Navy to be a part of countering North Korea's asymmetric military threats. In order to pursue proactive roles in countering North Korea's asymmetric threat, ROK Navy needs to consider various options. Massive missile forces, nuclear-propelled submarines, naval special forces may be some of them. With those measures, ROK Navy would launch massive and decisive attacks from the sea without risking survivability of our forces. Considering North Korean Navy's weakness, it is very probable that sea would be safer place than ground or sky. Expanding ROK Navy's roles and being a proactive deterrent forces against North Korean asymmetric threats would provide very reliable counter-measures to South Korean military. Thus, military planners should think how to take the best advantage of expanded ROK Navy's roles and capabilities against North Korean asymmetric threats.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권41호
• /
• pp.232-260
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to open a debate about what kind of deterrent strategy the ROK military should pursue in the era of NK's weapons of mass destruction and missile threats. I argue that the ROK military needs a comprehensive deterrent strategy that reflects the international security situations and trends and that builds on clear understanding of the basic concepts and how deterrence operates. The paper starts with surveying the basic knowledge of deterrence from the perspectives of both theory and practice. Then, it provides explanations on why deterrence against NK can be particularly difficult given the security environment in and around the Korean peninsula. For example, South Korea and North Korea hardly share 'common knowledge' that serves as a basic element for the operation of deterrence. Deterrence against North Korea involves complex situations in that both deterrence and compellence strategies may be relevant particularly to North Korea's WMD and missile threats. It also involves both immediate and general deterrence. Based on the discussion, I suggest several ideas that may serve as guidelines for establishing a deterrent strategy against NK. First, our threats for deterrence should be the ones that can be realized, particularly in terms of the international norms. In other words, they must be considered appropriate among other nations in the international community. Second, there should be separate plans for the different kinds of threats: one is conventional, local provocations and the other is WMD/missile related provocations. Third, we should pursue much closer cooperative relations with the U.S. military to enhance the effectiveness of immediate deterrence in the Korean peninsula. Fourth, the ROK military should aim to accomplish 'smart deterrence' maximizing the benefits of technological superiority. Fifth, the ROK military readiness and structure should be able to deny emerging North Korean military threats such as the submarine-launched ballistic missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Lastly, in executing threats, we should consider that the current action influences credibility and reputation of the ROK, which in turn affect the decisions for future provocations. North Korea's WMD/missile threats may soon become critical strategic-level threats to South Korea. In retrospect, the first debate on building a missile defense system in South Korea dates back to the 1980s. Mostly the debate has centered on whether or not South Korea's system should be integrated into the U.S. missile defense system. In the meantime, North Korea has become a small nuclear power that can threaten the United States with the ballistic missiles capability. If North Korea completes the SLBM program and loads the missiles on a submarine with improved underwater operation capability, then, South Korea may have to face the reality of power politics demonstrated by Thucydides through the Athenians: "The strong do what they have the power to do, the weak accept what they have to accept."

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권31호
• /
• pp.220-250
• /
• 2013

South Korean national security strategy should be developed to effectively handle and counter increasing maritime threats and challenges. There are three major maritime threats South Korea faces today; maritime disputes on the EEZ boundary and Dokdo islet issues, North Korean threats, and international maritime security. Maritime disputes in the region are getting intensified and turned into a military confrontation after 2010. Now regional countries confront each other with military and police forces and use economic leverage to coerce the others. They are very eager to create advantageous de facto situations to legitimize their territorial claims. North Korean threat is also increasing in the sea as we witnessed in the Cheonan incident and Yeonpyoung shelling in 2010. North Korea resorts to local provocations and nuclear threats to coerce South Korea in which it may enjoy asymmetric advantages. The NLL area of the west sea would be a main hot spot that North Korea may continue to make a local provocation. Also, South Korean national economy is heavily dependent upon foreign trade and national strategic resources such as oil are all imported. Without an assurance on the safety of sea routes, these economic activities cannot be maintained and expanded. This paper argues that South Korea should make national maritime strategy and enhance the strength of naval forces. As a middle power, its national security strategy needs to consider all the threats and challenges not only from North Korea but also to maritime security. This is not a matter of choice but a mandate for national survival and prosperity. This paper discusses the importance of maritime security, changing characteristics of maritime threats and challenges, regional maritime disputes and its threat to South Korea's security, and South Korea's future security strategy and ways to enhance the role of naval forces. Our national maritime strategy needs to show middle and long term policy directions on how we will protect our maritime interests. Especially, it is important to build proper naval might to carry out all the roles and missions required to the military.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권37호
• /
• pp.32-64
• /
• 2015

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.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권41호
• /
• pp.208-231
• /
• 2017

The balance of power in conventional forces between the two Koreas works in favor of the South Korea in the Korea peninsula. But, the balancing mechanism between the two Koreas in asymmetric forces like nuclear and missile forces works absolutely in favor of the North Korea. That's why it should be timely for the ROK military to review existing strategy and revise a new counter strategy against the threat posed by the North Korea's nuclear and missile forces. The ROK military is now developing 4D, KAMD, KILL Chain strategies as means to cope with the North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. Considering efforts and resources invested now, the strategies are expected to be in place in next five or more years. However, approaches to those strategies seem to be rather fragmentary and conceptual than comprehensive and pragmatic. The types of strategies against the North Korea's military threats need to be a deterrence in peace time and a fighting and winning in war time in the Korean theater. But, the most important element in the deterrence strategy is the credibility. This study concludes with an new strategic concept titled "ADAD(Assured Defense, Assured Destruction)" as an alternative to existing strategies to deal with the North Korea's nuclear and missile threats.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권44호
• /
• pp.142-176
• /
• 2018

So far, the main threat to South Korea was North Korea. That is why South Korea established a strategy based on the threat of North Korea and most of the budget on defense was used to deter North Korea. Even though the neighboring countries(China, Japan, and Russia) are growing as a real threat with abilities and intentions based on their powerful naval forces, South Korea has not yet been able to establish a strategy that regards neighboring countries as a threat. But the decades-old structural mechanism of the Korean security environment is undergoing a radical change on April 27, 2018, through the South-North summit and the Panmunjom Declaration. Under the changing security environment, South Korea was placed in a complicated dilemma that had to deal with threats of two axes(China), three axes(China, Japan), and four axes(Japan, Russia). If the one axis threat(North Korea) is dominated by land threats, the second, third and fourth axis threats are threats from the sea. This paper analyzed the maritime strategy of Korea within the framework of maritime-geopolitics, in other words recognition and expansion of the sphere of maritime. I have designed that the maritime defense space that we can deny from threats is divided into three lines of defense: 1 line (radius 3,000km), 2 lines (2,000km), and 3 lines (1,000km). The three defense zones of the three lines were defined as an active defense(1 line), defensive offense(2 line), active offense(3 line). The three defense zones of the three lines were defined as the sphere of core maritime, As a power to deny the sphere of core maritime, it was analyzed as a maneuvering unit, a nuclear-powered submarine, the establishment of missile strategy, and the fortification of islands station. The marine strategy of South Korea with these concepts and means was defined as 'Offensive Maritime Denial Strategy'.

• 문화기술의 융합
• /
• 제10권4호
• /
• pp.397-403
• /
• 2024

최근 북한의 드론 개발 및 운용 능력이 급속히 향상되면서 한국의 안보에 심각한 위협이 되고 있다. 2014년, 2017년, 2022년에 발생한 북한 무인기 침투 사건들은 북한 드론의 기술 고도화와 도발 가능성을 실질적으로 보여주고 있다. 본 연구는 북한 드론의 군사적 위협 실태를 면밀히 분석하고 효과적인 대응 방안을 모색하는 것을 목적으로한다. 본 연구는 북한 드론 기술의 발전 수준과 군사적 활용 가능성, 최근 북한 드론 침투 사례의 특징과 양상, 한국의 현 대응 체계의 적절성 및 한계점, 향후 대응 방안 등을 분석하였다. 이를 위해 국내외 연구 문헌과 언론 보도 자료를 검토하고, 북한 드론 침투 사례를 구체적으로 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 북한의 소형 드론은 소형 경량화, 저고도·저속 비행, 장시간 비행, 정찰 장비 탑재 등의 기술적 특성을 갖추고 있으며, 정찰, 감시, 기습 공격, 테러 등에 활용될 수 있는 위협 요소를 지니고 있음을 확인하였다. 또한, 한국의 현 대응 체계는 탐지·식별 능력 미흡, 요격 성공률저조, 통합 대응 체계 미비, 전문 인력·장비 부족 등의 한계를 드러내고 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 드론 탐지·식별 기술개발, 다양한 드론 무력화 기술 활용, 법적·제도적 기반 정비, 유관 기관 간 협력 체계 구축, 국제 공조 강화 등의 기술적, 정책적, 국제 협력적 대응 방안을 제시하였다. 특히, 한국 사회 전반의 북한 드론 위협에 대한 인식을 제고하고범국가적 대응 의지를 결집하는 것이 중요하다고 강조하였다.

• Strategy21
• /
• 통권30호
• /
• pp.63-98
• /
• 2012

Northeast Asia has a multi-layered security structure within which major economic and military powers both confront one another and cooperate at the same time. Major regional powers maintain mutually cooperative activities in the economic sphere while competing one another in order to secure a dominant position in the politico-military arena. The multifarious threats, posed by the North Korea's nuclear development, territorial disputes, and maritime demarcation line issues demonstrate that Northeast Asia suffers more from military conflicts and strifes than any other region in the world. Specifically, major maritime security threats include North Korea's nuclear proliferation and missile launching problems as well as military provocations nearby the Northern Limit Line(NLL) as witnessed in the Cheonan naval ship and Yeonpyong incidents. The ROK Navy has been supplementing its firm military readiness posture in consideration of North Korea's threats on the NLL. It has performed superb roles in defending the nation and establishing the Navy advanced and best picked. It also has been conducive to defend the nation from external military threats and invasion, secure the sea lanes of communications, and establish regional stability and world peace. In order to effectively cope with the strategic environment and future warfares, the ROK Navy needs to shift its military structure to one that is more information and technology intensive. In addition, it should consolidate the ROK-US alliance and extend military cooperative measures with neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Evolved steadily for the last 60 years, the ROK-US alliance format has contributed to peace and security on the Korean peninsula and in the Northeast Asian region. In conclusion, this manuscript contends that the ROK Navy should strive for the establishment of the following: (1) Construction of Jeju Naval Base; (2) Strategic Navy Equipped with War Deterrence Capabilities; (3) Korean-type of System of Systems; (4) Structure, Budget and Human Resources of the Naval Forces Similar to the Advanced Countries; and (5) Strategic Maritime Alliance and Alignment System as well as Domestic Governance Network for the Naval Families.

• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제23권5호
• /
• pp.199-208
• /
• 2023

한국과 일본 정부는 지난 10년 동안, 심지어 그 이전에도 북한의 사이버 위협에 협력적으로 대응한 적이 없다. 두 나라 사이의 역사적, 정치적 갈등이 너무 깊어서 서로의 필요를 논의하지 않았습니다. 특히 제2차 세계대전 당시 위안부문제와 강제노동 문제는 양국의 화해를 가로막는 요인이었다. 윤석열 정부가 출범하면서 한미관계는 극적으로 개선됐다. 미국과 중국의 갈등으로 동북아 긴장이 최고조에 달했다. 미국이 주도하는 한·일·대만 간 긴밀한 협력 없이는 평화를 긍정할 수 없는 상황이 됐다. 한일 사이버안보 협력은 안보협력에 있어 가장 기본적이고 중요한 부분이다. 사이버안보는 적의 군사작전을 감시하고 안보상 이상행위를 탐지하는 역할을 담당하는 만큼 한·일 협력도 미국 정부의 가장 중요한 관심사다. 한일 정부의 관계 개선은 한반도와 동북아의 평화를 위해 필수적이며, 세계 안보와 평화 유지를 위한가장 중요한 초석입니다. 사이버 안보 측면에서 지난 20년은 가장 중요한 시기로, 정치적 갈등으로 인해 북한의 사이버위협에 한·일이 공동 대응하지 못한 점을 따라잡아야 할 때이다. 이번 연구에서는 한·일 정부가 북한의 사이버 위협에공동 대응하기 위해 사이버 안보 협력 강화 방안과 필요한 법적 조치를 모색하고 한계점을 논의할 예정이다.

• 융합보안논문지
• /
• 제16권3_2호
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2016

정보화 사회의 발달은 인간생활에 많은 편익을 제공하는 반면에, 새로운 유형의 위협을 증대시키고 있다. 특히 사이버테러는 컴퓨터체계와 정보통신망으로 구성된 네트워크상에서 발생하고 있으며 그 방법과 피해규모는 심각한 수준에 이르고 있다. 즉 사이버테러는 현실세계가 아니라 가상공간에서 발생하여 공격주체가 누구인지?(비가시성, 비정형성), 어디에서 공격을 하는 것인지?(초국가성) 등 그 실체파악이 대단히 어려운 실정이다. 사이버테러를 시행하는 해커는 개인 혹은 소규모단체의 수준임에도 불구하고, 국가의 안전을 위협할 수 있는 새로운 위협을 제시하면서 현재도 그 위협의 양상과 규모를 더욱 진화시키고 있다. 북한의 사이버테러 규모와 능력은 세계적 수준으로 평가되고 있다. 최근 북한은 사이버테러 역량강화에 주력하고 있다. 이에 한국 안보에 직접인 위협으로 부상하고 있는 사이버테러에 대한 대응체계 개선은 선택이 아니라 국가생존을 위한 필수적인 과제이다. 따라서 한국은 북한과 주변국가로부터 발생하는 사이버테러에 선제적으로 대응하기 위해서 국가차원의 통합된 컨트롤타워 기능을 수행할 수 있도록 법적 제도적 장치를 시급히 보완해야 한다.