• Proceedings of the Ginseng society Conference
• /
• 1980.09a
• /
• pp.87-113
• /
• 1980

This experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of Korean ginseng extract on carcinogenesis induced by various chemical carcinogens. Red ginseng extract was used for this study and was administered orally to the experimental animals. Carcinogens that were injected in subscapsular region of ICR newborn mice within 24 hours after birth were 9,10-dimethyl-1,2-benzan-thracene (DMBA), urethane, N-2-fluorenylacetamide(AAF), aflatoxin $B_1$ and tobacco smoke condensate. N -methyl-N -nitroso-N'-nitroguani-dine(MNNG) was injected subcutaneously at the back of wistar rats. Experimental animals were autopsied in immediately after being sacrificed. All major organs were examined grossly and weighted. After fixation histopathological preparations were made for microscopical study. Following results were obtained. In DMBA group sacrificed at the 26th week after the treatment with DMBA, the incidence of lung adenoma was $77\%$ and the average number of the tumor was 17. However, in DMBA combined with red ginseng group, the incidence was $78\%$ and the average number of lung adenoma was 14.1. This indicates that ginseng extract had no effect on the incidence of lung adenoma but decreased the average number of lung adenoma by $17\%.$ In DMBA group sacrificed at the 48th week after the injection of DMBA, the lung adenoma incidence was $88\%.$ The average diameter of the largest lung adenoma was 3.5 cm, the incidence of diffuse pulmonary infiltration was $18\%$ and the average lung weight of male experimental mice was $528.2{\pm}469.1\;gm.$ On the other hand, in DMBA combined with red ginseng group sacrificed at the 48th week, the incidence of lung adenoma was $96\%.$ The average diameter of the largest adenoma was 2.7 cm, the incidence of diffuse pulmonary infiltration was $7\%$ and the average lung weight of male mice was $418.0{\pm}520\;gm.$ These observations show that ginseng extract did not have any inhibitory effect on the incidence of lung adenoma but decreased the average diameter of the largest lung adenoma by $23\%,$ the incidence of duffuse pulmonary infiltration by $63\%$ and the average lung weight of male experimental mice by $21\%.$ From these results we have found that the prolonged administration with ginseng extract showed no inhibitory effect on the incidence of adenoma but it had the inhibitory effect on the proliferation of lung adenomas induced by DMBA. In urethane group sacrificed at the 28th week after the injection of urethane, the incidence of lung adenoma was $94\%$ and the average number of lung adenoma was 8.6. In urethane combined with red ginseng group, the. incidence of lung adenoma was $73\%$ and the average number of adenoma was 6.0. These results indicate that there were $22\%$ decrease of the lung adenoma incidence and $31\%$ decrease of the average number of adenoma in urethane combined with red ginseng group. And in urethane group sacrificed at the 50th week, the incidence of lung adenoma was $98\%$ and the incidence of diffuse pulmonary infiltration was $14\%$. In urethane combined with ginseng group the incidence of lung adenoma was $85\%$ and the incidence of diffuse pulmonary infiltration was $12\%$. Therefore the ginseng administration resulted in $15\%$ decrease of the lung adenoma incidence and $14\%$ decrease of the diffuse pulmonary infiltration incidence. From these results we knew that the prolonged administration with ginseng extract inhibited the incidence and also the proliferation of the lung adenoma induced by urethane. Lung adenoma and hepatoma were induced in the experimental mice sacrificed at the 68th week but not in the experimental mice sacrificed at the 28th week after the injection of AAF. In AAF group sacrificed at the 68th week after the injection of AAF the incidence of lung adenoma was $18\%$ and the incidence of hepatoma was $27\%$. And in AAF combined with ginseng group the lung adenoma incidence was $12\%$ and the hepatoma incidence was $37\%$. So the ginseng seemed to decrease the lung adenoma incidence by AAF, but we were unable to conclude the significant inhibitory effect of the ginseng extract on the incidence of lung adenoma by AAF because the above incidence of lung adenoma were similar to that of control group which was $11\%$. And these experimental data revealed that ginseng extract didn't have any inhibitory effect on the incidence of hepatoma induced by AAF. In aflatoxin $B_1$ group sacrificed at the 56th week, the incidence of lung adenoma was $24\%$ and hepatoma was $11\%$. However in aflatoxin $B_1$ combined with ginseng group the incidence of lung adenoma was $17\%$ and hepatoma was $3\%$ These results indicate that there were $29\%$ decrease of the lung adenoma incidence and $75\%$ decrease of the hepatoma incidence in aflatoxin $B_1$ combined with ginseng group. In tobacco smoke condensate experimental group sacrificed at 67th week, no tumors were induced except just a few lung adenoma. The lung adenoma incidence both in tobacco smoke condensate group and in tobacco smoke condensate combined with ginseng group was $8\%$. And this incidence rate was similar to that of control group. These results indicate that the injection of 320 ug tobacco smoke condensate per ICR newborn mouse was unable to induce lung adenoma in our experiments. In MNNG group sacrificed at the 27th week the tumor incidence was $38.5\%$ and in MNNG combined with ginseng extract group was $37\%$. In MNNG group for investigation of the life span of tumor bearing rats the tumor incidence was $93\%$ and the average life span of tumor bearing rats was 318 days. And in MNNG combined with ginseng extract group the tumor incidence was $96\%$ and the average life span was 337 days. Tumor induced by MNNG was almost sarcoma. This indicates that there was no inhibitory effect of ginseng extract on the tumor incidence, but the extract prolonged the average life span of tumor bearing rats by approximately 19 days.

• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.8
• /
• 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.