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.

Samuel Eliot Morison (1887-1976) was one of the pre-eminent historians of his generation. He was not only a famous historian at that time, but also was promoted to the rank of Admiral in U.S. Navy Reserve. Fifteen volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II was published between 1947 and 1962, was not only a comprehensive report on the Navy's projection of power over two oceans, but a classic of historical literature that stands as the definitive treatment of it subject. Although he was fifty-five when war come to America in December 1941. Samuel Eliot Morison was determined to play a role. A professor at Harvard at the time, he joined volunteering for duty in the Navy. An experienced sailor, Professor Morison had earlier sailed that same routes taken by Christopher Columbus while researching his biography, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, which appeared in January 1942 th much acclaim and later got a Pulitzer Prize. Thus Morison plunged into the war, crossing the Atlantic aboard a destroyer. He assumed himself as "Parkman on the sea", tried to follow Parkman's historiographic method, not only participatory history but also literary style. And during writing History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, He emphasized two principles, publicity and objectivity. In terms of publicity, he always worried about who read history and why. In his pamphlet, "History as a Literary Art", he asserted it is useless if readers do not read a history which historians wrote. So he thought historians have forgotten that there is an art of writing of history. Therefore, he built his narratives around brightly rendered visuals and used the present tense to describe actions he witnessed firsthand, he wrote of the U.S. combat in very vividly. But strongly driven by publicity, he sometimes lost his balance in writing the naval history. For instance, the naval history became the focus of criticism for its prejudiced comments about the commanders. Also some reviewers asserted he did not secure the objectivity on writing the naval history. Although he sometimes deliberately torpedoed the objectivity of his work for strengthening publicity, by writing an extensive U.S. naval history, he introduced maritime history and naval history to the public widely. Until in early twentieth century, U.S. historians usually had been focusing their effort to the traditional areas, for example politic, economy, and etc. His intensive effort on the operations of U.S. Navy in World War II aroused a public interest in maritime and naval history. In conclusion, through using literary style and realistic narratives, historian Morison wrote a naval history for all the people which could appealed to the public.

After defeat in World War II, Japan's Peace Constitution committed the country to forego the acquisition of offensive military capabilities. However, in the midst of the post-cold war period, Japan began to change its security posture in line with the so-called 'normal state theory', which called for a more robust defense posture and expanded security activities. The second Abe administration promoted these security policies by issuing a National Security Strategy as well as a new National Defense Program Outline(NDPO) in 2013 and by establishing new security institutions such as the National Security Council. The Abe administration also adopted the new concept of a 'Unified Mobile Defense Force' in the 2013 which replaced the 'Dynamic Defense Force' as a new criteria for the Self-Defense Force's acquisition of military capabilities. In this new concept of military capabilities, the Ground Self-Defense Force is planning to replace existing divisions with mobile divisions and to form 'Amphibious Rapid Deployment Bridge' for the first time in 2018, which has long been taboo in Japan. Japan has experience a Marine Corps in the past. Likewise, an offensive changes in the military strategy can change the spectrum of strategy and 'Amphibious Rapid Deployment Bridge' plays a big role in this. Furthermore, Japan is increasing the Coast Guard's budget and capabilities in preparation for contingencies around the Senkaku islands (called the Diaoyu in Chinese). The South Korea navy should utilize Japan's changing security posture to deter immediate threat such as North Korea's military provocations and potential enemy threat such as China, Japan, Russia.

고도화 및 가시화되고 있는 북한의 '잠수함발사탄도미사일(SLBM: Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile)'위협에 대응하기 위한 효과적인 전략수단으로써 핵추진잠수함의 필요성에 대한 국민적 관심이 고조되고 있다. 핵추진잠수함의 전략적 가치에 대한 논의가 활발히 진행되고 있는 가운데, 주변국과의 갈등과 국제사회의 비핵화 규범의 미 준수 논란 등 핵추진잠수함 확보과정에서 야기될 수 있는 대·내외의 정치·외교적 파장에 대한 우려의 목소리 또한 높아지고 있다. 그러나, 핵추진잠수함의 필요성 및 확보와 관련한 지금까지의 대부분의 논의들은 한국의 '내부적 논의(Just our own scenario)'에 그치는 한계를 보이고 있다. 전략무기체계로써의 상징성과 그에 따르는 대외적 민감성을 고려 시 일방적이고 독자적인 핵추진잠수함 확보노력은 과정상의 시행착오와 불확실성을 더욱 가중시켜 정책적 실패로 귀결될 수 있는 위험성을 내포하고 있다. 특히, 한반도 평화와 아태지역의 안전보장이라는 공동의 전략적 목표를 공유하고 있는 동맹국인 미국의 공감대와 지지가 뒷받침되지 않은 독자적인 핵추진잠수함 확보노력은 큰 난항이 예상되며 자칫 서로간의 '전략적 신뢰(Strategic Trust)'를 무너뜨려 '한미동맹의 결속력(Alliance Cohesion)'을 약화시키는 요인으로 작용할 수 있다. 미국의 동의와 지지에 기반한 핵추진잠수함 확보를 위해서는 한국의 핵추진잠수함 확보가 동맹의 전략목표 및 미국의 전략적 이해관계에 미칠 수 있는 긍정적, 부정적 효과에 대한 충분한 검토와 논의가 선행되어야 한다. 한미동맹의 공동의 전략목표와 미국의 전략적 이익에 상충하는 한국의 핵추진잠수함 확보시도는 성공 가능성이 낮기 때문이다. 본 연구에서는 현실화되고 있는 북한의 핵위협에 대응하고 지역안전보장에 기여할 수 있는 미국과의 연합방위력 증강차원에서의 한국의 핵추진잠수함의 전략적 효용성을 분석하였다. 더불어, 한국의 핵추진잠수함 확보과정에서 야기될 수 있는 대·내외의 기술적, 정치·외교적 사안들을 살펴본 후 한미동맹 차원에서의 정책적 해결방안을 제시하였다. 연구목적을 위해 유사한 역사적 사례연구를 통해 교훈을 도출하였으며, 미국 오바마 1기 행정부에서 미국의 아태지역 및 대북정책을 주도한 전 미국 국무부부장관 제임스 스타인버그(James Steinberg) 및 여러 미국 내 한반도 전문가들의 의견을 수렴하였다. 본 연구가 한국의 핵잠수함 확보를 위한 한미간 발전적 논의의 시발점이 되기를 기대한다.

This paper is to analyse conflict between the US and China over the South China Sea and Korea's responses. To this end the paper is composed of 6 chapters titled instruction; the current status of South China Sea sovereignty disputes; changes in US and Chinese maritime security strategies and the strategic values of the South China Sea; key issues and future prospects for US-China conflicts in the South China Sea; South Korea's security and diplomatic responses; and conclusion. The recent East Asian maritime security issue has evolved into a global issue of supremacy between the US and China, beyond conflicts over territorial disputes and demarcation among the countries in the region. China is pursuing offensive ocean policy to expand economic growth. The core of the maritime order that the United States intends to pursue is the freedom of navigation in the oceans and the maintenance of maritime access. China is making artificial islands in the South China Sea, claiming the sovereignty of these islands, building strategic bases in East Asia, and securing routes. The United States has developed several "Freedom of Navigation Operations" to neutralize the declaration of the territorial sea surrounding Chinese artificial islands. We can not be free from marine conflicts in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Regarding the South China Sea dispute, it is expected that the strategic competition and conflict between the two countries will intensify due to China's failure to make concessions of core interests and adherence to the US compliance with international norms. In the midst of conflict over the South China Sea, we need a harmonious balance between our alliance security and economic diplomacy. We must continue our efforts to strengthen the ROK-US alliance but not to make China an enemy. Considering the significant impacts of the oceans on the survival and prosperity of the nation, we must continue to develop our interest in the oceans, appropriate investments and tactical strategies.

The aim of this paper is to analyze China's naval strengthening and threat reflected in submarines, aircraft, destroyers and missile capabilities and US Navy's counter-forces. China is strengthening its naval forces in accordance with its three-step naval force build-up plan, and the introduction of Russian destroyers and submarines is a foothold for China's naval enforcement. The Chinese Navy also converted the concept of the First-Second Island Chain Defense, which it had already maintained, to the concept of maritime layer defense. Currently, the Chinese Navy maintains the concept of a Three-Maritime Layer Defense which includes the South China Sea, where artificial islands are being built by China, in the First Layer Defense and the East China Sea in the Third Layer Defense. Along with the advancement of Chinese Navy's submarines, surface vessels and aircraft's operational capabilities, ballistic and cruise missile capabilities become a major threat to the US Navy. If a crisis occurs in the East China Sea or in the Taiwan Waters, the US Navy will face more difficulties in employing the Carrier Strike Group to manage the crisis. Meanwhile, if a crisis occurs on the Korean Peninsula, it will be a burden to dispatch Carrier Strike GroupS to the East and West Seas of the Korean Peninsula. For the stable future, the US Navy should develop a strategy to respond more effectively to the Chinese Navy, which is challenging new maritime supremacy in East Asia.

As the Trump administration withdraws the Paris Climate Agreement and shows its antipathy toward free trade, the U.S.'s soft power is most likely to weaken and its behaviors could be perceived as acts to surrender the U.S. hegemonic leadership in the world stage. Hegemonic stability theory notes that the existence of a hegemonic power contributes to international stability in the sense that it provides international public goods. A lack of the U.S's leadership in international politics, however, could be recognized as its denial of a hegemonic status. Is it intentional or accidental? The U.S's denial of hegemonic roles is the byproduct of the Trump administration's "American First" policy, not the showcase of its intention to transit hegemony to others. What is noteworthy is that China targets a niche market of hegemony as the U.S. denies its roles as the international leader. Put it another way, China attempts to ride hegemony for free when the U.S. denies its hegemonic roles accidentally. Faced with a niche market of hegemony, China has begun to accelerate its national strategy to make "Chinese Dream" come true. To that end, China promised again to keep the Paris Climate Agreement and attempts to play more active its roles in Shanghai Cooperation Organization(SCO), Asia Infra Investment Bank(AIIB), and "One Belt, One Road". Despite all these efforts, the U.S. is most likely to withdraw its denial of hegemony any time soon. The U.S's resumption of Freedom of Navigation Operations(FONOPs) could be a precursor of the return to a hegemonic power's willingness. In this vein, it is noteworthy that the South China Sea serves as a quasi-war zone for hegemonic conflict.

This paper is designed to make a national strategic concept for the ROK's maritime security and to explore cooperation directions for the ROK Navy and Coast Guard in order to implement the newly-made maritime security strategic concept. As strategy is composed of three main categories(goals, ways, means), the goal of the ROK's maritime security strategy is 'Safe and Affluent Sea' and the way to realize the goal is the principle of cooperative leverage, and the means as tasks to implement the strategic concept are maritime safety, maritime security, and maritime stewardship. The concept of national fleet as used in the US is applied to promoting the cooperation between the ROK Navy and Coast Guard. Thus, under the newly-established maritime security strategic concept along with the national fleet model, followings are suggested as policy proposals for facilitating mutual cooperation between the ROK Navy and Coast Guard in dealing with not only traditional threats but also non-traditional treats at sea and from the sea as well. First, the ROK Navy and Coast Guard has been making efforts to enhance interoperability between the two sea services. However, the mutual cooperations have been focused mainly on areas on operational level rather than policy level. Therefore, the two sea services are recommended to enlarge exchanges and cooperation in policy areas. Second, there are still demands for further cooperation areas between the two sea services in command and communications. The interoperability in C2 between the two needs to be upgraded even to the areas of anti-terrorist activities ar sea, ASUW, ASW, maritime interdiction, etc. Third, mutual comparability between the two needs to be reflected in the maritime forces development to ensure the comparability in UNREP and other logistics areas. Fourth, the standardization of logistical materials and equipments is needed as a way of sustaining operational capability and logistical capacity for the ROK Navy and Coast Guard as well. Fifth, the ROK Navy and Coast Guard are recommended to participate more actively in international maritime cooperation activities such as PASSEX. Sixth, Complementary laws and regulations need further to be revised and to be newly made for collectively managing swiftly maritime accidents and natural disasters at sea.

A series of immoral conducts are repeatedly occurring by some commanders and high-ranking officers in the ROK navy. They are seriously compromising not only harmony and solidarity of the organization, but also pride and morale of members of the service. They seem to be results of the fragile ethical background of the service as well as of failures in military education and training on ethics. This paper sees backgrounds of weak ethical foundations of the navy as follows: the enduring legacies of cultural factors, such as the toxic military culture of the Japanese colonization, dark side of mariners' traditions, the sea-aversive Confucian culture, and unique characteristics in any small organization or society, etc... This paper also suggests the current ethnic systems of the navy are primarily based on responsive measures against misdeeds, rather than fundamental prescriptions for immoral behaviors, in the absence of ethical instrument for warriors. The paper also emphasizes the importance of developing character-based leadership, founded on, above all, respects for human integrity and strong sense of honor. Moreover, the importance of accountability in charging the command, as advocated by the US navy, is also stressed in order to establish a more robust ethic ground within the navy. Based on these analyses, the author proposes that in order to become a stronger and healthier fighting force, the navy needs to make continuous command efforts and organizational innovations to improve ethic principle and moral standard of the service, to strengthen ethics of naval leaders by a robust system of ethical education and training programs, and ultimately to solidify a navy culture in which moral passions and energies are spreading over.

Currently, security environmental instability is getting worse than ever in the East Asia including to Republic of Korea(ROK). Unlike several conventional issues such as maritime dispute -sometimes with islands- and competitions for getting natural resources, contemporary security dilemma issues followed by arms races among states deepens the power gap between strong and weak state within the region. It is notable that the arms races is the East Asia are mainly focused on naval power. As navy is the very possible force that influences neighboring states, submarine power is usually valued for its nature of stealth, mobile and aggression. Moreover, the submarine power is believed to be one of the highest valued weapon system since it shows actual effectiveness for influencing the other states while avoiding direct military conflicts compared to surface power. As a result, all states within the region are accelerating for getting such power these days. Japan, Most of all, is one of the leading state that aims to ensure self-survival and enlarge military influences under the US-Japan alliance by decisively supporting its power to the American containment strategy against China. In this regard, such movement surely sill influence on ROK both directly and indirectly as we sue the common field, the sea. Though, it has lots of restrictions for us to confront them with military forces as such confrontations within US-led alliances is not desirable upon considering current China and nK threats. As a result, ROK needs to limit the realm of alliance within the region while maintaining ROK-US alliance for getting national interests with both legal and justice superiority against Japan. This paper, as a result, is focused on suggesting the way to utilize submarines as a mean of naval power for both current security environments and the rising maritime threats in the East Asia. I concluded to participate ROK submarines in US-led military strategy against China by dispatching them into the East-China Sea and the North-East area of the Korean peninsula to protect both national interests and justice at the same tome. It should be one of the preemptive measure for confronting with neighboring states by utilizing strategic benefits of submarines while strengthening ROK-US alliances upon participating American Containment Strategy against China.

동북아시아지역에서 집단안보와 관련된 지역협력체가 형성되기 어려운 이유에는 먼저 체제와 이념이 다른 국가들 사이에서의 강한 지정학적 역학관계가 작동하고 있고, 두 번째로 개별국가 내부의 사회이념과 정치체제의 차이로 인한 이질성이 매우 강하며, 세 번째로 새롭게 형성되고 있는 미-중 관계의 대립적 구도가 군사안보적인 차원에서의 과도한 경쟁관계를 유발하고 있는 동시에, 네번째로 북한의 지속적인 핵과 미사일위협이 지역을 넘어 범세계적인 위협요인으로 작용하고 있으며, 다섯 번째로 장기간 미해결상태에 있는 도서 분쟁이 항시 관련국가들 사이에서의 과도한 민족주의적 갈등을 유발시키고, 이로 인한 적대적인 갈등관계가 지속되고 있는 점 등을 동시대적인 현실적 차원에서의 정치적 장애요인들로 규정해 볼 수 있다. 동시에 이런 현실적 차원에서의 정치적 장애요인들의 근원적인 발생요인으로도 평가될 수 있으며, 특히 동북아 개별국가들이 내세우고 있는 강력한 민족주의 성향과 과거사와 연관된 역사인식에 따른 문화적 이질성의 내면에 존재하는 낭만적 민족주의요소가 동북아 개별국가들 간의 신뢰형성과정을 강력하게 가로막고 있음을 지적할 수 있다. 19세기말에 동북아에 유래된 낭만적 민족주의에 대한 비교국가 차원에서의 심도 있는 분석과 이를 통한 절충점의 발견은, 역설적이지만, 세계 어느 지역보다도 극심한 갈등과 대립국면이 심화된 동북아지역 내의 국가들이 군사안보 및 정치경제차원에서의 보다 원활한 협력관계를 도모하기 위한 첫 단계로서의 공동의 장을 마련할 수 있는 주요한 동기가 될 수 있다.