• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.333-370
• /
• 2017

북한의 SLBM 위협이 대한민국 안보에 미치는 영향에 대해 그동안 많은 논의가 있어 왔지만, 북의 잠수함에서 발사하는 탄도미사일이 보유한 진정한 위협에 대한 인식은 아직도 부족한 듯하다. 그 이유는 대부분의 논의가 북 SLBM 기술의 성숙도와 완성시기 등 기술적 수준에 관심이 치우쳐져 있기 때문이다. 핵전략과 억제전략의 관점에서 본다면 북한의 SLBM 개발은 한미동맹의 제1격에 대한 완벽한 제2격 능력 보유에 그 핵심이 있다. 즉 향후 개발될 북한의 SLBM은 평양 김정은 정권의 생존을 보장할 직접적이고 핵심적인 전력이 될 것이다. 이는 궁극적으로 한미 군사동맹과 북한의 현 군사력 균형을 깨뜨리고 앞으로 북의 군사도발 가능성을 더욱 높이는 결과를 가지고 올 것이다. 북의 핵전략은 현재 확증보복(assured retaliation) 단계로 발전하고 있으며, 결국에는 전쟁에 사용될 전술적 핵무기 능력(war-fighting capability)을 갖게 될 것이다. 이에 대한민국 해군은 우리의 강점을 활용하여 적의 약점을 공략할 수 있는 상쇄전략(offset strategy)을 개발하여야 한다. 북한의 현 제한된 잠수함 기술력과 대잠작전 능력을 고려할 때 한국해군은 수중영역에서의 공세적 대잠전(offensive ASW) 개념을 보다 발전시켜야만 할 것이다. 이는 미 해군이 냉전기간 중 소련해군 핵추진전략잠수함(SSBN) 대응을 위해 발전시킨 전략대잠전(strategic ASW) 개념에서 교훈을 얻을 수 있다. 미 해군은 소련 해군의 SSBN 을 억제하기 위해 공세적인 전략대잠전을 수행했고 그 결과 소련해군은 자국의 연안에서 벗어나지 못하는 요새전략(bastion strategy)를 추구할 수밖에 없었다. 당시 미 해군의 전략대잠전은 공격잠수함(SSN), 대잠초계기, 수중 탐지체계(SOSUS), 공격기뢰 등의 전력으로 구성되었다. 따라서 북한 SLBM 에 대한 한국해군의 전략개념은 북의 핵전략(제 2 격능력)을 억제하는 방향으로 정립되어야 하며, 이를 위한 해군력 건설은 대잠전 능력 강화에 초점을 맞추어야 한다. 우리 해군은 장기적으로 핵추진잠수함을 비롯하여 성능이 향상된 대잠초계기, 한반도 해역을 중심으로 한 미 해군의 SOSUS 와 유사한 수중탐지장비 그리고 장시간 수중작전이 가능한 무인잠수정(UUV)을 도입해야만 한다. 단기적으로는 현재 추진되고 있는KAMD 체계에 SM-3 를 보유한 이지스함을 포함시켜, 북 SLBM 에 대한 요격능력을 강화해야 할 것이다. 한미동맹은 북 핵전략의 핵심전력인 SLBM 개발에 대한 위협인식을 공유해야만 하다. 작전적 수준에서는 양국 해군 간 대잠전 및 대유도탄전 작전운용성 증대에 우선순위를 두고, 기존의 한미 간 연합작전능력 강화뿐 아니라 위기시를 대비하여 미일 간 구축되어 있는 대잠전 및 대유도탄전 능력도 활용할 필요가 있을 것이다.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.16 no.6_1
• /
• pp.3-13
• /
• 2016

We take it for granted that strong sides defeat weaker counterparts, while predicting the outcome of the battles. But in modern war, we can find plenty of evidence that weak sides won against the strong. This phenomenon can be understood logically by the fourth-generation war theory. the North Korean does not give up its unification strategy, which is unification by force, even though its inferior power. It is continuing various political, social and military levels of provocations toward both the international community and South Korea. Recently, North Korea did nuclear test, launched ICBM test, provoked the DMZ, and expecting to continue the provocations of the fourth-generation war level. We have to understand the nature of North Korea's fourth-generation war threats and provocations that it is focusing on. Based on this, have a new understanding of the value of the Homeland Defense Reservists as fundamental measures as the fourth-generation war threat and supplement related systems. We can firmly refuse the balance of power and power shift of the Korean Peninsula through improved Homeland Defense Reservists. As the expected North Korea's the fourth-generation war threats, our Homeland Defense Reservists is a firm will of conduct war, and political-social-economic-military means, it is possible to display as the best alternative.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.69-96
• /
• 2019

This paper is written to suggest several recommendations for South Korea to deter and defend North Korean nuclear threat, when North Korea does not seem to give up its nuclear weapons and the US's extended deterrence including the nuclear umbrella could remain uncertain. For this purpose, it explains key options regarding nuclear deterrence and defense by non-nuclear weapon state. It evaluates the current status of South Korean non-nuclear preparedness against North Korean nuclear threat and provides some recommendations to improve the preparedness. As a result, this paper concluded that South Korean non-nuclear preparedness against North Korean nuclear threat was not that reliable. The preparedness has weakened since the South Korean effort to denuclearize North Korea through negotiations in 2018. In this sense, South Korea could have serious problems in protecting its people from North Korean nuclear threat if the US promise of extended deterrence is not implemented. South Korea should focus on its decapitation operation to North Korean highest leaders in case of North Korean nuclear attack based on a minimal deterrence concept. It should be prepared to conduct preventive strikes instead of preemptive strikes due to North Korea's development of solid fuel ballistic missiles. It should integrate its Ballistic Missile Defense with that of the US forces in Korea. South Korea should make a sincere effort for nuclear civil defense including construction of nuclear shelters.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.273-302
• /
• 2015

The term "peaceful uses of outer space" in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty appears in official government statements and multilateral outer space related treaties. However, the examination of the state practice leads to the conclusion that this term is still without an authoritative definition. As far as the meaning of 'peaceful use' in international law is concerned the same phrases in the UN Charter, the 1963 Treaty of Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere in Outer Space and Under Water, the 1956 Statute of IAEA, the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1972 United Nations Conference of the Human Environment were analysed As far as the meaning of 'peaceful uses of outer space' is concerned the same phrases the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty and the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques(ENMOD) were studied. According to Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space treaty, states shall not place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies repeats in Article III much of the Outer Space Treaty. This article prohibits the threat or use of force or any other hostile act on the moon and the use of the moon to commit such an act in relation to the earth or to space objects. This adds IN principle nothing to the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty relating to military space activities. The 1977 ENMOD refers to peaceful purposes in the preamble and in Article III. As far as the UN Resolutions are concerned, the 1963 Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exp1oration and Use of Outer Space, the 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space(NPS) were studied. And as far the Soft Laws are concerned the 2008 Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapon in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects(PPWT), the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Prolifiration(HCoC) and 2012 Draft International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities(ICoC) were studied.

• Korea and Global Affairs
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2017

This study speculates on responses to the nuclear threats of North Korea and mutual assistance and cooperation between South Korea, the U.S. and China for the unification of the Korean Peninsula. As for the North Koreas nuclear issue and unification of the Korean Peninsula, South Korea is the subject of national division, the U.S. is a responsible country in international issues and does not have diplomatic ties with North Korea. China is a traditional socialist nation and a supporter of North Korea. As North Korea's strategic weapons including nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are international issues, to defend against Kim Jung-Eun's unexpected acts, the three countries should actively cooperate with each other and develop countermeasures. However, with respect to the road map of the North Koreas issue, there are subtle differences between the U.S. and China in recognition of and sanctions against North Korea as a resolution of the U..N. Security Council. The U.S. has continued a deterrence policy and sanctions against North Korea based on joint threats between South Korea and the U.S. while China has showed a negative position in the process of solving the North Korean nuclear issue because of the unstable security derived from the U.S. 's intervention in the Korean peninsula. North Korea should change its diplomatic policy in a more concrete way towards world peace although it has continued trade of strategic weapons with Middle Eastern countries to maintain its political system. For example, to restart the summit talks and open multilateral security channels. Although the issue of unification of the Korean peninsula should be resolved by South and North Korea themselves, it is strange that South and North Korea depend on the logic of powerful countries for the resolution of a national problem. As for North Koreas nuclear and the Unification issues, peaceful solutions presented by South Korea seem more persuasive than the solution presented by North Korea which did not secure any international support. However, South Korea, the U.S. and China need to develop uni-directional two-tract strategies for sanctions against North Korea and talks with North Korea for peace on the Korean peninsula, and should continue to support the economic independence of North Korea.