• 제목/요약/키워드: Government Development Strategies

검색결과 583건 처리시간 0.021초

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

공공 서비스 수출 플랫폼을 위한 온톨로지 모형 (An Ontology Model for Public Service Export Platform)

  • 이광원;박세권;류승완;신동천
    • 지능정보연구
    • /
    • 제20권1호
    • /
    • pp.149-161
    • /
    • 2014
  • 공공 서비스의 수출의 경우 수출 절차와 대상 선정에 따른 다양한 문제가 발생하며, 공공 서비스 수출 플랫폼은 이러한 문제점들을 해결하기 위하여 사용자 중심의 유연하고, 개방형 구조의 디지털 생태계를 조성할 수 있도록 구현되어야 한다. 또한 공공서비스의 수출은 다수의 이해당사자가 참여하고 여러 단계의 과정을 거쳐야 하므로 사용자의 이해 종류와 탐색 컨설팅 협상 계약 등 수출 프로세스 단계별로 맞춤형 플랫폼 서비스 제공이 필수적이다. 이를 위해서 플랫폼 구조는 도메인과 정보의 정의 및 공유는 물론 지식화를 지원할 수 있어야 한다. 본 논문에서는 공공서비스 수출을 지원하는 플랫폼을 위한 온톨로지 모형을 제안한다. 서비스 플랫폼의 핵심 엔진은 시뮬레이터 모듈이며 시뮬레이터 모듈에서는 온톨로지를 사용하여 수출 비즈니스의 여러 컨텍스트들을 파악하고 정의하여 다른 모듈들과 공유하게 된다. 온톨로지는 공유 어휘를 통하여 개념들과 그들 간의 관계를 표현할 수 있으므로 특정 영역에서 구조적인 틀을 개발하기 위한 메타 정보를 구성하는 효과적인 도구로 잘 알려져 있다. 공공서비스 수출 플랫폼을 위한 온톨로지는 서비스, 요구사항, 환경, 기업, 국가 등 5가지 카테고리로 구성되며 각각의 온톨로지는 요구분석과 사례 분석을 통하여 용어를 추출하고 온톨로지의 식별과 개념적 특성을 반영하는 구조로 설계한다. 서비스 온톨로지는 목적효과, 요구조건, 활동, 서비스 분류 등으로 구성되며, 요구사항 온톨로지는 비즈니스, 기술, 제약으로 구성 된다. 환경 온톨로지는 사용자, 요구조건, 활동으로, 기업 온톨로지는 활동, 조직, 전략, 마케팅, 시간으로 구성되며, 국가 온톨로지는 경제, 사회기반시설, 법, 제도, 관습, 인프라, 인구, 위치, 국가전략 등으로 구성된다. 수출 대상 서비스와 국가의 우선순위 리스트가 생성되면 갭(gap) 분석과 매칭 알고리즘 등의 시뮬레이터를 통하여 수출기업과 수출지원 프로그램과의 시스템적 연계가 이루어진다. 제안하는 온톨로지 모형 기반의 공공서비스 수출지원 플랫폼이 구현되면 이해당사자 모두에게 도움이 되며 특히 정보 인프라와 수출경험이 부족한 중소기업에게 상대적으로 더 큰 도움이 될 것이다. 또한 개방형 디지털 생태계를 통하여 이해당사자들이 정보교환, 협업, 신사업 기획 등의 기회를 만들 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.

재상업복무교역중적매매관계중상호신임대관계적효적영향(在商业服务交易中的买卖关系中相互信任对关系绩效的影响) (The Effect of Mutual Trust on Relational Performance in Supplier-Buyer Relationships for Business Services Transactions)

  • Noh, Jeon-Pyo
    • 마케팅과학연구
    • /
    • 제19권4호
    • /
    • pp.32-43
    • /
    • 2009
  • 信任在心理学, 经济学, 社会学中已被广泛研究, 其重要性不仅在市场营销中被强调, 在一般商业原则中也被强调. 供应商和买家之间的关系与过去不同, 过去的关系需要相当大的私人网络优势, 并可能涉及不道德的商业行为. 而在以工业营销成功的为核心的二十一世纪激烈的全球竞争中, 供应商和买家之间的关系是伙伴关系. 在相互合作的高级别信任的基础上, 通过交换的关系, 这会给买家和供应商带来长期的利益, 竞争力增强和交易成本的降低以及其他福利. 尽管现有的研究有信任的重要性, 但是在购买与供应关系中却忽视了信任的作用, 也没有系统地分析信任对关系的影响. 因此, 深入研究, 确定买家和商业服务供应商之间信任和关系绩效之间的联系是绝对需要的. 本研究中的商业服务, 包括那些支持制造业, 正作为下一代经济增长的引擎而吸引着人们的注意. 韩国政府已选择其作为制造业发展的战略领域. 由于商业服务开放市场的需求日趋激烈, 商业服务业的竞争力应该比以往得到更多的提倡. 本研究的目的是探索相互信任对买家和供应商之间的关系绩效的影响. 具体来说, 本研究在商业服务交易中提出了一个关于信任-关系绩效的理论模型, 并实证检验根据模型而提出的假设. 这项研究表明, 研究结果有战略意义. 本研究通过多种方法收集经验数据. 这些方法包括通过电话, 邮件和面试. 作为样本的公司是在韩国供应和购买商业服务的以知识为本的公司. 本研究收集的是二进的基础数据. 每个样本公司对包括购买公司及其相应的供应公司. 并跟踪调查每个公司对的相互信任. 本研究为商业服务的买卖双方提出了信任-关系绩效的模型. 该模型由信任和它的前因和后果. 买家的信任分为对供应公司的信任和对销售人员的信任. 根据Doney 和Cannon (1997)的研究我们在个人水平和组织水平上观察信任. 通常情况下, 买方是信任的受体, 但这项研究我们建议以供应商为观察受体. 因此, 它独特的关注了双边角度的知觉风险. 换言之, 供应商和买家一样, 是信任的主体, 因为交易通常是双边的. 从这个角度来看, 供应商对买家信任和买方对供货商的信赖一样重要. 供应商的信任从某种程度上受它信任的买方公司和买家的影响. 这种使用个人水平和组织水平的信任分类是根据Doney 和Cannon (1997)的研究. 信任影响供应商的选择, 这是一项双向放的工作. 供应商们积极参与供应商选择过程中, 和买家密切的一起工作. 此外, 该过程从某种程度上受每一方信任的合作伙伴的影响. 挑选过程包括一些步骤: 识别, 信息检索, 供应商选择和绩效评价. 作为这一进程的结果, 买家和供应商都进行绩效评估, 并就这些结果为基础, 采取有形或无形的纠正行动. 本研究中使用的关于信任的测量问项是根据Mayer, Davis 和 Schoorman (1995) 以及Mayer和Davis (1999)的研究发展起来的. 根据他们的建议, 有关信任的三个方面的研究包括有能力, 善和完整. 根据商业服务这个背景我们调整了原来的问题. 例如, 如 "他/她的专业能力" 已被改为 "当我们讨论我们的产品时销售人员表现出专业能力. "这项研究使用的测量问项不同于在以往的研究中使用的问项(Rotter 1967; Sullivan和Peterson 1982; Dwyer和Oh 1987. 本研究中有关信任的前因后果的测量问项是根据Doney和Cannon (1997)的研究为基础制定的. 根据商业服务这个背景我们调整了原来的问题. 特别是, 问题被设计为对买家和供应商以解决下列因素: 信誉 (诚信, 客户服务, 良好意愿), 市场地位 (公司规模, 市场份额, 在行业中的地位), 愿意定制(产品, 过程, 交付), 信息共享(专有信息, 个人信息), 愿意保持良好关系, 认为专业, 权威授权, 买方与卖方的相似性, 以及接触频率. 作为信任相应的变量, 我们对关系绩效进行了测试. 关系绩效分为有形的影响, 无形影响, 和副作用. 有形的影响包括财务业绩;无形的影响, 包括关系的改善, 网络开发, 以及内部员工的满意度;副作用包括既不是有形影响也不是无形影响的影响. 我们联系了350对公司, 105对公司答复了我们. 由于不完整我们删除了5对公司, 105对公司被用于数据分析. 用于数据分析的回应率为30%(三百五十零分之一百零五), 高于工业营销的平均回复比率. 至于回复的公司的特点, 大多数的公司运作的商业服务既为买方(85.4%)也为供应商(81.8%). 大部分买家是做消费品贸易(76%), 而供应商的大部分(70%)是做工业品贸易. 这可能意味着买家的过程是购入材料, 部件和组件从而生产消费品成品. 正如他们对他们与合作伙伴关系的长度的报告表示, 供应商比买家有更长的商业关系. 假设1测试买方-供应方特点对信任的影响. 销售人员的专业度(t=2.070, p<0.05)和权威授权(t=2.328, p<0.05)积极影响买方对供应方的信任. 另一方面, 权威授权(t=2.192, p<0.05)积极影响供应方对买方的信任. 对买方和供应方来说, 权威授权的程度对保持对彼此的信任有关键作用. 假设2测试买卖双方关系特点对信任的影响. 买家倾向于信任供应方, 因为供应方总是尽全力联系买方(t=2.212, p<0.05)这种倾向性在供应方方面也表现得很强(t=2.591, p<0.01). 另一方面, 供应商对买方的信任是由于供应商感知买家与自己的相似性(t=2.702, p<0.01). 这一发现证实了Crosby, Evans, 和Cowles(1990)的研究结果. 他们的结果表明供应方和买方通过商务或私务的定期会议来建立彼此的联系. 假设3测试信任对感知风险的影响. 结果表明无论对买方还是供应方, 信任越低, 感知风险就越大(买方: t =-6.621, p<0.01; 供应方: t=-2.437, p<0.05). 有趣的是, 这一趋势已被证明对买方更强. 这种较高水平的感知风险的一个可能的解释是在商业服务交易中买方通常比供应方感知到更大的风险. 为此, 有必要对供应商对买方实施减少风险的战略. 假设4测试信任对信息搜集. 根据结果, 对供应方和买方, 与预期相反, 信任取决于他们合作伙伴的名誉(买方t=2.929, p<0.01; 供应方t=2.711, p<0.05). 这一发现表明, 具有良好信誉的供应商往往是可信的. 以往的经验并没有显示出任何与买家或供应商信任的重要关系. 假设5测试信任对供应方/买方选择的影响. 与买方不同, 当供应方认为以往与买方的交易重要时, 供应方倾向信任买方(t=2.913 p<0.01). 但是, 本研究并没有现实资源忠诚和买方对供应方的信任之间有显著关系. 假设6测试的是信任对关系绩效的影响. 对买方和供应方, 当财务表现被报告提高时, 他们比较信任他们的合作伙伴(买方: t=2.301, p<0.05;供应方: t=3.692, p<0.01). 有趣的是, 这种趋势在供应方比较明显. 类似的, 当竞争力被报告提高时, 买卖双方比较信任他们的合作伙伴(买方t=3.563, p<0.01 ; 供应方t=3.042, p<0.01). 对供应方来说, 当对买方信任时效率和生产力会提高(t=2.673, p<0.01). 其他绩效指标与信任没有显著关系. 这项研究结果有一定的战略意义. 首先和最重要的是, 以信任为基础的交易对供应商和买家而言都是有益的. 根据研究证实, 通过努力建立和保持相互信任可以使财务表现提高. 同样, 可以通过同样的努力提高竞争力. 第二, 以信任为基础的交易能够减少购买情况中的感知风险. 这对供应商和买家都有启示. 人们普遍认为, 在一个高度参与的采购情况中买家感知到更高的风险. 为了减少风险, 以往的研究已建议供应商制定降低风险的策略. 而本研究的特点是从双边角度关注知觉风险. 换言之, 供应商也容易存在风险, 特别是当他们提供的服务, 需要非常先进的技术, 操作和维护. 因此, 购买者和供应商必须一起密切合作解决问题. 因此, 相互信任在问题解决过程中起着关键作用. 第三, 在这项研究中发现, 销售人员有更多的授权, 他或她越被信任. 这一发现从战术角度看是非常重要的. 建立信任是一个长期的任务, 然而, 当互信尚未开发, 供应商能够通过授权销售人员做出某些决定来克服遇到的问题, 这一结论也适用于供应商.

  • PDF