• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.13
• /
• pp.687-738
• /
• 2016

To prepare for the complicated international relationship regarding Korean Peninsula after reunification, this thesis started off with the awareness that Unified Korea should build its international posture and national security at an early stage by determining its appropriate military strength for independent defense and military strategies that Unified Korea should aim. The main theme of this thesis is 'The research on appropriate military strength of the Unified Korean military'. To derive appropriate military strength of Unified Korea, this research focuses on conflict scenario and relative balance strategy based on potential threats posed by neighboring countries, and this is the part that differentiates this research from other researches. First of all, the main objective of the research is to decide appropriate military strength for Unified Korea to secure defense sufficiency. For this, this research will decide efficient military strategy that Unified Korea should aim. Than by presuming the most possible military conflict scenario, this research will judge the most appropriate military strength for Unified Korea to overcome the dispute. Second, after deciding appropriate military strength, this research will suggest how to operate presumed military strength in each armed force. The result of this thesis is as in the following. First, Unified Korea should aim 'relative balance strategy'. 'Relative balance strategy' is a military strategy which Unified Korea can independently secure defense sufficiency by maintaining relative balance when conflicts occur between neighboring countries. This strategy deters conflicts in advance by relative balance of power in certain time and place. Even if conflict occurs inevitably, this strategy secures initiative. Second, when analyzing neighboring countries interest and strategic environment after unification, the possibility of all-out war will be low in the Korean Peninsula because no other nation wants the Korean Peninsula to be subordinated to one single country. Therefore appropriate military strength of the Unified Korean military would be enough when Unified Korea can achieve relative balance in regional war or limited war. Third, Northeast Asia is a region where economic power and military strength is concentrated. Despite increasing mutual cooperation in the region, conflicts and competition to expand each countries influence is inherent. Japan is constantly enhancing their military strength as they aim for normal statehood. China is modernizing their military strength as they aspire to become global central nation. Russia is also enhancing their military strength in order to hold on to their past glory of Soviet Union as a world power. As a result, both in quality and quantity, the gap between military strength of Unified Korea and each neighboring countries is enlarged at an alarming rate. Especially in the field of air-sea power, arms race is occurring between each nation. Therefore Unified Korea should be equipped with appropriate military strength in order to achieve relative balance with each threats posed by neighboring countries. Fourth, the most possible conflicts between Unified Korea and neighboring countries could be summarized into four, which are Dokdo territorial dispute with Japan, Leodo jurisdictional dispute with China, territorial dispute concerning northern part of the Korea Peninsula with China and disputes regarding marine resources and sea routes with Russia. Based on those conflict scenarios, appropriate military strength for Unified Korea is as in the following. When conflict occurs with Japan regarding Dokdo, Japan is expected to put JMSDF Escort Flotilla 3, one out of four of its Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Escort Fleet, which is based in Maizuru and JMSDF Maizuru District. To counterbalance this military strength, Unified Korea needs one task fleet, comprised with three task flotilla. In case of jurisdictional conflict with China concerning Leodo, China is expected to dispatch its North Sea fleet, one out of three of its naval fleet, which is in charge of the Yellow Sea. To response to this military action, Unified Korea needs one task fleet, comprised with three task flotilla. In case of territorial dispute concerning northern part of the Korean Peninsula with China, it is estimated that out of seven Military Region troops, China will dispatch two Military Region troops, including three Army Groups from Shenyang Military Region, where it faces boarder with the Korean Peninsula. To handle with this military strength, Unified Korea needs six corps size ground force strength, including three corps of ground forces, two operational reserve corps(maneuver corps), and one strategic reserve corps(maneuver corps). When conflict occurs with Russia regarding marine resources and sea routes, Russia is expected to send a warfare group of a size that includes two destroyers, which is part of the Pacific Fleet. In order to balance this strength, Unified Korea naval power requires one warfare group including two destroyers. Fifth, management direction for the Unified Korean military is as in the following. Regarding the ground force management, it would be most efficient to deploy troops in the border area with china for regional and counter-amphibious defense. For the defense except the border line with china, the most efficient form of force management would be maintaining strategic reserve corps. The naval force should achieve relative balance with neighboring countries when there is maritime dispute and build 'task fleet' which can independently handle long-range maritime mission. Of the three 'task fleet', one task fleet should be deployed at Jeju base to prepare for Dokdo territorial dispute and Leodo jurisdictional dispute. Also in case of regional conflict with china, one task fleet should be positioned at Yellow Sea and for regional conflict with Japan and Russia, one task fleet should be deployed at East Sea. Realistically, Unified Korea cannot possess an air force equal to neither Japan nor China in quantity. Therefore, although Unified Korea's air force might be inferior in quantity, they should possess the systematic level which Japan or China has. For this Unified Korea should build air base in island areas like Jeju Island or Ullenong Island to increase combat radius. Also to block off infiltration of enemy attack plane, air force needs to build and manage air bases near coastal areas. For landing operation forces, Marine Corps should be managed in the size of two divisions. For island defense force, which is in charge of Jeju Island, Ulleung Island, Dokdo Island and five northwestern boarder island defenses, it should be in the size of one brigade. Also for standing international peace keeping operation, it requires one brigade. Therefore Marine Corps should be organized into three divisions. The result of the research yields a few policy implications when building appropriate military strength for Unified Korea. First, Unified Korea requires lower number of ground troops compared to that of current ROK(Republic of Korea) force. Second, air-sea forces should be drastically reinforced. Third, appropriate military strength of the Unified Korean military should be based on current ROK military system. Forth, building appropriate military strength for Unified Korea should start from today, not after reunification. Because of this, South Korea should build a military power that can simultaneously prepare for current North Korea's provocations and future threats from neighboring countries after reunification. The core of this research is to decide appropriate military strength for Unified Korea to realize relative balance that will ensure defense sufficiency from neighboring countries threats. In other words, this research should precisely be aware of threats posed by neighboring countries and decide minimum level of military strength that could realize relative balance in conflict situation. Moreover this research will show the path for building appropriate military strength in each armed force.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.41
• /
• pp.30-51
• /
• 2017

Neighboring powers in the Korean Peninsula have started to develop and operate aircraft carriers or equivalent forces to cope with rising North Korean nuclear and missile threats and also to show its national might. For example, the United States has added a aircraft carrier from the 3rd fleet to western pacific theater of operation, while Peoples Republic of China is undergoing operational test of Liaoning as well as preparing for christening of its 2nd aircraft carrier. Japan is flexing its muscle as well by deploying Izumo capable of operating F-35B to Southeast Asia to participate in multilateral exercises starting this year. It is a high time to know more about aircraft carriers or similar types in terms of maritime strategy and history. The U.S. has had by far the vast amount of experiences in utilizing aircraft carrier that it would be beneficial for us to examine U.S. perspectives and its application in the Korean Peninsula. It will provide us with insights to understand and predict what it would be like in times of crisis in the Korean Peninsula in the perspective of aircraft carrier's involvement. This paper intends to show some aspects of future conflicts in the Korean Peninsula and how the ROK Navy can best be ready for such situation. For research purpose, U.S. maritime strategy has been developed in stages ; establishment phase, WWI phase, WWII phase, Cold war phase, post Cold war phase. Each phase includes such factors as threats, strategic concept, applications, and ways to improve maritime strategy. Finally, the role of aircraft carrier based on past history as well as future conflict shines the importance to have power projection capabilities for the ROK Navy. The intrinsic nature of the navy in the world is to project power ashore just as history proved it.

• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.8
• /
• pp.239-270
• /
• 2010

This thesis is to make an appropriate national defense policy of Republic of Korea through studying the Hegemony Strategy of United States. I searched the theory of hegemony. The hegemony was differently defined by the point of time and region. The strong power nations with the hegemony have been making efforts to maintain their hegemony everytime. I have conclusion that the presence of hegemony once emerged, it brought regional stability in place whether it is coercive or beneficial. The stability and instability of international order IS not exclusively dependent on hegemony. Even if the safety of hegemony cannot guarantee absolute stability of international order, there IS on doubt that the hegemony has enormous impact on that. According to the hegemonic theory, the history of mankind equals to the history of rising and falling hegemony. The international order was changed as the hegemony changes. The United States has been making efforts to maintain her global hegemony during the post cold-war era as well. Taking all these into consideration, relevant military strategy direction able to pursue national interest is that to make up for the relative weakness in the strategic environment. South Korea have to prepare security policy response as following. First, South Korea should build the military force equipped with advanced weapons in military technology sector and solidify military diplomatic relation able to form cooperative relation in wartime. Second, South Korea should make solid Alliance of Korea and U.S. Third, develop and maintain multilateral security cooperation of East Asia. Forth, we could realize that there are means that can neutralize opponent's strong point by seeking one or two and more asymmetry in the aspect of strategy, tactics, and means through asymmetric strategy. Than the military force of South Korea should develop into a force that is able to overcome to the traditional North Korea's threat and new type of conflicts. And the force should have sufficient strength and be deployed to effectively defend the Korean Peninsula. So, we need to establish a denial and defense system against any hostile neighboring country. Therefore, ROK military forces preparing for the future should try to construct a future military power to gradually establish enough strength for self-defense to prepare for a uncertain security environment and when the Korean Peninsula is unified in a future.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.46
• /
• pp.159-204
• /
• 2020

This study is written to bring the proposal forward for the direction of south korean naval force. The political situation and the circumstance of the world, especially in the area of Pacific Ocean, are changing very rapidly. North Korea has been always the conventional existing intimidator for South Korea since the 6·25-War. Additionally, the strengthening movements of the national defense, which is easily noticed from China and Russia, is also an other part of intimidating countries against South Korea. Those three mentioned countries are continually developing the asymmetrical warfare systems, for example a strategic nuclear weapon. Since the Obama Administration, the Asia-Pacific Rebalancing-Strategy has been changed as an East Asian foreign policy. Nowadays, Trump Administration renamed the 'United States Pacific-Command' to 'United States Indo-Pacific Command'. The purpose of this is not only letting India to participate in american alliance, but also reducing an economic burden, which is often mentioned in USA. West Germany was located in the very similar geopolitical position during the Cold War just like South Korea these days. And that's why the strategy of West German Navy is worthy of notice for south korean naval force to decide its suitable strategy. Most of all, the two most important things to refer to this study are the plan to expand naval air force and the realistic political stand for us to take it. In conclusion, I laid an emphasis on maintenance of 'green-water-navy'. instead of selecting the strategy as a 'blue-water-navy'. The reason I would like to say, is that south korean navy is not available to hold the unnecessary war potential, just like Aircraft-Carrier. However, this is not meaning to let the expansion of naval force carelessly. We must search the best solution in order to maintain the firm peace within the situation. To fulfill this concept, it is mostly very important to maintain the stream of laying down a keel of destroyers, submarines and air-defense-missile, as well as the hight-tech software system, taking a survey of 4th industrial revolution. Research and development for the best solution of future aircraft by south korean navy is likewise necessary. Besides, we must also set the international diplomatic flexibly. As well as maintaining the relationship with US Forces, it is also very important to improve the relationship with other potential allied nation.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.42
• /
• pp.318-346
• /
• 2017

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.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.34
• /
• pp.236-261
• /
• 2014

The future role of nuclear extended deterrence in the security alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea is currently a central concern. The gradually lessening role of reliance on nuclear weapons in US security policies broadly, combined with increasing North Korean nuclear capabilities and belligerence, raise fresh questions about the sufficiency of the "nuclear umbrella" as a pillar of the US-ROK defense posture. This article addresses the current and future role of nuclear extended deterrence in Korea in this dynamic context. The article reviews the longstanding trend toward reducing the overall size of the US nuclear arsenal, and assesses developments in US-ROK outlooks toward extended deterrence in response to the Obama administration's nuclear policies and North Korea's recent smaller-scale aggressions. The analysis finds that the challenges of deterrence credibility and allied reassurance are difficult and long-term. The analysis explains how these challenges emerge less from a shrinking US numerical arsenal size than from the sufficiency of specific nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities to meet emerging smaller-scale threats. The analysis also highlights the importance of broader strategic and political interaction in sustaining allied confidence in any joint security posture. The evaluation concludes that a strong US-ROK alliance relationship can be maintained while the size of the US nuclear arsenal continues to decline, in part because nuclear weapons in any deployment configuration are relatively ineffective means for deterring smaller-scale aggression. Nevertheless, continuing adjustment of the US-ROK extended deterrence posture to the evolving, complex and uncertain Korean peninsula security environment will remain an ongoing challenge. Finally, the article encourages further examination of the potential specific role ROK maritime forces might serve in enhancing deterrence of smaller-scale threats while minimizing risks of conflict escalation.