1-전시억제이론-류기현외.hwp

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1-전시억제이론-류기현외.hwp"

보성 묵
5 years ago
Views:

1 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과 한반도적용 류기현 *, 조홍일 **, 차명환 *** 1) Ⅰ. 서론 Ⅱ. 억제이론과한반도적용의한계 Ⅲ. 제한핵전전시억제 Ⅳ. 결론 Abstract Intra-War Deterrence Theory and its Application for Korean Peninsular This study suggests theoretical approaches that give a supplement explanation about the application of deterrence theory to the Korean Peninsula situation. The traditional deterrence theory focuses on preventing the escalation of nuclear war by preventing nuclear use before a war. However, there has been insufficient discussions on the risk of nuclear use during a war. Countries with small- and medium-sized nuclear power are emerging, and nuclear power is proliferating. It calls for a doctrinal shift suitable for achieving limited goals through nuclear use during a war. In this study, we compare the traditional deterrence theory with the intra-war deterrence theory and present the possibility of limited war on the Korean Peninsula. Key Words : Intra-war Deterrence, Limited Nuclear War, Escalation Dominance, Deterrence Strategy *,, aim7@kida.re.kr **,, hongilcho@kida.re.kr ***,, mhcha0509@kida.re.kr

2 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ) Ⅰ. 서론 (Brodie, 1959; Knorr & Read, 1962; Schelling, 1960; Snyder, 1961, Jervis, 1984), (Pre-War Deterrence).. /,,. 1) (Nuclear Taboo) (Trannenwald, 2007). (Deterrence) (, 2013)..? (Acceptable)?. / / 1) (Tradition of non-use). 10

3 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 (Schulte, 2012)., /, / (Terrill, 2009).. 2), (, 2013). /,., 3) (Freedman, 2014),. (Durkalec, 2015).,. 4) 2), (Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon). 3) TV. ( : CNN ) 4) / 11

4 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ).,,...,.. Ⅱ. 억제이론과한반도적용의한계 1. 억제이론일반. (Huth, 1999). 2 ( ) 5).. 5) /,.,,,, (Flexible Response),., 12

5 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용,. (Minimum Deterrence) (Mutual Assured Destruction). (First Strike),,. (Myrdal, 1976; Nitze, 1977)., MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction), (Nathan & Joyner, 2009). MAD,., (Nitze, 1977). 69 1/5~1/4 1/2~1/3. 6) /. 6) Def. Department Annual Report (1969),, (20 ). 13

6 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 )..,. (Minimum Credible Deterrence) (Existential Deterrence),. (No first use) 2 (Kulkarni & Sinha, 2011),.,, (Subrahmanyam, 1999)., (Bundy, 1983). (, 2016).,.,., 7). 14

7 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 2. 한반도에서평시억제개념의제한점 2,..,.., 2..,., - (, 2016), /.. 8) (Steinbruner, 1982).,.,,. 7).,,,. 8),,. 15

8 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 )., (Kennedy, 1983) (Percival, 1993).. (Green, 1966).,.,. ( ).. 20kt (, 2016) 6 50kt 9) (Albright, 2015). (Balance of Terror). 10), 9) 6 50kt.( :, ) 16

9 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용.. (Nathan & Joyner, 2009).. 2 /,.., 1. 11), / (Myrdal, 1976; Patrick, 2003),. Ⅲ. 제한핵전과전시억제. 10) 100..,. 11) Five myths about nuclear weapons. 17

10 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ),., 12)..,,...,. 1. 제한전과제한핵전. 13), (Osgood, 1979). 2 (Brodie, 1954; Osgood, 1979) ( ) (Kissinger, 1957; Ragavan, 2001). (limited nuclear war) (Ragavan, 2001),., 12). 13),. 18

11 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 (Singh, 1999),., / 14),.,.,,.,.,.,, /.,.,, (Percival, 1993). (Jackson, 2015), 14). 19

12 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ). 15) 16).,. 17) 18). 2. 한반도제한핵전의형태 /.. 15),, 16) ( ) ). 18). 20

13 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 가. 북한의전시핵사용을통한확전지배 (Escalation Dominance) 19), (De-escalation) (Escalation) (Warden, 2017).,, (Jackson, 2015)., (Warden, 2017). (De-escalation),.,....,. 19) Escalation Dominance,,. 21

14 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ) 나. 북한의확전지배를위한상황통제 < 그림 1> 확전지배를위한상황통제의 3가지측면 < 1> Morgan et al.(2008). (Vertical Escalation), (Horizontal Escalation), (Political Escalation)..,. (Warden, 2017).,,. 22

15 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용. Khan(1960).,.,,.,.,, (Epstein, 1983).,,..,

16 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ).. 3. 전시억제 (Jackson, 2015; Warden, 2017).,. (Terrill, 2009)....., (Posen, 1982).,, (Morgan, 2008)..,. 24

17 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용....,.,. 1, DIE..,.,..,,. Posen(1982),,., /.. 25

18 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ) Ⅳ. 결론 (military adventurism).,.,. /.,..,. DIE.,.,

19 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 논문접수 : 논문수정 : 게재확정 : 참고문헌. (2016).,., (2016).,., 6.. (2016). 4. KIDA, (2013).. KIDA, (2013).,, NLL DNA.. Albright, D. (2015). Future Directions in the DPRK's nuclear weapons program: three scenarios for North Korea s Nuclear Future Series. US-Korea Institute at SAIS. Brodie, B. (1973). War and Politics. New York: Macmillan.. (1954). Unlimited weapons and limited war. the reporter, 2(9). pp (1959). Strategy in the Missile Age. Princeton University Press. Bundy, M. (1983). the Bishops and the Bomb. in the New York Review of Books. Durkalec, J. (2015). Nuclear-Backed Little Green Men : Nuclear Messaging in the Ukraine crisis. Special Report. The Polish Institute of International Affairs. Epstein, J. M. (1983). Horizontal escalation: sour notes on a recurrent theme. International Security, Vol 8, No 3. Huth, P.K. (1999). Deterrence and international conflict: Empirical findings and theoretical debate. Annual Review of Political Science, 2. Freedman, L. (2014). Ukraine and the art of limited war. Global Politics and Strategy, Dec-Jan 56(6). Myrdal, A. (1976). The game of disarmament: How the United States and Russia run the arms race. New York: Pantheon Books. 27

20 국방정책연구제 33 권제 3 호 2017 년가을 ( 통권제 117 호 ) Busch, Nathan E. and Daniel H. Joyner, eds. (2009). Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Future of International Nonproliferation Policy. University of Georgia Press. Green, P. (1966). Deadly Logic: the theory of nuclear deterrence. Ohio State University Press. Jackson, V. (2015). Alliance Military Strategy in the shadow of north korea s nuclear future. North Korea s Nuclear Future Series. US-Korea Institute at SAIS. Jervis, R. (1984). The Illogic of American Nuclear Revolution. Cornell University Press. Khan, H. (1960). On thermonuclear war. Princeton University Press. Knorr, K. and Read, T. (1962). Limited Strategic War. Princeton University Press. Kulkarni, T. and Sinha, A. (2011). India s credible minimum deterrence, a decade later. IPCS Issue Brief, No 179. Kennedy, K. C. (1983). A critique of United States Nuclear Deterrence Theory. Faculty Publications. Brook. J. International L. 35. Kissinger, H. A. (1957). Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. Harper. Morgan, F. E., Mueller, K. P., Medeiros, E. S., Kevin, L. P., & Cliff, R. (2008). Dangerous thresholds, managing escalation in the 21st century. Rand Report. Nitze, Paul H., Ann M. Smith & Steven L. Rearden., (1989) From Hiroshima to Glasnost: At the Center of a Decision A Memoir. New York: Grove Weidenfeld. Osgood, R. E. (1979). Limited War revisited. Westview Press. Patrick, M. (2003). Compellence and the strategic culture of imperial Japan: Implications for coercive diplomacy in the 21st century. Praeger. Percival, W.F. (1993). A concept of operations for limited war with a nuclear-armed third world opponent. Naval War College Paper. Ragavan, V.R. (2001). Limited War and Nuclear Escalation in South Asia. the Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter. Posen, B. (1982). Inadvertent new clear war?. International Security, 7. Terrill, W. A. (2009). Escalation and Intrawar deterrence during limited wars in the middle east. Strategic Studies Institute. Trannenwald, N. (2008). The Nuclear Taboo: the United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since Cambridge University Press. 28

21 전시억제이론 (Intra-War Deterrence theory) 과한반도적용 Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press. Singh, J. (1999). Defending India. Macmilan India. Snyder, G. H. (1961). Deterrence and Defense. Princeton University Press. Steinbruner. (1982). Nuclear Decapitation. Foreign Policy, Win , 45(16). Subrahmanyam, K. (1999). A credible deterrent logic of the nuclear doctrine. the Times of India. Schulte, P. (2012). Tactical Nuclear Weapons in NATO and Beyond: A historical and thematic examination. Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, SSI Press. 29

2 ㆍ 大韓政治學會報 ( 第 20輯 1 號 ) 와 팀스피리트 훈련 재개문제 로 모든 합의가 무산되었다. 이후 북핵문제 해결을 위해서 북ㆍ미회담이 자리 잡게 되었고, 미국이 주요 행위자로서의 역할을 수행해 왔다. 북핵문제는 우여곡절 끝에 1994년 10월 북미

2 ㆍ 大韓政治學會報 ( 第 20輯 1 號 ) 와 팀스피리트 훈련 재개문제 로 모든 합의가 무산되었다. 이후 북핵문제 해결을 위해서 북ㆍ미회담이 자리 잡게 되었고, 미국이 주요 행위자로서의 역할을 수행해 왔다. 북핵문제는 우여곡절 끝에 1994년 10월 북미 대한정치학회보 20집 1호 2012년 6월: 175~193 북핵문제에 대한 미국의 강압외교 평가와 대안 김 재 철 조선대학교 요 약 본 연구의 목적은 북핵문제 해결을 위해 그동안 전개해온 미국의 강압외교를 평가 해 보고, 김정은 체제에 적용할 대안을 모색하는데 있다. 미국은 90년대 초반부터 지금까지 북핵문제 해결의 주행위자로서 강압과 대화를 주 도해 왔으나