중국 핵전력의 발전과 핵전략의 변화

손한별(SOHN Han-Byeol)(孫한별),웨즈롱(YUE Zilong)(岳子龍) 신아시아연구소(구 신아세아질서연구회) 2014 신아세아 Vol.21 No.1

현재의 중국 핵전략에 대한 평가는 최소억제에서부터 최대억제에 이르기까지 다양하며, 과연 중국의 핵전략을 서구의 억제전략 개념으로 설명할 수 있을 것인가에 대한 문제도 제기된다. 능력으로서의 '중국 핵전력이 어느 수준에 와있는가?'의 질문에 대해서는 대체로 "최소억제 이상"의 전력을 갖추고 있다는데 합의하고 있다. 그러나 의도로서 '핵전략'에 대해서는 논쟁적이다. 또한 핵전략의 변화와 지속의 원인이 무엇인가에 대한 논의도 요구된다. 본 논문이 주장하는 바는 다음과 같다. 첫째 중국의 핵전략은 억제전략과 전투수 행전략을 모두 포함하고 있다는 점에서, 억제를 강조하는 위섭(威慑)보다는 핵사용을 전제로 하는 인이불발(引而不发)로 보아야하며, 억제전략 개념으로는 "제한억제"에 가깝다. 둘째 중국의 핵전략은 마오쩌둥 전략이 지속되는 가운데, 은폐에서 가시화로, 대군타격과 선제타격의 요점반격, 안정적 상황관리 등으로 공세성을 더하면서 변화하고 있다. 셋째 이러한 공세적 변화는 기본적으로 마오쩌둥 전략의 공세성에 기인하는 것이기도 하지만 핵전력의 기술적 발달에 따른 것으로, 제한억제전략의 실행에 있어서의 기술적 제한사항을 극복하는 데서 기인하는 것이다. 추가적으로는 미국 MD의 발전과 동아시아 안보딜레마, 국내 전략논쟁의 변화에 따른 논의도 요구된다. This paper aims to answer three basic questions. 1) What is China's current nuclear strategy? 2) How has China's nuclear strategy changed? Related to that, what has changed and what has continued? 3) What determines change and continuity in China's nuclear strategy? A literature review of China's nuclear strategy was carried out, and Mao Zedong's strategy, the offensive elements of China's nuclear strategy, and technological development of China's nuclear power were analyzed. This paper then argues that first, Mao Zedong considered nuclear weapons usable on the battlefield in the same way as conventional weapons. Second, China's nuclear strategy reinforces its offensive capability with visible credibility, assured retaliation, and escalation control. Third, China's nuclear strategy is gradually adapting to technological developments. For example, its nuclear delivery system has acquired mobility, penetrability, and has extended its range. We conclude that the proper characterization of China's nuclear strategy is "limited deterrence," and the concept of yinerbufa is more appropriate than weishe. Looking ahead, what are decisive factors in the evolution of China's nuclear strategy? First, since China focuses on its "core interest," a changing threat as defined by the perceptions of policy makers will force another strategic choice. Second, the Missile Defense system may result in a reassessment of nuclear strategy and force structure. Finally, China has to answer questions about its domestic strategic debate, especially its no-first-use policy.

포괄적 위험평가의 시론적 검토 : 미국 전략문서에 나타난 위험평가를 중심으로

손한별(Sohn Hanbyeol),최원석(Choe Wonseok) 신아시아연구소(구 신아세아질서연구회) 2022 신아세아 Vol.29 No.1

본 논문은 국가안보를 위협하는 요소를 총체적으로 평가하는 틀로서 ‘포괄적 위험평가’를 소개하고 그 필요성을 주장하는 데 목적을 둔다. 다양한 행위자의 등장, 세계화로 인한 지리적 제약의 소실과 영역의 융합, 선형적 위기단계 무력화 등으로 융합안보·융합보안의 시대를 맞고 있다. 기존의 위협평가만으로는 국가안보를 위협하는 요인을 모두 파악하기 힘들다는 것이다. 위협 또는 취약성만을 분석하는 것이 아니라 상대적 관계와 과정에 중점을 두는 인식의 전환이 필요하다. 이를 위해 자산, 위협, 취약성을 함께 평가하는 ‘포괄적 위험평가’를 강조한다. 논문은 미국의 시기별, 행정부별 전략문서 중 “국가안보전략서(NSS)”를 중심으로 위험평가의 관점에서 사례를 분석한다. 국가안보전략서에 나타난 미국의 위험평가가 시기별로 어떠한 요소를 강조하고 있는지, 왜 변화를 겪게 되었는지를 분석한다. ‘위협’의 주체와 양상, 스스로의 ‘취약성’을 강조하다가, 2010년대 후반부터는 중국과의 전략경쟁이 미국의 장기적인 국가이익에 미칠 ‘위험’을 포괄적으로 평가하기 시작했음을 밝힌다. 이를 통해 포괄적 위험평가가 한국의 전략기획을 위한 기초적 방법론으로서 필요함을 강조한다. This paper introduces the concept of ‘comprehensive risk assessment’ and argues for its adoption as a framework for a comprehensive evaluation of elements that threaten national security. Three perceptions of threat and threat assessment also apply to risk assessment. In the era of integrated security, and it is necessary to change perceptions to focus not only on threats or vulnerabilities but also on bilateral relationships. To this end, this paper emphasizes a ‘comprehensive risk assessment’ that jointly assesses assets, threats, and vulnerabilities. The paper analyzes the National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States by time and administration as examples of a risk assessment perspective. It reveals that the U.S. emphasized the subject and aspect of “threat” periodically in the 1990s, recognized “vulnerability” after 9/11 in the 2000s, and began to comprehensively evaluate the “risk” of strategic competition with China since the late 2010s. It also argues for a comprehensive risk assessment as a basic methodology for Korea s strategic planning system.

핵확장억제의 역사와 쟁점 : 미국의 對유럽 확장억제 사례와 함의

손한별(Sohn, Hanbyeol) 한국군사문제연구원 2024 한국군사 Vol.- No.15

This paper analyzes the challenges and debates surrounding the credibility of the United States extended deterrence, using NATO as a case study. For this purpose, it examines the U.S. extended deterrence strategy towards Europe and the concerns and demands of NATO allies. Despite clear differences between NATOs extended deterrence in Europe and the ROK-US alliance facing North Koreas nuclear threats, the issues and lessons from the U.S. alliance consultation provide insights for future directions and tasks. Over its 75 year history, NATO has coordinated the diverse national interests and policies of its 32 member countries to deter the threat from the Soviet Union (now Russia). Both the deployed tactical nuclear weapons and the Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) promise U.S. automatic intervention and provide deterrence and assurance to allies. However, NATO faces several challenges, including asymmetry in threat perception, differing views on the role of nuclear weapons, varying policy preferences and priorities, dilemmas between deterrence and assurance, and the integration of nuclear and conventional forces. South Korea nevertheless needs to draw lessons from NATOs experience to enhance the credibility and integrated effectiveness of U.S. extended deterrence. The paper suggests that after establishing the Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG), efforts should focus on clear declaratory policies, strategic integration, a comprehensive crisis management system, joint reviews of nuclear deterrence postures, and nuclear planning at the military level.

탈냉전기 미·일동맹의 변화와 지속

손한별(Hanbyeol Sohn) 육군사관학교 화랑대연구소 2013 한국군사학논집 Vol.69 No.1

This paper aims at reviewing the U.S.-Japan alliance continuing itself after the Cold War era, in spite of the weakening conditions. For this, a literature review about US-Japan alliance and theories of alliance duration was carried out. Showing the intra-alliance dynamics and its duration, three factors and three cases are analyzed. Three factors constructing the weakening and re-strengthening paces are the perception of threat, military strategy and the role of alliance, and the military ability and contribution of allies. And three issues as critical cases are the economic conflicts in early 1990s, 9.11 terror attack in 2001, and Democratic Party (DPJ) taking the office in 2009. Through the case study, this thesis argues that. First, the alliance transition or change comes from the variety of factors. Second, the starting point of the strategic interaction is on the recognition of threats. In other words, national preferences and strategic interactions are determined not by the threat itself, but by the "perceived threat". Finally, while United States defines the role of US-Japan alliance within military strategy, Japan contributes to the alliance with its military buildup. And this can show the contribution of US-Japan alliance as a asymmetric alliance.

북한 핵위협 시나리오와 한국의 대응전략: 핵심지점 관리를 통한 “전방위 억제”

손한별 ( Sohn Hanbyeol ),김병태 ( Kim Byungtae ) 한국군사학회 2021 군사논단 Vol.105 No.-

North Korea has been continuing to strengthen its nuclear weapons even since 2018. It continued to develop nuclear capability and made it clear that it would not give up nuclear weapons. It is difficult to fully trust North Korea’s denuclearizarion intentions, and the need has grown to prepare to deter the current and future nuclear capabilities that North Korea clearly possesses. The important question for South Korea is, “Is there a strategy to deter and respond to the threat of North Korea, which is overconfident in its capabilities and strengthening its offensive capabilities?” This paper argues for a “Full-Spectrum Deterrence” strategy. First of all, South Korea should shift to a deterrence-oriented strategy. Second, the authors present the concepts of “strategic paralysis” and “offensive denial” to achieve the strategic objective. Third, it calls for a re-establishment of priorities in the construction of military forces in terms of means, including core capability for retaliation, the completion of the missile defense cycle, and infrastructure capabilities. It also drew the deterrence of ‘additional’ nuclear development and nuclear use, and local provocations as critical points to deter the North Korean nuclear threat. The management of these key points will be able to deter North Korea’s nuclear development and use of nuclear weapons, and ultimately pressure and induce North Korea’s denuclearization.

동맹변화와 정책결정자의 역할 -미,일동맹의 조정사례를 중심으로-

손한별 ( Han Byeol Sohn ) 한국군사학회 2008 군사논단 Vol.55 No.-

미국의 대중국전략 결정과정 -9,11 전후 “중국위협론” 논의를 중심으로-

손한별 ( Han Byeol Sohn ) 한국군사학회 2012 군사논단 Vol.71 No.-

The purpose of this article is to analyse two issues; the cause of the change in the U.S.`s policy toward China and Sino-U.S. relations, and the process of its strategy making. This article argues that. The “perception” of U.S. causes the its strategy toward China, as many theorists have pointed out. And there are three variables; the China`s intention and capability as a substantial threat to U.S., the national preferences which causes “perceived threat” and priority of threat, and the strategy making process. Through the case study of 9.11, despite constant mood of China rising, U.S. national preferences and interaction are determined not by threat itself, but by the “perceived threat”. Moreover, in the decision making stage, U.S. cannot adopt prudent balancing policies for reasons of domestic politics, elite/social fragmentation and other motivated biases. In the future, China`s military transparency, each regime change and mass-media for the elite/social cohesion will have affect on the strategy making process.

1960년대 미국의 對중국 군사공격계획

손한별(Sohn, Han-byeol) 국방부 군사편찬연구소 2018 군사 Vol.- No.108

This paper aims to examine “Why did the United States plan a military attack on China?” Specifically, what military options were the US considering and what factors determine US military action? To this end, this paper first examines the options that the United States has been able to choose theoretically for the imminent nuclear threat from China, and what are the options and the decision making process of establishing the military action actually considered and what are their determinants? Secondly, it analyses that the change in the strategic interests of the U.S. had led to this conversion of non-proliferation policy which coerced China to join the NPT regime. China’s nuclear development, in the short term, was threatening the further proliferation of nuclear weapons and the stability of the United States. Not only threatening the US allies militarily and psychologically, but also US worried that it would lose the nuclear superiority to USSR camps when the nuclear monopolies had already been lost. On the other hand, China’s capacity was not strong and the US nonproliferation policies were likely to be successful. China’s national capabilities could not fit the US military capabilities, and China’s nuclear development was still in the early stages. It was the reason why the US military attack on Chinese nuclear facilities was specifically considered. Eventually, of course, the US military attack plan was not implemented and efforts to stop China’s nuclear development failed, but the US led China to the NPT regime, and led to her responsible action and a high level of mutual trust.

트럼프 행정부의 한반도정책

손한별(Sohn, Han-Byeol),이진기(Lee, Jin-Ki) 한국군사문제연구원 2018 한국군사 Vol.3 No.-

본 논문은 “미국의 한반도정책은 무엇인가?”를 살펴보는데 목적이 있다. 트럼프대통령의 취임 1년을 맞아 공개되고 있는 다양한 전략문서를 중심으로 한반도정책을 구체화하였다. 논문의 주요내용과 함의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 탈패권의 시대에 미국이 처한 딜레마 상황에 대한 이해가 필요하다. 탈냉전 이후 국제질서의 변화에 따라 미국은 더욱 극명한 딜레마 상황에 처해있다. 트럼프 행정부는 철저한 “미국 우선주의”를 통해 이러한 딜레마를 극복하고자 한다. 트럼프 행정부의 한반도정책 역시 이러한 기조 속에서 결정되는 것이다. 둘째, 미국 행정부의 한반도정책은 변화와 지속을 동시에 겪어왔다. 다양한 변수에 따라 진화해온 미국의 한반도정책이 기획되는 과정과 절차, 주요 행위자와 이해관계를 파악하고, 주도적인 관계를 설정할 수 있도록 노력을 기울여야 한다. 셋째, 트럼프 행정부의 전략문서를 통해 한반도정책의 윤곽을 이해할 수 있다. 한국에 대한 동맹정책과 북핵문제 해결로 대표되는 대북정책은 동전의 양면처럼 분리할 수 없는 것이며, 미국의 국익에 기여하는 방향으로 재편되고 있다. 트럼프 행정부의 전략문서를 통해 한반도정책을 이해함으로써 한국의 전략적 공간을 확보하고 상황을 유리한 방향으로 이끌 수 있을 것으로 기대한다. This article aims to examine current U.S. policy toward the Korean Peninsula. In order to do so, this article attempts to visualize the Trump Administration’s Korea policy by looking at a variety of strategic documents disclosed after Trump’s first year in office. The main contents and implications of this article are as follows: First, it is necessary to understand a dilemma which the United States is facing. After the post-Cold War, there have been many changes in the international order which have posed numerous dilemmatic situations for the U.S. government. The Trump administration attempts to overcome those dilemmatic situations with implementing his unwaivering doctrine of “America First.” The same considerations are applied with regard to the Trump Administration’s foreign policy toward the Korean Peninsula. Second, the U.S. policy toward the Korean Peninsula has experienced a series of changes, while at the same time having maintained its continuity. The U.S. foreign policy, especially its policy to Korea, has evolved over time because of a variety of variables such as dynamic international order, alteration of strategic environment in East Asia, the limitations of resources, and North Korea’s nuclear development. We should therefore understand the U.S. foreign policy process―how policy and strategy are made, who play major roles, and what their interests are. Third, we can understand the Trump Administration’s foreign policy outlook toward the Korean Peninsula by examining the strategic documents. The U.S. North Korea Policy is represented by the successful ROK-U.S. Alliance and the resolution of the North Korean nuclear program, which are inseparable like two sides of a coin. Now it is (re)formulated to contribute to the national interests of the United States. By close understanding the U.S. strategic documents regarding the Korean peninsula, we can secure a better strategic space and created a favorable condition for us in our dealing with the Trump adminstration.

WMD 폐기에 대한 국제정치적 접근 : 시리아 화학무기 폐기(2013-14) 사례

손한별(Hanbyeol Sohn) 한국국제정치학회 2020 國際政治論叢 Vol.60 No.3

2013년부터 2014년까지 미국을 비롯한 협력국들과 국제기구의 연합체가 시리아의 화학무기를 폐기한 것은 국제 군축의 역사에서 중요한 의미를 가진다. 시리아 내전 중에 화학무기가 실제로 사용되었고, 국제기구의 강압적인 제재와 개입이 이어졌으며, 시리아의 국내정치적 혼란 속에서도 협력적으로 진행되었고, 공해상의 선박 위에서 폐기된 유일한 사례이기 때문이다. 또 강대국 및 관련국들의 외교전, 유엔안보리와 화학무기금지기구의 역할이 두드러졌다. 시리아의 사례는 2010년대 미국이 새로운 전략환경 하에서 추진하게 된 CTR2.0의 대표적인 사례로 꼽히는데, CTR2.0이라는 특정 프로그램 뿐아니라 국제사회의 협력을 통해 실행할 수밖에 없는 WMD 폐기에 중요한 함의를 제공한다. 첫째, 국제법에 근거한 위임명령이 필요하며, 이를 통해 국제협력의 정당성을 확보할 수 있다. 둘째, 화학무기 생산 및 저장시설 등에 대한 정확한 정보에 기초하여 국제사회가 함께 압박해야 한다. 셋째, 급작스럽게 찾아오는 기회를 포착하기 위해서는 장기간의 준비과정이 중요하다. 넷째, 국가기관 내, 부처간, 국가간 다차원적이고 효과적인 협조가 필수적이며, 다섯째, 집행과정간 불확실성과 마찰을 극복하기 위한 유연하고 융통성있는 실행, 지속적인 제도지원이 요구된다. 마지막으로 WMD 폐기를 위한 준비-실시-검증 전 단계에 걸- 완전성과 정확성이 핵심 원칙으로 유지되어야 한다. This paper aims to reveal “How does the weapons of mass-destruction (WMD) elimination take place?” Specifically, what decision-making and execution process has the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons, considered an effective WMD elimination case, been made? What does the Syrian case mean to international politics and international security? The elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons, in 2013-14, by a coalition of the United States and other partners, and international organizations has significant implications in the history of international disarmament. Because chemical weapons were actually used during the Syrian civil war, coercive sanctions and intervention by international organizations followed, and the disposal proceeded cooperatively in the midst of Syria’s domestic political turmoil, and is the only case of being disposed on a ship on high seas. In addition, the role of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) and the Organization for the Promotion of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was outstanding. Syria’s case is considered a prime example of the CTR2.0 that the U.S. pushed under a new strategic environment in the 2010s, providing important implications for the elimination of WMD. First, a mandate based on international law is required, which can ensure the legitimacy of international cooperation. Second, the international community should coerce on the basis of accurate information on chemical weapons production and storage facilities, etc. Third, the long-term preparation process is important to seize sudden opportunities. Fourth, multi-dimensional and effective cooperation among departments and countries is essential, and fifth, flexible implementation, continuous institutional support is required to overcome uncertainty and friction during the execution. Finally, completeness and correctness should be maintained as key principles throughout the all phases for WMD elimination.