본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

대량보복에서 유연대응으로 : 미국 핵전략의 역사가 주는 교훈

From Massive Retaliation to Flexible Response : Lessons from the History of US Nuclear Strategy

이만석
화랑대연구소 (Hwarang Dae Research Institute)|2024.06|한국군사학논집 (Korean Journal of Military Art and Science)|제80권 제2호|pp. 1-30

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

North Korean Nuclear Threat미국 핵전략대량보복유연대응북한 핵 위협US Nuclear StrategyMassive RetaliationFlexible Response

초록

현재 한국의 북핵 대응전략은 냉전 초기 미국의 대량보복전략과 유사한 개념을 가지고 있다. 한국의 북핵 대응전략은 고위력 및 초정밀 재래식 전력을 기반으로 하고, 미국의 대량보복전략은 핵 능력을 바탕으로 한다는 차이가 있다. 그러나 이 두 전략은 상대의 위협에 대해 선제적이고 비대칭적 대응을 강조함으로써 공격을 억제하는 유사한 접근 방식을 드러낸다. 한편, 미국의 전략가들은 소련의 핵 능력이 강화됨에 따라 대량보복전략의 전면전 확전의 위험이 고조되고 실행 가능성이 저하되는 문제를 제기했고, 미국이 더욱 유연한 전략으로 전환하는 계기가 된다. 이러한 변화의 과정은 한국의 북핵 대응전략에 중요한 교훈을 제공한다. 즉, 북한의 핵 능력이 현재보다 강화된다면 한국의 북핵 대응전략도 비슷한 문제를 직면할 수 있으며, 미국의 경험은 한국이 앞으로 어떻게 전략을 발전시킬 수 있을지에 대한 방향성을 탐색하는데 중요한 단서가 될 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 냉전 시기 미국의 핵전략 변화사례에 대한 분석을 통해 한국의 전략 발전 방향에 대한 통찰을 제공하고자 한다.

Abstract

South Korea's current strategy for responding to North Korea's nuclear threats exhibits conceptual parallels with the US's Massive Retaliation Strategy during the early stages of the Cold War. While South Korea's strategy is based on its conventional military capabilities, the U.S. strategy was fundamentally based on nuclear deterrence. Nevertheless, both strategies reveal a similar approach to deterring aggression by emphasizing preemptive and asymmetric responses to perceived threats. American strategists identified the escalation risks and feasibility issues of the Massive Retaliation Strategy as the Soviet Union enhanced its nuclear capabilities, prompting a shift toward a more flexible response. This evolution in strategic thinking provides critical lessons for South Korea's approach to nuclear deterrence. As North Korea continues to bolster its nuclear arsenal, South Korea may encounter similar strategic challenges, making the U.S. experience a valuable reference point for exploring future directions in strategic development. Accordingly, this paper aims to offer insights into South Korea's strategy by analyzing shifts in U.S. nuclear strategy during the Cold War era.

참고문헌 (57)

  1. "NATO Documents “M.C. 43/3, Report by the Standing Group to the North Atlantic Military Committee on NATO Exercises, 1955, May 28, 1956"[URL]
  2. "NATO Documents “Final Decision on MC 14/2 (Revised): A Report by the Military Committee on Overall Strategic Concept for the Defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Area, May 23, 1957”"[URL]
  3. "NATO Documents “Final Decision on MC 14/3: A Report by the Military Committee to the Defense Planning Committee on Overall Strategic Concept for the Defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Area, January 16, 1968”"[URL]
  4. "NATO Documents “Provisional Political Guidelines for the Initial Defensive Tactical Use of Nuclear Weapons by NATO, November 19, 1969”"[URL]
  5. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“A Report to the National Security Council by the Executive Secretary (NSC 68), April 14, 1950,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, National Security Affaires; Foreign Economic Policy, Vol. I"[URL]
  6. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“Letter From John J. McCloy to President Johnson, November 21, 1966,”Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIII, Western Europe Region"[URL]
  7. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“The Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs (Key) to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Lodge), February 8, 1954,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, National Security Affairs, Volume II, Part 2"[URL]
  8. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“Memorandum of a Conference With the President, White House, Washington, November 4, 1957,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, National Security Policy, Volume XIX"[URL]
  9. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“Report to the President by the Security Resources Panel of the ODM Science Advisory Committee on Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age, November 7, 1957,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, National Security Policy, Volume XIX"[URL]
  10. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Countries, July 10, 1959,”Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Western European Integration and Security, Canada, Volume VII, Part 1"[URL]
  11. "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)“Memorandum of Conversation (President Kennedy and General de Gaulle), May 31, 1961,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIV, Berlin Crisis, 1961–1962"[URL]
  12. "Commencement Address by Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara. July 9, 1962"[URL]
  13. Bennett, Bruce, "Strengthening Nuclear Assurance for Korea" (2023), Asan Institute for Policy Studies
  14. Brodie, Bernard, "Nuclear Weapons: Strategic or Tactical", Foreign Affairs, 32(2), pp.217~229 (1954)
  15. Britannica, "Mutual Assured Destruction", ~
  16. "Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff: 'September 19 Agreement is a Typical Disguised Peace Offensive... Constraint on Surveillance of North Korea'", Yonhap News, ~ (2023)
  17. Coleman, David, "U.S. Military Personnel, 1954-2014", History in Pieces, ~
  18. Davis II, Robert T, "Military Exercises:Political Messaging and Strategic Impact", pp.47~64 (2018), NATO Defense College
  19. Eisenhower, Dwight, "Mandate for Change, 1953-1956: The White House Years" (1963), Doubleday & Company
  20. Ham, Hyeongpil, "Contributions and Roles of South Korea's Conventional Power to Peninsula Deterrence: Focusing on Enhancing Extended Deterrence Credibility", National Security and Strategy, 22(2), pp.147~192 (2022)
  21. Heuser, Beatrice, "The Development of NATO's Nuclear Strategy", Contemporary European History, 4(1), pp.37~66 (1995)
  22. Heuser, Beatrice, "European Defence before and after the Turn of the Tide", Review of International Studies, 19(2), pp.409~419 (1993)
  23. Huntington, Samuel P, "The Common Defense" (1961), Columbia University Press
  24. Joshi, Yogesh, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy", Insitute of Peace and Conflict Studies
  25. Kaal, Harm, "Applied History : Past, Present, and Future", Journal of Applied History, 3(1-2), pp.135~154 (2021)
  26. Kang, Tae-hwa, "'Nuclear Attack Conditions'... Ministry of National Defense Strikes Back at Kang Soon-nam 'Nuclear Provocation Means the End of the Regime'", JoongAng, ~ (2023)
  27. Keulen, Sjoerd, "Historical Analogies: Functions, Limitations and the Correct Use of Historical Analogies in Applied History", Journal of Applied History, 5(2), pp.111~131 (2023)
  28. Khan, Herman, "On Thermonuclear War" (2007), Transaction Publishers
  29. Khong, Yuen Foong, "Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965" (2020), Princeton University Press
  30. Kissinger, Henry, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" (1957), Harper & Brothers
  31. Kristensen, Hans M., "SIPRI Yearbook 2023" (2023), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
  32. Kugler, Richard L., "The Great Strategy Debate: NATO's Evolution in the 1960s" (1960), RAND Corporation
  33. Landa, Ronald D, "Hungary 1956 : Reviving the Debate over US(In)action during the Revolution", National Security Archive, ~ (2017)
  34. Legge, J. Michael, "Theater Nuclear Weapons and the NATO Strategy of Flexible Response" (1983), Rand Corporation
  35. Lowe, George E, "The Age of Deterrence" (1964), Little, Brown & Co
  36. Mens, Jay., "Two Types of Applied History: Analogy and Genealogy", Journal of Applied History, 5(2), pp.89~110 (2023)
  37. Ministry of National Defense, "2022 Defense White Paper", pp.57~62 (2022), Ministry of National Defense
  38. Nacht, Michael, "Nuclear Security:The Nexus Among Science, Technology and Policy" (2021), Springer International Publishing
  39. Russian Strategic Offensive Nuclear Forces, 1945-1996, "Nuclear Weapons Databook: US-USSR", pp.1997, Norris, Robert S.
  40. Office of Management and Budget, "Historical Tables", The White House, ~
  41. Osgood, Robert E, "NATO : The Entangling Alliance" (1962), University of Chicago Press
  42. Park, Cheol-kyun, "The Necessity of Suppressing North Korean Nuclear Weapons with South Korea's Conventional Power", JoongAng Ilbo, ~ (2023)
  43. Pedlow, Gregory W. ed., "The Evolution of NATO Strategy, 1949-1969" (1997), Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
  44. "President Yoon: 'Overwhelming Response of the ROK-US Alliance in Case of North Korean Nuclear Use Leads to Regime Termination'", SBS News, ~ (2023)
  45. Roser, Max, "Nuclear Weapons", Our World in Data, Federation of American Scientists, ~ (2013)
  46. Schulzinger, Robert D, "The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: the History of the Council on Foreign Relations" (1984), Columbia University Press
  47. Schwartz, Stephen I, "Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons since 1940" (1998), Brookings Institution Press
  48. Snyder, Glenn H., "Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets" (1962), Columbia University Press
  49. Sweijs, Tim, "Back to the Brink: Escalation and Interstate Crisis", pp.35~53 (2016), Hague Centre for Strategic Studies
  50. Vertzberger, Yaacov YI, "The world in their minds: Information processing, cognition, and perception in foreign policy decisionmaking" (1990), Stanford University Press
  51. Wells, Samuel F., "The Origins of Massive Retaliation", Political Science Quarterly, 96(1), pp.31~52 (1981)
  52. Wohlstetter, Albert., "The Delicate Balance of Terror", Foreign Affairs, 37(2), pp.211~234 (1959)
  53. Trachtenberg, Marc, "A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963" (1999), Princeton University Press
  54. "US Department of State. Bulletin", ~ (1954)
  55. Current Status of North Korea's Latest Nuclear Weapons Development, "Yang, Wook", Asan Institute for Policy Studies, ~ (2023)
  56. Evaluation of North Korea's Nuclear Operational Capability, "Yang, Wook", Asan Institute for Policy Studies, ~ (2022)
  57. Yoon, Jeongwon, "The Limitations in Using Historical Analogy for Foreign Policy Making", Korean Journal of International Studies, 48(1), pp.35~66 (2008)

관련 논문AI추천

북한의 핵운용전략과 한국의 대북 핵억제전략박창권한국국방연구원 · 국방정책연구2014 · 제30권 제2호북한의 핵 위협에 대응한 한국의 군사전략박창희세종연구소 · 국가전략2017 · 제23권 제4호미국의 국가안보와 핵억지 전략의 변화: 트루먼-트럼프 행정부까지김일수, 유호근한국세계지역학회 · 세계지역연구논총2019 · 제37권 제4호핵전략의 내재적 딜레마와 북핵 대응전략의 선택김정섭세종연구소 · 국가전략2021 · 제27권 제2호북한의 대(對)미국 핵전략 분석: 최소억제전략을 중심으로박휘락신아시아연구소 · 신아세아2020 · 제27권 제2호미국의 대반란전(Counterinsurgency) 전략 전개와 한국 국방전략에의 함의박영준세종연구소 · 국가전략2016 · 제22권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)

기대효용이론을 통한 軍 조직 내 지휘관의 축소보고 분석박요나, 김도영pp. 31-50중국 해상민병대의 위협과 한국의 대응방안최성일, 신진pp. 51-88미국과 북한의 양자게임을 통한 한국의 북핵 억제정책 평가김민지, 김선홍pp. 89-118직업군인 무죄판결 확정 후 권리회복에 관한 제도연구이진수, 최미경pp. 119-138군 어학기관 교수자의 교수역량 요구도 분석이재창, 채성기, 성창희pp. 139-172
원문 보기