동아시아 지역에서 미국과 중국의 군사적 분쟁 가능성에 대한 연구: 군사전략 분석을 중심으로
A Study on the Possibility of a Military Collision between the U.S. and China in East Asia: Focused on Analysis of the Military Strategy
4
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
본 연구는 군사전략적 측면에서 재래식 억제이론을 통해 미국과 중국의 군사전략을 분석하여, 향후 동아시아에서 미-중 간 군사적 분쟁 가능성을 예측하였다. 재래식 억제 측면에서, 중국은 미국의 전력투사를 억제하기 위해 종심 깊은 방어를 통해 많은 손실을 강요하는, 적극방어 전략과 A2/AD 전략으로 대표되는 소모전 전략을 추진하고 있다. 이에 대응하여, 미국은 단기간에 적의 방어를 무력화하고 손실의 최소화를 통해 안정된 전력투사 여건을 조성하여 승리를 추구하는, 공해전투와 합동작전접근개념으로 대표되는 전격전 전략을 추진하고 있다. 양국의 군사전략 분석을 통해 향후 미-중 간 군사적 분쟁 가능성을 예측해보면, 재래식 억제 측면에서 ‘전격전 전략 vs 소모전 전략’ 대결구도의 성립에 따라 억제가 달성될 가능성이 높다. 따라서 향후 이 구도가 지속된다면, 당분간 동아시아에서 미-중 간 군사적 분쟁 가능성은 매우 낮다고 볼 수 있다.
Abstract
This study analyzed military strategies of the U.S. and China through the theory of conventional deterrence and drew results so that the future directivity of the U.S.-China relations could be predicted. As a result, it was found that in the aspect of conventional deterrence, China has driven forward attrition strategy representing active defense strategy and A2/AD strategy that impose lots of losses on the U.S. through in-depth defense in order to deter the U.S. power projection. On the other hand, the U.S. has driven forward blitzkrieg strategy representing Air-Sea Battle and JOAC(Joint Operational Access Concept) that pursue a victory by incapacitating its defense in a short period of time and establishing stable power projection circumstances through a minimum of losses. Through the results above, it is possible to predict the future directivity of the U.S.-China military competition. In the aspect of conventional deterrence, the composition of blitzkrieg strategy vs attrition strategy seems more likely to attain conventional deterrence. Accordingly, if such a composition continues in the future, it will be difficult for the U.S. and China to go smash into each other for the regional supremacy in East Asia. The U.S. pursues blitzkrieg strategy, but it has a domestic political structure difficult to use its military force preemptively. And China pursues attrition strategy, but it is highly likely to require stupendous expenses to win a victory.
참고문헌 (54)
- 김관옥, "미국과 중국의 군사전략 대결의 구성주의적 분석", 국제정치연구, 17(1), pp.114~136 (2014), 동아시아국제정치학회
- 동아시아 미군 재편에 대한 중국의 평가와 군사전략 변화전망, "김성한", 한국전략문제연구소, ~ (2005)
- 김태호, "중국의 러시아 무기 수입과 군사력 증강 현황", 전략연구, (11), pp.209~224 (1997)
- 나영주, "중국 인민해방군 연구의 동향과 쟁점", 통일문제연구, 42(2), pp.107~135 (2004), 평화문제연구소
- 나영주, "미국과 중국의 군사우주 전략과 우주 공간의 군비경쟁 방지(PAROS)", 국제정치논총, 47(3), pp.143~164 (2007), 한국국제정치학회
- 박병광, "중국의 안보전략과 군사적 부상― 중국과 미국의 전략적 각축을 중심으로 ―", 한일군사문화연구, 16, pp.133~161 (2013), 한일군사문화학회
- 박일근, "中 ‘첫 국산 항모 다롄항서 건조 중’", 한국일보, 9월 25일, ~ (2013)
- 박창희, "중국인민해방군의 군사혁신(RMA)과 군현대화", 국방연구, 50(1), pp.81~110 (2007), 국가안전보장문제연구소
- 박창희, "21세기 전략환경 변화와 중국의 군사전략", 중소연구, 32(3), pp.45~71 (2008), 아태지역연구센터[DOI]
- 박창희, "현대 중국 전략의 기원: 중국혁명전쟁부터 한국전쟁 개입까지" (2011), 플래닛미디어
- 설인효, "美전략 ‘공해전투’ 명칭 폐기… 中 억제력 약화?", 국방일보, 7월 22일, ~ (2015)
- 신범식, "러시아-중국 안보 군사협력 관계의 변화와 전망", 중소연구, 30(4), pp.63~90 (2007), 아태지역연구센터[DOI]
- 이병구, "21세기 국제안보의 도전과 과제", pp.145~180 (2011), 사회평론
- 정주호, "中 첫 국산항모 건조 박차… ‘내후년 실전 배치’", 연합뉴스, 8월3일, ~ (2016)
- Air-Sea Battle: Service Collaboration to Address Anti-Access & Area Denial Challenges, "Air-Sea Battle Office", U.S. DoD, ~ (2013)
- Arquilla, John, "Dubious Battles: Aggression, Defeat, and the International System" (1992), Crane Russak
- Art, Robert J., "The Use of Force: International Politics and Foreign Policy", pp.1~25 (1971), Little Brown
- Barnett, Thomas P. M., "Big-War Thinking in a Small-War Era: The Rise of the AirSea Battle Concept", China Security, 6(3), pp.3~11 (2010)
- Beaufre, André, "An Introduction to Strategy: With Particular Reference to Problems of Defense, Politics, Economics, and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age" (1965), Faber and Faber
- Clausewitz, Carl von, "On War" (1984), Princeton University Press
- Cliff, Roger, "Entering the Dragon’s Lair:Chinese Antiaccess Strategies and Their Implications for the United States", pp.17~50 (2007), RAND
- Cordesman, Anthony H., "The FY2015 Defense Budget and the QDR: Key Trends and Data Points" (2014), Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Finkelstein, David M., "Right Sizing the People’s Liberation Army: Exploring the Contours of China’s Military", pp.69~140 (2007), Strategic Studies Institute
- Fuchter, Kenny, "Air Power and China in the 21st Century", Air Power Review, 11(3), pp.1~17 (2008)
- Gates, Robert M., "A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age", Foreign Affairs, 88(1), pp.28~40 (2009)
- Gerson, Michael S., "Conventional Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age", Parameters, 39(3), pp.32~48 (2009)
- Glaser, Charls L., "What is the Offense-Defense Balance and Can We Measure It?(Offense, Defense, and International Politics)", International Security, 22(4), pp.44~82 (1998)
- Harkabi, Yehoshafat, "Nuclear War and Nuclear Peace", pp.1~9 (1966), Israel Program for Scientific Translation
- International Institute for Strategic Studies, "The Military Balance 2012" (2012), IISS
- Ikenberry, G. John, "The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive?", Foreign Affairs, 87(1), pp.23~37 (2008)
- The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, "JCS", JCS, U.S. DoD, ~ (2010)
- Kean, David W., Jr., "Air-Sea Battle and China’s Anti-Access and Area Denial Challenge", Orbis, 58(1), pp.132~146 (2014)
- Krepinevich, Andrew F., "Why AirSea Battle?" (2010), Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Lampton, David M., "The Faces of Chinese Power", Foreign Affairs, 86(1), pp.115~127 (2007)
- Lykke, Arthur F., Jr., "Military Strategy: Theory and Application", pp.3~7 (1982), U.S. Army War College
- Lynn-Johns, Sean M., "Offense-Defense Theory and Its Critics", Security Studies, 4(4), pp.660~691 (1995)
- Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s ‘Rebalancing’ Toward Asia, "Manyin, Mark E.", Congressional Research Service, ~, pp.CRS Report for Congress, R42448 (2012)
- Mearsheimer, John J., "Conventional Deterrence" (1983), Cornell University Press
- Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011, "Office of the Secretary of Defense", U.S. DoD, ~ (2011)
- Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2012, "Office of the Secretary of Defense", U.S. DoD, ~ (2012)
- Posen, Barry R., "The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars" (1984), Cornell University Press
- Posen, Barry R., "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony", International Security, 28(1), pp.5~46 (2003)
- Roy, Denny, "The ‘China Threat’ Issue: Major Arguments", Asian Survey, 36(8), pp.758~771 (1996)
- Schelling, Thomas C., "The Strategy of Conflict" (1981), Harvard University Press
- Shambaugh, David, "China’s Military Views the World: Ambivalent Security", International Security, 24(3), pp.52~79 (2000)
- Snyder, Glenn H., "Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National Security" (1961), Princeton University Press
- Stam Ⅲ, Allan C., "Win, Lose, or Draw: Domestic Politics and the Crucible of War" (1996), University of Michigan
- Stephens, Alan, "How to Win: The Nature of Strategy, Making Sense of War: Strategy for the 21st Century", pp.1~13 (2006), Cambridge University Press
- Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2010, "U.S. DoD", U.S. DoD, ~ (2010)
- U.S. DoD, "Joint Operational Access Concept(JOAC), January 17", U.S. DoD, ~ (2012)
- Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, "U. S. DoD.", U.S. DoD, ~ (2012)
- Quadrennial Defense Review Report 2014, "U.S. DoD.", U.S. DoD, ~ (2014)
- United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Overview, "U.S. DoD", U.S. DoD, ~ (2014)
- Van Tol, "AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept" (2010), CSBA