Building Conditions for Peace on the Korean Peninsula: Prioritizing Countervalue over Counterforce
4
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article asks how a stable peace can be built on the Korean Peninsula amid persistent DPRK nuclear expansion, an escalatory doctrine, and explicit rejection of denuclearization. First, I assess North Korea’s current and near-term capabilities and plans, and the implications of a dual-capable, increasingly diversified nuclear force for crisis stability. Second, I weigh the assured-retaliation (countervalue) tradition against the denial-centric (counterforce) perspective spurred by advances in sensing, accuracy, and military use of AI. Third, I revisit the late-1960s–1970s U.S.–Soviet shift from unconstrained racing to détente, arguing that mutual frustration in reliably denying the other’s second strike—despite qualitative improvements—nudged both sides toward codified restraint. Applied to today’s peninsula, the logic travels with a caveat: North Korea’s double inferiority (conventional and nuclear) sharpens incentives for early nuclear use, while Seoul’s conventional counterforce imposes unfavorable cost-exchange ratios and compresses decision time. I argue that the safer course for the ROK is to prioritize assured punishment and C2 resilience while bounding denial—reproducing a Cold War–style equilibrium of mutual frustration without triggering an action–reaction spiral.
Abstract
This article asks how a stable peace can be built on the Korean Peninsula amid persistent DPRK nuclear expansion, an escalatory doctrine, and explicit rejection of denuclearization. First, I assess North Korea’s current and near-term capabilities and plans, and the implications of a dual-capable, increasingly diversified nuclear force for crisis stability. Second, I weigh the assured-retaliation (countervalue) tradition against the denial-centric (counterforce) perspective spurred by advances in sensing, accuracy, and military use of AI. Third, I revisit the late-1960s–1970s U.S.–Soviet shift from unconstrained racing to détente, arguing that mutual frustration in reliably denying the other’s second strike—despite qualitative improvements—nudged both sides toward codified restraint. Applied to today’s peninsula, the logic travels with a caveat: North Korea’s double inferiority (conventional and nuclear) sharpens incentives for early nuclear use, while Seoul’s conventional counterforce imposes unfavorable cost-exchange ratios and compresses decision time. I argue that the safer course for the ROK is to prioritize assured punishment and C2 resilience while bounding denial—reproducing a Cold War–style equilibrium of mutual frustration without triggering an action–reaction spiral.