Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.003
Stephen J. Blank
This article examines what contribution, if any, Russia can make to peace on the Korean Peninsula. It begins by assessing Russia’s relatively marginal standing in the current Korean negotiations and proceeds from there to analyze Russia’s interests and stake in a Korean peace process. While in fact Moscow’s standing here is marginal, its interests in peace in Korea and overall in Northeast Asia and in being included in any such process are considerable. The main contribution it can make is in the provision of energy and trade infrastructures such as its longstanding advocacy of a trans-Siberian, trans-Korean railroad and an analogous gas pipeline. We argue that matters have reached a stage where Russia depends on at least one if not both Korean states to allow it into this process and make these kinds of contributions. But beyond the two Korean states, one of the other major participants, i.e. the United States and/or China must also permit such Russian involvement. Yet our reading of their interests strongly suggests that they are opposed to giving Russia precedence over their own interests in Korea. While there are real possibilities for one or both Korean states to invite Moscow into this process, Russia now depends upon “the kindness of strangers” to play the role it wants to have in Korea.
{"title":"How Can Russia Contribute to Peace in Korea","authors":"Stephen J. Blank","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.003","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines what contribution, if any, Russia can make to peace on the Korean Peninsula. It begins by assessing Russia’s relatively marginal standing in the current Korean negotiations and proceeds from there to analyze Russia’s interests and stake in a Korean peace process. While in fact Moscow’s standing here is marginal, its interests in peace in Korea and overall in Northeast Asia and in being included in any such process are considerable. The main contribution it can make is in the provision of energy and trade infrastructures such as its longstanding advocacy of a trans-Siberian, trans-Korean railroad and an analogous gas pipeline. We argue that matters have reached a stage where Russia depends on at least one if not both Korean states to allow it into this process and make these kinds of contributions. But beyond the two Korean states, one of the other major participants, i.e. the United States and/or China must also permit such Russian involvement. Yet our reading of their interests strongly suggests that they are opposed to giving Russia precedence over their own interests in Korea. While there are real possibilities for one or both Korean states to invite Moscow into this process, Russia now depends upon “the kindness of strangers” to play the role it wants to have in Korea.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"41-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68343086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.004
Sehoon Park
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) are being developed by major countries as a core value of future war. The international community is actively discussing the legal issues and regulatory methods of LAWS at the Group of Government Experts (GGE) meetings hosted by the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The main purpose of the first part of this paper is to compare and analyze countries’ positions on each issue at the above GGE. At the GGE, there are contrasting stances between those supporting and opposing strict regulations on LAWS. A consensus was not reached on the definition of LAWS and the necessity to create a new treaty that regulates LAWS. However, most countries and NGOs are trying to find a methodology for autonomous weapons to comply with international humanitarian law through “human elements.” It is difficult to expect the creation of a new treaty, so the recent GGE has emphasized the solution through Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Based on the discussions at the GGE, the second part of this paper will examine the proper policy direction that South Korea can set for LAWS. The issues and trends discussed in the GGE need to be fully understood by government policy makers and defense industry experts. In addition, in order to clarify the implementation of Article 36, it is possible to use a method to prepare regulations in domestic laws or codes of conduct to test compliance with international laws on new weapons including LAWS. As to whether or not to create the new treaty, diplomatic channels can carefully consider options for participating in Europeanled political declarations. Finally, an accurate understanding of the U.S. position on LAWS regulations is needed, and government-led research and development can play an important role in promoting international solidarity among allies.
{"title":"Analysis of the Positions Held by Countries on Legal Issues of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems and Proper Domestic Policy Direction of South Korea","authors":"Sehoon Park","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.004","url":null,"abstract":"Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) are being developed by major countries as a core value of future war. The international community is actively discussing the legal issues and regulatory methods of LAWS at the Group of Government Experts (GGE) meetings hosted by the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The main purpose of the first part of this paper is to compare and analyze countries’ positions on each issue at the above GGE. At the GGE, there are contrasting stances between those supporting and opposing strict regulations on LAWS. A consensus was not reached on the definition of LAWS and the necessity to create a new treaty that regulates LAWS. However, most countries and NGOs are trying to find a methodology for autonomous weapons to comply with international humanitarian law through “human elements.” It is difficult to expect the creation of a new treaty, so the recent GGE has emphasized the solution through Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Based on the discussions at the GGE, the second part of this paper will examine the proper policy direction that South Korea can set for LAWS. The issues and trends discussed in the GGE need to be fully understood by government policy makers and defense industry experts. In addition, in order to clarify the implementation of Article 36, it is possible to use a method to prepare regulations in domestic laws or codes of conduct to test compliance with international laws on new weapons including LAWS. As to whether or not to create the new treaty, diplomatic channels can carefully consider options for participating in Europeanled political declarations. Finally, an accurate understanding of the U.S. position on LAWS regulations is needed, and government-led research and development can play an important role in promoting international solidarity among allies.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"393-418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.006
Ihn-hwi Park
When the second U.S.-North Korea Summit in Hanoi, Vietnam ended abruptly without a deal, critics and experts argued that U.S. President Trump, considering the domestic pressure, changed his goals and interests at the very last minute. To theoretically explain the negotiation process in Hanoi, this study analyzes the win-set structure of the United States and North Korea. This study also aims to examine the causes of the failure by comparing the agreement zones between the United States and North Korea’s win-sets before and after the summit. Two-level game theory explains how negotiating countries with conflicting interests achieve an agreement and what kinds of strategies the governments use to maximize their own national interests. The key assumption of the two-level game theory is the linkage between domestic politics and international affairs, and the interconnection was widely suggested by many scholars including Gabriel A. Almond, James N. Rosenau, and Bruce M. Russett. Building on to this literature, Putnam’s two-level game theory introduced the concept of a “win-set” and examined the international negotiation process thoroughly using this theoretical model. Based on the analysis of the two parties’ win-sets, this study finds that the United States intentionally ended the negotiation without a deal by contracting the size of its win-set. The United States shifted its interest from the original position, which is “trading partial (or symbolic) dismantlement of North Korean nuclear weapons with partial removal of economic sanctions,” to the new interest position including the abandonment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) referred to as “Yongbyon Plus Alpha” and the agreement on a roadmap to denuclearization.
在越南河内举行的第二次朝美首脑会谈因没有达成协议而突然结束，有分析认为，美国总统特朗普考虑到国内的压力，在最后一刻改变了目标和利益。为了从理论上解释河内谈判过程，本研究分析了美国和朝鲜的赢集结构。本研究还通过对比朝美首脑会谈前后的协议区域，分析了失败的原因。两级博弈论解释了有利益冲突的谈判国家如何达成协议，以及政府使用什么样的策略来最大化自己的国家利益。两级博弈论的关键假设是国内政治与国际事务之间的联系，这种联系被包括Gabriel A. Almond、James N. Rosenau、Bruce M. Russett在内的许多学者广泛提出。在此文献的基础上，Putnam的两级博弈论引入了“赢集”的概念，并使用这一理论模型对国际谈判过程进行了彻底的研究。通过对双方赢集的分析，本研究发现，美国通过缩小其赢集的规模，故意在没有达成协议的情况下结束谈判。美国从原来的“以部分(或象征性)弃核换取部分解除经济制裁”的立场，转变为包括放弃被称为“宁边+阿尔法”的大规模杀伤性武器(WMD)和就无核化路线图达成协议的新立场。
{"title":"Two-Level Game and Politics of the United States–North Korea Negotiation","authors":"Ihn-hwi Park","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.3.006","url":null,"abstract":"When the second U.S.-North Korea Summit in Hanoi, Vietnam ended abruptly without a deal, critics and experts argued that U.S. President Trump, considering the domestic pressure, changed his goals and interests at the very last minute. To theoretically explain the negotiation process in Hanoi, this study analyzes the win-set structure of the United States and North Korea. This study also aims to examine the causes of the failure by comparing the agreement zones between the United States and North Korea’s win-sets before and after the summit. Two-level game theory explains how negotiating countries with conflicting interests achieve an agreement and what kinds of strategies the governments use to maximize their own national interests. The key assumption of the two-level game theory is the linkage between domestic politics and international affairs, and the interconnection was widely suggested by many scholars including Gabriel A. Almond, James N. Rosenau, and Bruce M. Russett. Building on to this literature, Putnam’s two-level game theory introduced the concept of a “win-set” and examined the international negotiation process thoroughly using this theoretical model. Based on the analysis of the two parties’ win-sets, this study finds that the United States intentionally ended the negotiation without a deal by contracting the size of its win-set. The United States shifted its interest from the original position, which is “trading partial (or symbolic) dismantlement of North Korean nuclear weapons with partial removal of economic sanctions,” to the new interest position including the abandonment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) referred to as “Yongbyon Plus Alpha” and the agreement on a roadmap to denuclearization.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"437-456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.006
Wonjae Hwang, R.Thomas Willemain, Sang-hwan Lee
Does China’s growing economic power generate political influence over its economic partners’ foreign policies? Does this tendency, if it exists, occur at the expense of U.S. interests on those issues? Since China and the U.S. maintain extremely opposing positions over diverse foreign policy issues, it is important to explore these questions. In the analysis of panel data on trilateral trade for China and the U.S. between 1991 and 2014, our empirical results show that China’s trade partners are likely to vote alongside it but against the U.S., even on human rights or important issues identified by the U.S. government in the UN General Assembly. In both cases, as the relative size of trade with China in comparison to the size of trade with the U.S. increases, a state tends to vote alongside China rather than the U.S. The findings imply that growing policy cooperation between China and its trade partners comes at the expense of U.S. national interests and its leadership to a great extent.
{"title":"Trilateral Trade and Taking a Side Between the U.S. and China","authors":"Wonjae Hwang, R.Thomas Willemain, Sang-hwan Lee","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.006","url":null,"abstract":"Does China’s growing economic power generate political influence over its economic partners’ foreign policies? Does this tendency, if it exists, occur at the expense of U.S. interests on those issues? Since China and the U.S. maintain extremely opposing positions over diverse foreign policy issues, it is important to explore these questions. In the analysis of panel data on trilateral trade for China and the U.S. between 1991 and 2014, our empirical results show that China’s trade partners are likely to vote alongside it but against the U.S., even on human rights or important issues identified by the U.S. government in the UN General Assembly. In both cases, as the relative size of trade with China in comparison to the size of trade with the U.S. increases, a state tends to vote alongside China rather than the U.S. The findings imply that growing policy cooperation between China and its trade partners comes at the expense of U.S. national interests and its leadership to a great extent.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"601-623"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68343458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space and Developing Countries","authors":"Miqdad Mehdi, Jinyuan Su","doi":"10.18356/424b9514-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/424b9514-en","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"253-270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67698214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.004
Lakhvinder Singh, Kim, Youngjun
The Asia-Pacific region is going through a power shift. The American-led security structure, which for decades has maintained peace and security in the region, is under huge stress. Various political and economic factors are playing a role in hurting this security alliance system. Unprecedented Chinese naval expansion in the region is changing the “balance of power” there like never before. China is becoming more assertive far beyond its traditional geographical areas of activity, the Indian Ocean being one such area where it has increased its engagement in recent years. By using various political, economic, diplomatic and military tools, it has been increasing its influence many-fold, greatly altering the current balance of power. Concerned by this increasing power shift and the continually expanding role of outside powers in its neighborhood, India has launched its own engagement strategy for the region under a “Neighborhood First” policy. Through this strategy, India is striving to increase its role in the development of countries in the Indian Ocean region. Due to the fact that such a power shift is happening across the entire Asia-Pacific arena, keeping balance of power in one area is dependent and interconnected with similar efforts in other parts of the Asia-Pacific. Since South Korea is a major democracy in Northeast Asia, it has emerged as a natural ally of India and has joined hands to protect a law and rules-based regional governing order. So far we have seen India playing a very limited role in the internal power dynamics of Northeast Asia, yet a time is coming when India might be required to play a more active role in strengthening Korea’s hand. More robust strategic and defense policy coordination between India and Korea can go a long way in maintaining peace, prosperity and security in the region.
{"title":"Emerging Rebalancing Strategy of India in the Indian Ocean Region and the India–Korea Strategic Partnership","authors":"Lakhvinder Singh, Kim, Youngjun","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.1.004","url":null,"abstract":"The Asia-Pacific region is going through a power shift. The American-led security structure, which for decades has maintained peace and security in the region, is under huge stress. Various political and economic factors are playing a role in hurting this security alliance system. Unprecedented Chinese naval expansion in the region is changing the “balance of power” there like never before. China is becoming more assertive far beyond its traditional geographical areas of activity, the Indian Ocean being one such area where it has increased its engagement in recent years. By using various political, economic, diplomatic and military tools, it has been increasing its influence many-fold, greatly altering the current balance of power. Concerned by this increasing power shift and the continually expanding role of outside powers in its neighborhood, India has launched its own engagement strategy for the region under a “Neighborhood First” policy. Through this strategy, India is striving to increase its role in the development of countries in the Indian Ocean region. Due to the fact that such a power shift is happening across the entire Asia-Pacific arena, keeping balance of power in one area is dependent and interconnected with similar efforts in other parts of the Asia-Pacific. Since South Korea is a major democracy in Northeast Asia, it has emerged as a natural ally of India and has joined hands to protect a law and rules-based regional governing order. So far we have seen India playing a very limited role in the internal power dynamics of Northeast Asia, yet a time is coming when India might be required to play a more active role in strengthening Korea’s hand. More robust strategic and defense policy coordination between India and Korea can go a long way in maintaining peace, prosperity and security in the region.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"65-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.001
Richard Weitz
Novel strategic technologies are posing major challenges to Asian security. These disruptive systems include high-precision and hypersonic delivery vehicles, advanced cyber capabilities, and space weaponry. The proliferation of these new capabilities among states could complicate military planning, reduce strategic predictability, and decrease crisis stability by amplifying preemption incentives. Developments regarding these technologies have already contributed to the collapse of longstanding arms control agreements and have raised dangers of miscalculations or misperceptions that could lead to inadvertent escalation. Yet, revisionist powers in Asia―such as China, Russia, and North Korea―perceive these strategic technologies as helping them realize their theory of victory. In particular, they hope to employ them to negate superior U.S. conventional forces to secure important gains in a limited conflict through multi-domain coercion, while managing escalation dynamics to prevent an all-out war. Chinese, Russian, and DPRK strategists see having strong offensive capabilities as their best means of crippling U.S. military alliances in Asia. Indeed, these strike systems enhance the anti-access/ area-denial barriers these Asian land powers have erected to keep U.S. forces from reinforcing U.S. allies and partners. Fortunately, emerging strategic technologies can enhance U.S. alliances in Asia in critical ways, while some of their potentially destabilizing impacts can be mitigated by managing competition and reducing the risks of miscalculations in these domains.
{"title":"Strengthening Multi-Domain Deterrence and Defense in the Asia–Pacific Region","authors":"Richard Weitz","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2020.32.4.001","url":null,"abstract":"Novel strategic technologies are posing major challenges to Asian security. These disruptive systems include high-precision and hypersonic delivery vehicles, advanced cyber capabilities, and space weaponry. The proliferation of these new capabilities among states could complicate military planning, reduce strategic predictability, and decrease crisis stability by amplifying preemption incentives. Developments regarding these technologies have already contributed to the collapse of longstanding arms control agreements and have raised dangers of miscalculations or misperceptions that could lead to inadvertent escalation. Yet, revisionist powers in Asia―such as China, Russia, and North Korea―perceive these strategic technologies as helping them realize their theory of victory. In particular, they hope to employ them to negate superior U.S. conventional forces to secure important gains in a limited conflict through multi-domain coercion, while managing escalation dynamics to prevent an all-out war. Chinese, Russian, and DPRK strategists see having strong offensive capabilities as their best means of crippling U.S. military alliances in Asia. Indeed, these strike systems enhance the anti-access/ area-denial barriers these Asian land powers have erected to keep U.S. forces from reinforcing U.S. allies and partners. Fortunately, emerging strategic technologies can enhance U.S. alliances in Asia in critical ways, while some of their potentially destabilizing impacts can be mitigated by managing competition and reducing the risks of miscalculations in these domains.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":"495-516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68343012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2019.31.3.007
Niv Farago
This article examines the civil war in Syria and Iran’s military buildup in that country through the lens of senior Israeli politicians, military officers, and security pundits. Most of them agree that the Netanyahu government’s policy of striking Iran-linked targets in Syria hard while encouraging Europe to impose, like the United States, debilitating sanctions on Iran has severely damaged the ayatollahs’ plans. By interrupting Iranian efforts to establish a Hezbollah-like force in Syria and equip it with precision-guided missiles, Israeli policy has also decreased, some pundits believe, the likelihood of regional war. However, this article suggests that although Israel’s policy has hindered Iranian entrenchment in Syria, the danger of regional war has increased. Debilitating sanctions could cause Iran to discard the 2015 nuclear deal, thereby provoking an Israeli strike on its nuclear installations, and increasingly bolder strikes in Syria may spur the ayatollahs to retaliate harshly. Reliant upon Iran to secure Assad’s victory, but determined to deny the ayatollahs control over Syria, Russia is allowing Israeli strikes to continue as it rehabilitates Assad’s forces and rearms them with advanced weaponry. This weaponry, including S-300 defense systems that threaten Israeli planes, could embolden Syria to attempt recapturing the Golan Heights in the future.
{"title":"The Civil War in Syria in View of the Iranian Challenge in the Middle East: An Israeli Perspective","authors":"Niv Farago","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2019.31.3.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2019.31.3.007","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the civil war in Syria and Iran’s military buildup in that country through the lens of senior Israeli politicians, military officers, and security pundits. Most of them agree that the Netanyahu government’s policy of striking Iran-linked targets in Syria hard while encouraging Europe to impose, like the United States, debilitating sanctions on Iran has severely damaged the ayatollahs’ plans. By interrupting Iranian efforts to establish a Hezbollah-like force in Syria and equip it with precision-guided missiles, Israeli policy has also decreased, some pundits believe, the likelihood of regional war. However, this article suggests that although Israel’s policy has hindered Iranian entrenchment in Syria, the danger of regional war has increased. Debilitating sanctions could cause Iran to discard the 2015 nuclear deal, thereby provoking an Israeli strike on its nuclear installations, and increasingly bolder strikes in Syria may spur the ayatollahs to retaliate harshly. Reliant upon Iran to secure Assad’s victory, but determined to deny the ayatollahs control over Syria, Russia is allowing Israeli strikes to continue as it rehabilitates Assad’s forces and rearms them with advanced weaponry. This weaponry, including S-300 defense systems that threaten Israeli planes, could embolden Syria to attempt recapturing the Golan Heights in the future.","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"31 1","pages":"437-455"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.002
K. Cho, Bumjoon Park, Um Jungsik
{"title":"Changing Nuclear Capabilities and Strategy between the United States and North Korea","authors":"K. Cho, Bumjoon Park, Um Jungsik","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"30 1","pages":"21-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.005
Taesuh Cha, Seo Jungkun
{"title":"Trump by Nixon: Maverick Presidents in the Years of U.S. Relative Decline","authors":"Taesuh Cha, Seo Jungkun","doi":"10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22883/KJDA.2018.30.1.005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43274,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Defense Analysis","volume":"30 1","pages":"79-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68342901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：