{"title":"脆弱的美国东北亚联盟:核影响","authors":"Eric Heginbotham, Richard J. Samuels","doi":"10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite rising threats and challenges in Northeast Asia, the US commitment to its allies there has become less certain. In part, this is by design. President Trump argued that less categorical signals would encourage US allies to do more, either in their own defense or to support (and finance) forward deployed US forces. Hearing this, Japanese and South Korean (ROK) leaders have been led to consider alternatives to the status quo. They increased defense budgets, a welcome development in Washington, but they also have taken measures that may complicate alliance dynamics, undermine crisis stability, and weaken the broader project of balancing Chinese power. Early in his term, President Biden pledged to improve alliance relations. But confronted with uncertainty, Japan and Korea continue to edge toward offensive systems, including missile forces, which may prove destabilizing in crises. They have also moved away from the rolesand missions-based specialization of military labor that has enhanced alliance efficiencies for decades. The widening discussion of nuclear weapons in both countries is perhaps most striking. While nuclear breakout could strengthen Japanese and South Korean self-defense, it would not necessarily enhance balancing. Indeed, given the","PeriodicalId":46957,"journal":{"name":"Washington Quarterly","volume":"44 1","pages":"157 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vulnerable US Alliances in Northeast Asia: The Nuclear Implications\",\"authors\":\"Eric Heginbotham, Richard J. Samuels\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite rising threats and challenges in Northeast Asia, the US commitment to its allies there has become less certain. In part, this is by design. President Trump argued that less categorical signals would encourage US allies to do more, either in their own defense or to support (and finance) forward deployed US forces. Hearing this, Japanese and South Korean (ROK) leaders have been led to consider alternatives to the status quo. They increased defense budgets, a welcome development in Washington, but they also have taken measures that may complicate alliance dynamics, undermine crisis stability, and weaken the broader project of balancing Chinese power. Early in his term, President Biden pledged to improve alliance relations. But confronted with uncertainty, Japan and Korea continue to edge toward offensive systems, including missile forces, which may prove destabilizing in crises. They have also moved away from the rolesand missions-based specialization of military labor that has enhanced alliance efficiencies for decades. The widening discussion of nuclear weapons in both countries is perhaps most striking. While nuclear breakout could strengthen Japanese and South Korean self-defense, it would not necessarily enhance balancing. Indeed, given the\",\"PeriodicalId\":46957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Washington Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"157 - 175\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Washington Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1894709","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vulnerable US Alliances in Northeast Asia: The Nuclear Implications
Despite rising threats and challenges in Northeast Asia, the US commitment to its allies there has become less certain. In part, this is by design. President Trump argued that less categorical signals would encourage US allies to do more, either in their own defense or to support (and finance) forward deployed US forces. Hearing this, Japanese and South Korean (ROK) leaders have been led to consider alternatives to the status quo. They increased defense budgets, a welcome development in Washington, but they also have taken measures that may complicate alliance dynamics, undermine crisis stability, and weaken the broader project of balancing Chinese power. Early in his term, President Biden pledged to improve alliance relations. But confronted with uncertainty, Japan and Korea continue to edge toward offensive systems, including missile forces, which may prove destabilizing in crises. They have also moved away from the rolesand missions-based specialization of military labor that has enhanced alliance efficiencies for decades. The widening discussion of nuclear weapons in both countries is perhaps most striking. While nuclear breakout could strengthen Japanese and South Korean self-defense, it would not necessarily enhance balancing. Indeed, given the
期刊介绍:
The Washington Quarterly (TWQ) is a journal of global affairs that analyzes strategic security challenges, changes, and their public policy implications. TWQ is published out of one of the world"s preeminent international policy institutions, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and addresses topics such as: •The U.S. role in the world •Emerging great powers: Europe, China, Russia, India, and Japan •Regional issues and flashpoints, particularly in the Middle East and Asia •Weapons of mass destruction proliferation and missile defenses •Global perspectives to reduce terrorism Contributors are drawn from outside as well as inside the United States and reflect diverse political, regional, and professional perspectives.