After September 11, the Bush administration has focused on not only upgrading its military capabilities but also transforming its strategic courses by emphasizing the RMA. According to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, transforming the US Armed Forces is necessary because the challenges presented by the new century are vastly different from those of the last century. During the cold war, the u.s. can manage the threat with strategies of deterrence and containment. But it is no longer possible for the US to deter or contain them since adversaries have no country to defend, and they easily gain access to weapons of increasing range and power with the help of dictators of several rogue states what they called axis of evils. The Bush administration strongly believes that it must change its strategic course to prepare for the future surprise attacks. However, it must not make the mistake of believing that terrorism is the only threat of the 21st Century. Terrorism is a deadly asymmetric threat but not the only possible one. The next threat could be from missiles or cyber attack. Moreover, the rise of asymmetric treats does not preclude the possibility that in the future great regional powers will seek to challenge the United States or its allies and friends by conventional means. It must prepare for all kinds of war and that is why the new strategy calls for the RMA and transformation of the defense establishment over time. It is very important at this juncture to examine how the RMA will affect the international arms control efforts and particularly how it changes the alliance relationship. This study will attempt to look at both positive sides and negative sides of the RMA and will examine how Americas major allies such as Germany, France and Australia respond toward such a new challenge. The major purpose of this study is to articulate what lessons Korea can learn from those three countries RMA experiences. Finally, it will find out what options can Seoul take for the future in dealing with the DPRK. It is worth mentioning that the DoD has developed a new strategic framework that is built around four defense policy goals: assuring allies and friends; dissuading future military competition; deterring threats and coercion against us. interests; and if deterrence fails, decisively defeating any adversary. In order to achieve those goals, the DoD strives to develop a broad portfolio of military capabilities by embracing the RMA. They believe that the RMA will create substantial margins of advantage across key functional areas of military competition, such as power projection, space, and information. It will also ensure U.S. access to distant theatres, defending against threats to the U.S. and allied territory, and protecting U.S. assets in space. The new strategy also emphasizes an ability to integrate highly distributed military forces in synergistic combinations to conduct highly complex joint military operations with regional allies. But emphasis on close political relations with our allies does not necessarily reflect actual military trends. The RMA, despite its awesome possibilities, could in some cases actually dilute rather than solidify relations between the United States and its traditional allies. First, given its smaller and reduced defense budget, the allies wont be able to invest properly in the experimental programs necessary to develop and integrate revolutionary technologies. Therefore the gap between the U.S. and the European allies will be increased and it will cause serious problems in communicating each other and fighting together effectively. as they experienced in Bosnia. Second, because the price tag associated with the RMA is so high and resources are scarce, the European and Australian allies rather prefer to buy legacy items than investing in next-generation type of technologies. As a result,
Ⅰ. 서론: 국방개혁과 군비통제의 함수관계
Ⅱ. 신국제질서 구축을 위한 미국안보정책의 변화
Ⅲ. 미국의 군사혁신 현황과 동맹관계에 미치는 영향
Ⅳ. 독일의 군사혁신
Ⅴ. 프랑스의 군사혁신
Ⅵ. 호주의 군사혁신
Ⅶ. 한국국방개혁에 대한 시사점과 문제점
Ⅷ. 결론: 효율적인 군비통제정책을 위한 제안