지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Although the Soviet’s military strategy was continent oriented in the 1920~1930, the Soviet Union had two maritime strategies.
The first was ‘the old school ’that pursued the traditional maritime strategy, contending that it had to strengthen nuclear powered battleships and cruises to command the sea despite the limitations of the geopolitics and sufficient forces and this is in the same vein as the classical theory of maritime strategy by Colomb and Mahan. The second was ‘the young school’ that pursued small navy with patrol killers, destroyers, submarines and land based naval aircraft, contending that it could deny enemy’s command of the sea, which is better than to defeat the enemy and command the sea. Following the two schools, the soviet school emerged which emphasized the limited sea power, focusing on the equal force strategy and current aggressive fleet in 1949.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union in 1956 had made use of a naval power as a means of national policy with the advent of Gorshkov. Since 1970, sea denial strategy was adopted by the Soviet’s maritime strategy of the Soviet Union and started to expand the Soviet Union’s interest in the Asia-Pacific region.
As the Soviet navy increased his powerin the Pacific region, the U.S. Navy changed to active maritime strategy. in the past the U.S. navy was forced to play a passive role with a ground oriented forces in the Atlantic region after World War-Ⅱ. The concept of ‘aggressive maritime strategy,’ ‘Sea Plan 2000,’and ‘600 Navy Ships’ had strengthened U.S. navy’s doctrine and these became the specific and clear maritime strategy of the U.S.
Therefore, this article will find out the changes in maritime strategy of the U.S. in response to the Soviet maritime strategy during the Cold War.
The first was ‘the old school ’that pursued the traditional maritime strategy, contending that it had to strengthen nuclear powered battleships and cruises to command the sea despite the limitations of the geopolitics and sufficient forces and this is in the same vein as the classical theory of maritime strategy by Colomb and Mahan. The second was ‘the young school’ that pursued small navy with patrol killers, destroyers, submarines and land based naval aircraft, contending that it could deny enemy’s command of the sea, which is better than to defeat the enemy and command the sea. Following the two schools, the soviet school emerged which emphasized the limited sea power, focusing on the equal force strategy and current aggressive fleet in 1949.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union in 1956 had made use of a naval power as a means of national policy with the advent of Gorshkov. Since 1970, sea denial strategy was adopted by the Soviet’s maritime strategy of the Soviet Union and started to expand the Soviet Union’s interest in the Asia-Pacific region.
As the Soviet navy increased his powerin the Pacific region, the U.S. Navy changed to active maritime strategy. in the past the U.S. navy was forced to play a passive role with a ground oriented forces in the Atlantic region after World War-Ⅱ. The concept of ‘aggressive maritime strategy,’ ‘Sea Plan 2000,’and ‘600 Navy Ships’ had strengthened U.S. navy’s doctrine and these became the specific and clear maritime strategy of the U.S.
Therefore, this article will find out the changes in maritime strategy of the U.S. in response to the Soviet maritime strategy during the Cold War.
목차
1. 서론
2. 해양전략의 개념 및 구성요소
3. 냉전 시 소련의 해양전략
4. 미국의 대응전략
5. 결론
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (28)
참고문헌 신청
Noah Feldman / 2013 / Managing the coming Cool War with China / The Korea Herald(2013.6.4.)
애런 프리드버그 / 2012 / 패권경쟁(중국과 미국, 누가 아시아를 지배할까) / 까치 :111~145
Halford J. Mackinder / 1904 / The Geographic Pivot of History / Geographical Journal 23(4):421~437
박창희 / 2008 / 21세기 전략환경 변화와 중국의 군사전략 / 중소연구 32(3):45~71
김현기 / 1998 / 현대해양전략사상가 / 한국해양전략연구소 :290~293
애런 프리드버그 / 2012 / 패권경쟁(중국과 미국, 누가 아시아를 지배할까) / 까치 :111~145
Halford J. Mackinder / 1904 / The Geographic Pivot of History / Geographical Journal 23(4):421~437
박창희 / 2008 / 21세기 전략환경 변화와 중국의 군사전략 / 중소연구 32(3):45~71
김현기 / 1998 / 현대해양전략사상가 / 한국해양전략연구소 :290~293
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-390-001814313