오늘자 교도통신 기사에서 접했지만, 이미 2020년 미국의 독립언론인이 저서로 폭로한 내용이라고 합니다.
The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War
웹진에는 해당 기자가 트럼프 행정부의 저위력핵무기 정책을 비판하면서 예전 일화로서 거론한 대목이 있습니다.
The Senseless Danger of the Military’s New “Low-Yield” Nuclear Warhead
In my new book, The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War, I recount a highly classified war game played by the National Security Council late in the Obama administration. Reports of Russia’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy were emerging. The idea of the game was to test whether this strategy might indeed thwart America’s ability or will to project power in Europe. The scenario went like this: The Russians invade one of the Baltic states; NATO fights back effectively; to reverse the tide, Russia fires a low-yield nuclear weapon at the NATO troops or at a base in Germany where drones, combat planes, and smart bombs were deployed. The question: What do U.S. decision-makers do next?
The game was first played in an NSC deputies’ meeting, consisting of second-tier officials from the various agencies and military branches. Initially, the generals steered the discussion toward operational details: How many nuclear weapons, and of what type, should the U.S. fire at what targets? Then, Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser,* spoke up. The generals, he said, were missing the big picture. The minute the Russians drop a nuclear bomb, we would face a world-defining moment—the first time an atom bomb had been used in war since 1945. It would be an opportunity to rally the entire world against Russia. If we responded with diplomacy and economic pressure, and by pushing ahead with our conventional advantage, we would isolate and weaken Moscow’s leaders, policies, and military forces. However, if we responded by shooting off some nukes of our own, we would forfeit that advantage and, moreover, normalize the use of nuclear weapons.
* 지금 바이든 정부에서 국방부 정책담당 차관입니다.
The generals were caught off guard. They knew of the long-standing debate over whether the U.S. should be the first to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack, but it seemed perverse to consider using conventional weapons in response to a nuclear attack. A few hours of discussion ensued, examining Kahl’s political challenge, NATO’s conventional military strength, the puzzle of which targets to hit with nuclear weapons (none made much sense), and whether a nuclear response would end the war any sooner or more victoriously than a conventional response (which didn’t seem likely). In the end, a consensus formed that, at least as a first step, the U.S. should respond with continued conventional military operations.
A month later, the NSC’s Principals Committee—the group of Cabinet secretaries and military chiefs—played the same game, but with very different results. Some of the same concerns were raised—the possibility of isolating the Russians by not taking the nuclear bait, the lack of any sensible targets, the uncertainty of whether nukes would dampen or further escalate the war. Still, the principals decided we had to respond with nuclear weapons, to maintain credibility among our allies and adversaries. They decided to fire a few nuclear weapons at the former Soviet republic of Belarus, even though, in the game, it had no involvement in the Russian attacks—and then they ended the game, without playing the next few steps.
ロシアが核攻撃に踏み切ったらアメリカはどこに報復するか？米政権内で行われていた机上演習の衝撃的な中身
러시아가 핵공격을 저지르면 미국은 어디에다 보복할까? 미 정부 내에서 행해진 워게임의 충격적인 내용
교도통신 기사에는, 2016년에 2번째로 행해진 (장관급)워게임에서 당시 애쉬튼 카터 국방장관이 핵보복이 필수임을 내세웠다고 합니다. 그간의 워게임중 당시 국무부 부장관(현 장관)이었던 블링컨은 아무 의사표시가 없었다고 합니다. 그런데 핵보복 대상을 고르는 수순이 절정(?)입니다.
次に議論の対象となったのが、米国は具体的にどこに報復するかについてだった。最初に挙がった候補は、ロシア西部の飛び地で、バルト海に面する軍港を持つカリーニングラードだったが、飛び地とはいえ、ロシア領土に核ミサイルを落とすことは、全面的な核戦争に発展する恐れがあるとして却下。バルト３国に侵攻したロシア軍に対する攻撃も検討されたが、同盟国の市民への被害を考慮し不適当とされた。
(장관급 워게임중)다음으로 논의의 대상이 된 것은, 미국이 구체적으로 어디에 보복할 것인가 하는 것이었다. 최초로 거론된 후보는 러시아 서부의 월경지이고 발트해에 면한 군항이 있는 칼리닌그라드였지만, 월경지라도 러시아 영토에 핵을 쓰는 것은 전면 핵전쟁으로 발전할 우려가 있어 기각. 발트3국에 침공한 러시아군을 대상으로 한 공격도 검토되었지만, 동맹국 시민의 피해를 고려하면 부적합하게 여겨졌다.
結局、最終的に選ばれたのはロシアに隣接する同盟国ベラルーシだった。この机上演習では、同国はバルト３国侵攻には何の関係もなかったが、ロシアの同盟国と言うだけで、核攻撃の対象となることが決まった。
결국, 최종적으로 선택된 것은 러시아에 인접한 동맹국 벨라루스였다. 그 워게임에선 벨라루스는 발트3국 침공에 아무런 관련이 없었지만, 러시아의 동맹국이란 이유만으로 핵공격의 대상으로 결정되었다.
댓글
댓글 리스트-
작성자백선호 작성시간 22.05.06 2차대전 때 북아프리카와 네덜란드 아른헴에서 싸우고 1966년에는 독일 주둔 영국육군 군단장이 된 영국육군의 해킷 중장이 1978년에 쓴 소설에서도 영국 버밍햄에 대한 소련의 핵공격의 보복 핵공격은 벨라루스의 민스크에 떨어지죠. 벨라루스가 얻어맞으면서 우크라이나와 폴란드는 다음 차례는 자기라고 생각하고 바르샤바 조약기구의 전쟁에서 이탈합니다.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_World_War:_The_Untold_Story이미지 확대