Warning: include_once(/lib/latest.lib.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/veteran/public_html/sub_03_01.html on line 3

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/lib/latest.lib.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/usr/share/php') in /home/veteran/public_html/sub_03_01.html on line 3

Warning: include_once(/lib/outlogin.lib.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/veteran/public_html/sub_03_01.html on line 4

Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/lib/outlogin.lib.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/usr/share/php') in /home/veteran/public_html/sub_03_01.html on line 4
이윰빌더

미등록페이지

HOME / Multimedia / International Cooperation in Disaster Relief
   
Publications
 
Defense Economy:
Development of A Weapon System
The Three Kingdoms Period (ancient history)
The Goryeo Kingdom
Joseon Dynasty (modern history)
Economics of National Defense:
National defense economy
World trade war
International financial system
International capital standings
Grand Strategy:
Introduction
Analysis of The Northeast Asia Approach toward Korean Peninsula
Security Environment of Korean Peninsula
Conclusion
 

Economics of national defense vol.1

National defense economy

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ECONOMY

What are the essence and structure of the national defense economy? Is it regarded as only popular words of a war era with temporary and transitory phenomenon that might be experienced by the prevailing national economy? If otherwise, is it a collection of peculiar economic structures that occupy current regulations through accumulative structural processes in the field of the current world economic process? Or, is it a part of phenomena that boils down to peculiar economic zones belonging either a capitalist economic system or a socialist economic system. Furthermore, given that the structure of the national defense economy in an anticipated entire thermonuclear war will be totally different from traditional war, what kind of position and regulation should the national defense economy be placed at and in what way should it be incorporated into world economy in the course of the independent economic build-up process based upon developed countries and nationalism?

Germany, Italy, and Japan initiated a slogan; ‘establishing a highly advanced national defense economy’ had been widespread as a way to incorporate totalitarian nation’s economic policies, to overcome difficulty in economic recession throughout the world after World War I. In addition, an exploration of relevant theory had become an important part of economics theory. Not to speak of the 5 years during World War II, when each country was devoted to an ultra nationalistic defense economic mobilization process; therefore the overall world economy had been developed under a national defense economic system.
Most of all, advanced capitalist countries had started to restate economical efficiency growth, economic power enforcement measures based upon national defense economy, mobilization economy theory, and national defense in the Korean war since World War II. What then are the essential parts of a national defense economy, war economics or economics of national security?
According to h. Hunke, economy at peace is deemed an economy considered by classical economists as object. In other words capitalist economy in western countries prior to World War I. Classical economics denied the possibility of recognition of the essence of national defense economy in a position based upon such methodology as considered customs, taxation, or war as factors that disturbed local economic circulation.
An actual economy (national economy after World War I) defined by Hunke means a national defense economy. Hunke did not recognize national economy as an organizational economy, group of cities economy, but a nation-binding economy just like classical theorists of the national economy attracted to national supremacy, tradition of the Germans with a national view of German totalitarianism or nationalism.
A definition of nation includes self-defense of its own. A nation that is not capable of defending itself is not a nation any longer … consequently; national economy was, they said, not always deemed national defense economy.

War economics is explained in combination with war and the national economy. Hunke’s opinion is classified into national defense economy and war economics. However, K. Hesse considered it the same concept. Professor Jungsanijirang, Japanese economist regards war economics national in the same light as defense economy.
Professor Jeoksong generalized such comments and opinions, however he concluded, ‘war power is a combined power of, an army’s combat power, a nation’s mental strength and the overall economic power based upon these two factors. A readiness for war means nurturing a nation’s gross power and is regarded as national defense policy. He proclaimed, ‘an economy at peace resulting from this national defense policy is a national defense economy,’ he added, ‘a war is a means to secure national economy, national economy aims at itself, however national defense economy is a means for securing war power and it belongs to an economy at peace.’
Consequently, its definition included the economy, means and object of a nation’s existence according to the national economy at peace. At the same time, it generally disclosed the overall organic and actual relation of the three concepts stated above that were identified using antithesis of antithesis technique during an economy at peace, after establishing an economy at peace as thesis and war economy as antithesis the national defense economy pointed to war economy so that peace used dialectic methodology.
A concept of national defense economy was mostly triggered from an objective fact that a trend of world economy suffered in World War II was developed within an economic militarization structure. A. C. Pigou, who suffered World War I identified ‘war economics as the brother-in-law of traditional economics.’ Possony defined that a war economy referred to readiness for a wide range of wars reflecting current reality when viewing total war, and he directed his intention to increased economic factors in light of peace-time national economy, however he failed to identify how modern economy under monopolistic national capitalism developed into a national defense economy system in structure.
Western industrialized societies had occupied the vast world colonized market and highly advanced technology as well as enormous capital, they monopolized 60% of world trade till World War I with an display of their power, however their possession reduced to 40% due to the emergence of a newly industrialized U.S.A. Capitalism, the soviet-centered society leadership, uprising of the Asian national independence movement and the subsequent disaster of war, after World War II, with a motive of establishment of Asian colony’s national independence movement, western industrial societies’ occupancy was considerably reduced. Keynes’ theory explains – lack of effective demand – mostly resulted from a recession in consumption, however a reduction of dynamic investment factors (in particular, expansion of land, increase of population, etc) could be regarded as major factors that had arisen from relative loss in the world market.

Economic militarization means a process that structurally militarizes the overall national economy at the hand of the empire under such historical conditions. In other words, with the collapse of the single faith after the World War II, the major leading capitalist empires began a course of ‘permanent preparation production’ ‘war production without war’ because of the narrowing dominance of world resources as a result of the collapse of a single world religion after World War II, not because of impending war and subsequent requests for control by the nation’s weapon production, away from mobilization of national economy concentrating upon temporary defense production for the purpose of maximizing profit from production. In this sense, economic militarization explains that national defense economy is a basic principle of this stage of a capitalist economy. Besides, with regards to nation’s significant military cost and expenditure thereto, A. H. Hansen said, ‘our military costs and expenditure do not lead to poverty of the national economy, but to the realizing of economic circulation’.
Secondly, lieutenant general Seokcheon (1940) commented in relation to the world’s-biggest war, World War II, that a concept of national defense economy targeted the establishment of a Japanese national defense economy, a neo economic system of highly advanced national defense. The country completed military readiness and expanded production power, in pursuit of personal, materialistic, and overall resource mobilization. It covered innovative munitions engineering, chemical engineering, and mechanical engineering. This large scale of reformation could not be made without disorder in the overall economic organization under free market economic system. Therefore, ‘what is most important is to reinforce economic control through thorough planning,’ he stated. This argument was the same as that of Hunke and Possony as far as a nation’s total mobilization stage. It took 20 months of mobilization for the U.S.A. to operate traditional economic mobilization or product supreme munitions.
Since the world started to reorganize military preparation, motivated by the Korean War, the world powers that suffered as a result of World War II got down to the process of developing a solid mobilization base that could optimize the potentiality of a civil peace economy and maximize mobilized power in the preparation production goal. The U.S.A.’s national defense economy policy remained consistent with the mobilization base policy till 1950’s.

However, a brilliant achievement in the development of science and technology, and research and development had come to nothing due to the emergence of thermal nuclear weapons and hence, the complete lack of time allowed for the military mobilization of Japan’s economic potentiality brought about serious changes in the national defense economy system. As far as a restricted war was involved, a solidifying of the traditional mobilization base was not disregarded. A main power, the recuperation base, consists of different factors such as economic efficiency realizing future economic power and the current nation’s economic power, current military power with high functioning mobility in attack and defense with support from a strong civil defense, medicare, rations, engineering machinery, and finally large scale munitions readiness. That is a basic task of current national defense economy prospected over a generation. A modern economic power including this viewpoint represents national defense economic power; consequently, current national economy can concretely realize a concept of national defense economy.
We cannot disregard the impact of a newborn country’s independence struggles under former colonization after World War II as a concurrent motive in the concept of national defense economy regulations.
A definition of the national defense economy discussed so far is primarily based upon newly industrialized countries. A gain of independence and a long time desire for reunification and economical independence struggled for by developing countries since 1945 had assumed various aspects of war or dispute over a history of rationalistic desire and struggle. What is a concrete definition and characteristic of the national defense economy that assumes an aspect of historical importance?
The list revealed in relation to the protective customs system, ‘protective customs for the nation’s independence and power aims at the national defense economy, and a nation’s national economy consists of the civilian economy and the national defense economy. In addition, the national defense economy is superior to the civilian economy’, insisted Hansen. If so, newly industrialized developing countries’ mercantile policy for economic independence is not deemed consistent with the national defense economic policy. Economic misunderstanding between great numbers of developed countries triggered war in the 20th century under such circumstances.
From this viewpoint, the national defense economy is abstractly and generally defined as the ‘national economy under the current stage of exposure to economic militarization, nuclear war and developed countries’ new emergence.

Definition of National Defense Economy

In other words, national means procedure and function that selectively combine the nation’s resources according threat to and character of security. The nation’s three primary props and stays, political power, economic power and military power could make up national security when reconciling national profit and goals.
When reviewing the correlation among political power, economic power, and military power, political power dominates military power as the nation’s governing authority, economic power backs up political and military power as a national wealth and production resource, and military power enables politics and foreign affairs by means of military force. In particular, the nation’s usable resource of economic power varies depending upon nation, however in general, natural resources, industrial and engineering infrastructure and quality of population are considered three nuclear factors.
These three primary economic resources are reinforced with the addition of geology, transport, weather, and international trade, etc. Economic power consists of internal economic power contributing to the national economy, and foreign economic power contributing to the international economy by means of foreign affairs policy. Economic power is a crucial matter that is determined by richness of certain natural resources, poorness of certain strategic resources, and a nation's prospects.
In particular relation to foreign economic power, it is ironic that nations lacking in resources developed their economic power, while some countries abundant in resources are hardly influential in economic power.

Japan short of resources passed China, which had abundant resources in Asia, and Germany passed Russia in Europe. U.S.A. And Russia severely competed with a pre-occupation for the African nations, which has no outstanding economic development as yet. Consequently, economic resource does not represent economic power in itself. In other words, what a nation has and what a nation can do with this, can be as adverse as either side of a coin.
Most important of the strategic resources are oil, ore, and coal (coal has been replaced by oil and atomic energy), however not many nations have all three of these. Most of the oil producing countries have no ore or coal. However, the U.S.A. and former Russia are abundant in the three resources respectively, which has backed up their military leadership.
Some nations do not have resources; nonetheless they control countries that do have resources. However, no country has enough strategic resources, therefore they have to import them.
Assuming some of the potential difficulties of overseas transport, former Russia must be placed in an advantageous position over others due to the merits of land transport as well as the resources in its possession. In particular, when sea transport is intercepted during war, resource application from overseas is stopped, therefore storing and constituting of resource development are required during peacetime.
One of the primary reasons that Germany could endure war during World War II was because it produced constituting oil from coal and stored significant amounts of oil after invading Rumania.
A strategic rare mineral resource has become a debate of international politics. Four major rare mineral resources - platinum, crotonum, manganese (mn) and vanadium (v) are new materials of alloy complex that have such durability or solidity that they are used for aircraft, submarine, trajectory bombs for strategic weapons production. Most of these resources are partially preserved in South Africa; western countries have been attempting to obtain them through a variety of means, notwithstanding the prevention of nuclear development by South Africa.

Economic power such as wealth of and resource production of a nation is deemed the most important symbolic factor post-cold war, however the Korean peninsular should be maintained with certain military power because of its corpse of back up military potentiality. Military potential is mainly determined by economic potentiality and is a base of forces that can mobilize or reinforce at emergency.
In addition, the ability to convert assumable force into present force is enabled only through the three mechanisms of war, anticipation, and threat. What is notable is that military potentiality (political potentiality, economics, science and technology potentiality, and administration potentiality) is not sufficient to mobilize and reinforce military power (the on-going process of assumable military power), furthermore a national will to determine military force in an emergency will be expanded at an unlimited or zero level depending upon reaction.
In particular, military potential, as displayed in the <Table 1-1-1>, consists of three factors, however it is called economic power as economy potential or military potential for economic power. This can be specifically measured, it might be a basis for personnel and budget organization in a nation’s policy structure, therefore, and in general military potentiality is often similar to economy potentiality.
An economical and scientific potentiality is a domain that can be incorporated into a military power within a nation’s economic power and scientific, technical capacity. It is a potential capacity of the military power occupying the largest portion of military potentiality. A political potentiality means a political basis of military power supporting administrative potentiality and military power use, formation of national commonality and national policy. In addition, administrative potentiality means the procedure and technology determining the level of military quality and quantity.

Each nation needs military power formation for defense and war including military power and equipment, and supplies, however these come from the nation’s labor, capital and natural resources. One of the universal criteria for assessing economic power is GNP.

GNP is crucial in matters determining the size of a military power; furthermore it determines the nation’s will. A determination of the resource allotment that can satisfy the national defense’s economic demand among economic powers varies depending upon political potentiality. Notwithstanding under war, people could not bear continuous tightening up of their belts, war today often extends to complete war, therefore a harmonization between the national economy and national defense economy should be made.
GNP is also related to a nation’s political system. A decision-making process for putting national resources into military power under dictatorship, totalitarianism is done by sovereignty demanding observance by people, however resource allotment oriented to supreme militarism is hardly determined under liberalism or nationalism. Consequently, nations with a large GNP cannot be always large militarized nations, however they may have been maintaining large military power and the proportion of military cost to GNP becomes higher as their security gets poorer.
When representing a nation’s economic power with GNP, military cost represents economic military potentiality, moreover the main power of military potentiality is an economic power, therefore military cost is deemed an essential factor that determines and develops military power. In general, it is prevalent in nations and communist countries in the Middle East and Asia that a nation that has a higher level of military power compared with population has a higher level of military cost compared with the GNP.
A limit to the share of military costs at peacetime, according to Klaus Knoor, showed 18~20% in the case of nations with dynamic economical efficiency. This depends upon the level of sacrifice and resolution on behalf of the people of the nation, not to mention the political base in relation to the military power of the nation.

Development of National Defense Economy

1) Free competitive industrial capitalist stage (classical economic view)

(1) Adam Smith (1723-1790)
Adam Smith first issued national defense economy as one of special fields of the national economic system and established specific fields in the general national economic system. Smith is also a well-known economic theorist, who lived in a time when people struggled to do away with the traditional autocratic monarchy and restriction of ߻ and attain a freedom and civil society of the people by removing the remains of feudalism, and the introduction of industry. England executed the political the puritan revolution (1642-45) and the glorious revolution (1688), repeatedly made brilliant achievements in the civil society construction process, and created a corner stone for the tenant farmer system in agriculture with the great wave of the #2 cross-country movement. It also constructed and extended the railway and developed the canals, which led to market expansion, furthermore it developed a currency credit system and made innovative technical progress. Eventually this brought about the industrial revolution in which technical developments and innovations led to improvement in productivity, industrial dominance by position, and a production society emergence.
Smith said in relation to the national defense economy, ‘accumulation of gold and silver is a meaningless policy’. He commented that what maintained an army and navy was not gold or silver, as is the opinion of the mercantiles who insist on the preparation of gold and silver for war, but resources and products. He contended the importance of national defense as one example although he asserted a non-interference policy by keeping clear of foreign trade based upon mercantilism.
Smith, furthermore, noted his classical view regarding national defense and economy in the following manner in the ‘national defense budgeting theory’.
He asserted that, military cost expenditure is different depending upon the time. A war was small in a hunting-breeding age and there was no need to share war budgeting among each village. The share occurring in the rear line was restricted to military power, and 1 /4 or 1 /5 of village people were mobilized for war at that time. The military system had been changed over time to the mid feudal age, however there was no evidence of a professional military system. In history, a regular army was stronger than a national army. Consequently, it seems a clever policy that maintains a strong regular army and it is natural that they have an increasing amount of military cost expenditure for regular army strengthening and weapons updating.
When summarizing economic society analysis based upon individualism that was developed by smith in the liberalistic capitalism quickening period, he commented, ‘national wealth consists of living necessities and conveniences and the source of these goods production is determined by total investment and labor. Total labor varies depending upon population, in order to improve national wealth; increase of population and expansion of quality and quantity of labor should be precedent. However, it seems impossible to realize a quick increase of population with labor population as central. Consequently, what seems rational and possible for improving national wealth gets down to reinforcement of labor quality. To improve productivity by increasing labor quality, rationalization of labor organization should be followed, that is, so called, division of work or work-site operations’. Smith proved this range with figures and numbers in ‘wealth of the empire’. It stated, ‘without division of work, a worker could not even produce 1~2 pins per day, however with division of work, 4,800 pins could be produced under the same conditions’.

On the other hand, a balance between supply and consumption might be liable to loss since each individual economic subject in a production society pursues profit; in addition, it produces products aims at the demand of the market. However, if analyzing the theory system of competition principle and competitive price, a current market price incessantly changes, however it has an automatic adjustment organization of price that auctions to the natural price (proportion of total wage+interest+rent+profit to production cost). In this way, individual profit-oriented independent business activities and reckoning rationality as well as social rationality would balance out, consequently, national wealth would get larger and capitalism’s future would be brighter.

(2) David Ricardo (1772-1823)
Ricardo succeeding smith lived in an era that almost achieved free competitive capitalism from the industrial revolution in England (1760-1830). This enormous society individual transition period (productivity, technology, the Napoleonic wars, agricultural self-support and self-sufficiency measures for national defense, grains regulations, war depression) was a switch-over for England to a modernized scaled mechanical factory stage in economics from technologicality of smith’s handcraft industry technology stage, consequently, optimism in the former had turned to pessimistic view by Ricardo from the aspect of the future of a capitalist economic society. Conflict between labor and management as a result of new productivity and depression in 1817 and the Napoleonic wars as well as the stress of the national defense economic policy made it even worse.
In addition, in England when Ricardo lived, the capitalist classes politically and economically dominated the nation and the aristocratic classes developed, with a background of warfare the national defense economy (in the Napoleonic wars) was misunderstood.
That was a crucial factor in determining the validity of grains regulations. The English supported advantageous land over capital by restricting import and promoting export of grains from end of 17th century. In particular, they indented to reinforce their profits by revising grains regulations using the Napoleonic wars or blocus continental. The contemporary citizens and industrial capitalists strongly objected to the soaring cost of grains.
The English grains trade policy from 1815 to 1846 hardly supported any people other than landlords (the aristocracy). This was called the ‘land monopoly act’. In other words, a high price policy without allowing the import of lower cost of grains from overseas kept laborer’s living in poverty and labor wages outrageously high, consequently, the production businesses suffered a great loss.
Although, grains regulation continued to the 19th century, customs to grains, woods were strongly related to the landlords and overseas colony personnel, therefore abolishment of such a system was difficult to enact due to the special relationship of the political classes and their subsequent interest in the regulations.

Ricardo, in relation to the national defense economy, eventually established a field of national defense economics just like smith as there was no relevant field, furthermore he researched the motives behind support for the grains regulations for national defense, but as Malthus points out, he clearly overlooked the legitimate descent of economics in national security by regarding national defense economic factors as pathological phenomena or disorderly factors in an economy at peace. His research only considers the impact of war on foreign trade, if at all.

(3) Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834)
Ricardo had a number of factors (national defense, war, public debt et. Seq.) in mind as a hindrance, however Malthus famous for his essay on the ‘principle of population’ was a thinker that mainly focused upon consistency between theory and experience. He did this by identifying all of those factors involved with and which constituted economic accidents (the Napoleonic wars, stability of price for grains and population, initial depression phenomena, et. seq.).
One of the biggest experiences according to Malthus in the economic development for the English could be the Napoleonic war from 1793 to 1815. He asserted a policy that revised grains regulations based upon strengthening of landlord profit from grains from the blocus continental and wars as far as customs that matched war experience and theory and finally opened a way for a national defense economy (war ration policy), albeit he was a newly born bourgeois ideological supporter.
 Malthus also encouraged the necessity of war through his famous population theory. Equality between ‘population growth rate (by geometric progression) and food growth rate (by arithmetic progression) could not inevitably be met, resulting in poverty and immorality. This phenomenon would, in his view, create war or something like that, in consequence; he insisted that war played a suppressive function in the explosive growth of population.
On the other hand, Malthus suggested that they should prepare for a self-support and self-sufficiency policy for agricultural output (war rations) from the aspect of a national defense economy in relation to zone theory. In other words, he concluded, ‘there should be no other better policy than one of self-support and self-sufficiency for grains ’.
His foundation was developed from a search from market to sale, from increased industrial production as well as the emergence of a food shortage with the switchover from the industrial revolution, in particular trade and change of price during the war to France’s general goods standing after war. When reviewing world economy managing economic militarization today, a way-out from long-term depression of monopolistic capitalism economy will be correction into a smaller size of munitions production in the national economic structure.

(4) John Stuart Mill (1809-1873: revised classical economic view)
Mill could not deny general troubles disclosed in this system of capitalism when looking back over time. He came into an age suffering long-term depression from the high prices experienced right after his nation waged war against other countries following the Napoleonic wars. This era was the time that the at war economic system was dissolved and switched over to the at peace economic system. His economic view was wholly concentrated on economic phenomena without war, so there was no attention to the national defense economy.

2) Financing capitalism stage (neo classical economic view)

3) National capitalism stage

Function Between War and Economy
1) Relation between war and economy  

What is the relationship between war and economy? We can review this from two perspectives. One is in what way economy relates to cause of war, the other one is how economy reacts as a technological or regulative base of war during war.
Plato said with regards to the former, ‘it necessarily requires enormous amounts of food to support a large population of polis during the ancient polis formation development process; this would result in outward expansion since they would feel narrow with land and polis. Even other polis would invade other land under these same conditions, which explains for the origin of war’. It is also true in the origin of war during the mercantile age. In other words, a colony during this age acted only as a new consumer and was divided into pieces with historically long world market struggles. Competition between people was excluded as much as possible with taxation, constraints, and agreements, except for in nation-to-nation wars.
On the other hand, at the beginning of this century, with regard to the origin of World War I, Horald j. Laski said, ‘the war began from economic contradiction and conflict in England and Germany’s struggles for colonies during the monopolistic financing capitalistic stage, and that the cold war and economic wars in the 2nd half of 20th century might be caused by economic competition. With all respect, economics cannot be viewed as the origin of war.’
Aristotle said in relation to the latter, ‘it is common that the specific economic system of the Greek polis revises its specific political system and that its military system is determined as a political model, therefore an oligarchy political system allows the classes in power to possess many horses and wealth and cavalry organized as basic military power. In addition, a country with appropriate geography and wealthy classes will have a more heavily armed infantry system. However, a democratic political system will have a more lightly armed infantry and naval rating’. He emphasized that the economic base for each polis worked as a crucial agent during war.
Adam Smith expressed thorough comment on the reaction of war by economic powers based upon economic development. He said, ‘a military power in a breeding society is superior to that of a hunting society; this mostly comes from economic power at the development stage. However, after the industrial revolution, economic power strengthening and thereafter high-priced weaponry made ancient glorious countries even poorer and they could hardly defend themselves from invasion by economically powerful countries. Modern poor and developing countries could hardly defend themselves from invasion by rich and advanced countries.’
Above statements regarding war and economy show great thinkers’ comments from the two above aspects, however we should learn from war and the livelihood of economic warfare despite any of the above, even further what overall nuclear war is like. In other words, modern war represents a relationship between war and economy when we say the words ‘all-out war, all-material war, scientific warfare, economic war.’

General Matters of National Defense Economy

What to organize in economic potentiality?

(1) Size of population
Power requires a great number of people. However, it is not enough to have figures. If statistics were deemed the unique consideration, China would have been the most powerful nation in the world; India and former Russia would’ve been second and third. However, the population number, as far as we know, would rank next to a nation’s qualitative resources such as culture and ethnicity.

(2) Cultural conditions
About 100 American Indians lived in the North American Empire in 1492. However, after that, the Europeans invaded and could use the natural resources of the new world very effectively.
One of the most important aspects of the advanced culture was the medical science, the sanitation rule, and the capacity of the nation’s people to protect their health through its facility. When theses efforts are used effectively, the death rate decreases and the population average age increases. People have thought that the nation’s young people, is the age group, which occupy the largest rate of the nation’s strength, energy, and great capacity. However, it isn’t always so. Those nations with the largest group of young people show an unsound state, as the death rate is high and the accumulation of an old group is formed.
Typically, the Asian nations where the population rate of under 35 years old is about 70% is less productive and is therefore inefficient in conducting a modern mechanized war than the U.S.A where the rate is 60% or less.
However, we must not disregard the future potential of a large population on the ground. If China obtains better knowledge of sanitation or medical science, expansion of its population is expected due to the falloff in the death rate owing to such improvements and probably will belong to the most explosive influence in respect of international political strategies.

(3) Vocation distribution of population
The employment distribution conditions of the industrial world are the reflection of the economic structure and the indicator that some personnel and productivity can be used exclusively for the war. For example, if the population of a town is bound to the land by the necessity of the food production of people, the industrial labor and military power constituted in war.

(4) Nationalism
One of the strongest political powers in the present world is the psychological power to make the similar people, in the cultural aspect, residing in a common area one united community race. The race is eager to have its own government and has achieved it in most cases among the racial nations.
It resists strongly the efforts that the overseas imperialist power tends to control and in some cases, it prefers to refuse any efforts by international organizations, regarding this as a violation of sovereignty in a non-cooperative way. For the culture to form bonds with friendly nations requires common language, religion, customs, historical experience and ideology. The profit in the economic potential of the people of the racial nation lies in that the citizen’s participating in the national common plan, though individual sacrifice may be required. The government can’t execute a big military or economic plan that the masses of people might desire without a strong consciousness of nationalism among the citizens.

What to organize in economic potentiality?

(1) Local war
The mobilized military power of the UN forces was a total of 3.6 million persons and the total warfare cost was 20 billion dollars for the full 3 years from June 25, 1950 to the cease-fire agreement in 1953 in the Korean War, the typical local war. According to this precedent, the modern war can’t be concluded with only the commission of the existing military power and only the base of the economic power of the peace time, but it is possible to operate it by the total mobilization integrated economic potential of a nation or united empire.

Doctor Le asserted that ‘Detroit’ and ‘Pittsburgh’ became the symbol of the national defense power (military power) of the U.S.A. in the light of the instruction of the World War I and II and it directly showed the importance of the escalation of munitions production at the center of the heavy industry period in the war waging stage. Consequently, the national economic power of the peacetime is the national defense power in the light of the essence of the modern war.

Classification

Period

Name of war

Embattled nation

Mobilization military power (persons)

×

Total military power

Land army

×

×

1

1945-47

Indonesian War

Netherlands

Indonesia

140

140

130

140

2

1945-49

China Civil War

National wealth

China

1655

1622

1500

1622

3

1945-54

Malaysia War

England

Communist

175

10

160

10

4

1946-49

Grecian Red Army War

Greece

Peninsular

211

25

191

25

5

1947-49

Cashimir Dispute

India

Pakistan

97

56

97

56

6

1945-54

India Jana War

France

Viet minh

500

335

450

335

7

1948-49

Arab, Israel War

Israel

Arab alliance

-

-

98

105

8

1950-53

Korean War

Un

Peninsular

970

1179

884

1153

9

1954

Guatemala Rebellion

Government

Peninsular

9

5

8.8

5

10

1955

Argentina Rebellion

Government

Peninsular

16

40

15

5

11

1956-58

Algeria Rebellion

France

Peninsular

490

30

450

30

12

1956

Sinai War

Israel

Egypt

60

35

60

35

13

1956

Suez Occupation

England, France

Egypt

99.5

35

60

35

14

1957

Musugot, Oman

England

Peninsular

2.4

0.3

1.6

0

15

1956

Hungary Revolution

Hungary

Former Russia

40

80

40

70

16

1958

Lebanon Jordan

U.S.A., England

Peninsular

-

-

18

11

17

1958

Taiwan Straits blockade

U.S.A., Taiwan

China

200

195

88

135

18

1958-59

Cuba

Batista

Castro

43

6-8

35

6-8

19

1960-

Congo Dispute

UN

Feigned ignorance person

15

-

15

-

20

1961-

Laos War

Government

Pathet Lao

-

-

-

-

12

1961-

Vietnam War

Vietnam

Viet Minh

-

-

-

-

<Table> War phenomenon since 1945 (quotation)

  1. ICAF: The economics of national security, vol. An introductory survey, 1962. P. 3.
  2. USMA: International relations. 1965, ~ cadet note book, part I. P. 19d.

(2) Cold war
Let’s consider the relation of the national economic power and national defense power under the cold war from another point of view. The cold war with agony and travail in modern times means the tension of international society at the center of the economic war, increased in that the binational group security system of the U.S.A. and Russia is based on the solidified historical actuality occurring after World War II.

The original reason that the economy appeared as the direct strategic means in developing the war and was relieved of the direct role as the foundation of the war support can be founded in that free democracy developed through the economic organization of the capitalist and the communist nations, being at the center of the planning organization of the socialist intent to not only maintain and develop the superiority and capacity but also give pressure to the different economic systems, to gain control under the historical actuality that they confront each other and coexist to a great extent. Therefore, the national economic potentiality becomes the decisive factor to influence the important point of victory or defeat in the war model.

(3) Total nuclear war
The time to spare for diverting the economic structure of the peacetime into total warfare mobilization can’t be permitted under the development of unlimited nuclear war in the outbreak of the war. The nuclear attack time is cut to 30-60 minutes (15-30 minutes at present) from the warning period of 1-6 hours owing to the substitution of ICBM, and Baltimore city then disappears from one hydrogen bomb of 50 mega ton. According to the report that the National Defense Mobilization Bureau of the U.S.A. sent to the Integrated National Defense Production Committee and the lecture of ‘Forenju’ in the New York Private Defense Staff College (as of October 21, 1958). If the hydrogen bombs come to the ground in 50 cities, 55% of the population and 75% of the whole industry will be destroyed and if it falls in 150 cities, 75% of the population and 80-99% of the industry will be exterminated.
In fact, the development of the nuclear weapon brought about the decisive revolution in respect of the modern national defense. The A-type atomic bomb of 20KT dropped in Hiroshima sacrificed 0.25 million persons and the Mic explosion on November 7, 1952 showed the TNT explosion power of 5 million ton and resulting crater of 1,100m. The Bravo explosion on March 1, 1954 displayed a power several times more than that of the Mic explosion and then the nuclear poison was spread to an 80km distance. In addition, the scientist presents the point of view that the nuclear weapon power may be developed without reserve, in theory.
The U.S.A. and former Russia make the object the economic central area and large cities of the rear line rather than extermination of hostile military power owing to the appearance of the nuclear weapon with the above powers. As 60% of the whole industry, 6,500 persons, and 40% of highly skilled technology, science, and management personnel are concentrated on 57 large cities of the U.S.A. in the destruction operations and 75% of the whole industry and 55% of population was brought around in 170 cities of the former Russia, the attack of 150-200 nuclear weapons of 5 mega ton can destroy the economic power of the whole country.
Professor Kissinger concludes that the past industrial potential (national defense economic potential) will be of little use under nuclear war. He recognizes the nuclear weapon as the most credible weapon, as it is the most effective attack means to weaken the former Russian power. In considering that the nuclear weapon plays the role of personnel substitution. Also, any war in the future will be either a large or small-scale nuclear war, whether the bomb is used or not. Therefore, the nations cope with the war only with the present secured weapons and the economic power of the present mobilized nation’s people under the nuclear war.
Consequently, the national economic power in peacetime means the national defense power and it is necessary to select and execute the national defense economy posture in the national economic structure of the peacetime beforehand. Actually, the disbursement of the military cost of the U.S.A. preparing for the Korean War, cold war, Vietnam War, and total nuclear war by the U.S.A. shows the furtherance of the national power by fulfilling the consumption production of 233 billion dollars and the investment of 55 billion dollars. The disbursement of federal military costs doesn’t lead the national economy to poverty but guides the American economy of the current stage into prosperity according to the above objective confirmation. Professor Hansen sketches this situation, as ‘Our military expenditure has not made us poor, they have put us to work'.
The productivity executed by composition of the above various factors symbolizes the national economic potential or the national defense power and there are various methods including the actual national income method, and comparisons of the economic power index and economic growth rate in addition to methods generalizing the totalization with the concept of NI or GNP. The modern economics presents in the method to assess that. From now on, let’s search them.