Major shifts are underway in global security as Germany and Japan, once defined by post-World War II limits on military power, move to expand their forces. After the war, both countries sharply reduced their militaries, and Japan even wrote a renunciation of war into its constitution.
That posture is changing. Germany has declared it will build “the strongest military in Europe,” and Japan has said it will develop “the capability to strike first if necessary.” The shift reflects a changing security order, not a sudden change of heart.
A central driver is a growing sense of vulnerability. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many in Europe have concluded that war is no longer a matter of the past. In East Asia, tensions between China and Taiwan persist, and North Korea continues frequent missile launches. In that environment, it has become harder to assume someone else will provide protection.
Another factor is uncertainty about the United States. Germany and Japan have long relied on U.S. support for their security, but concerns have grown that Washington may not provide the same guarantees as before. That has strengthened calls in Europe and Japan for greater self-reliance.
Seen this way, rearmament is presented as a familiar pattern: as the world becomes less stable, countries expand their militaries to deter conflict, not to seek it.
For South Korea, the debate is not abstract. The country experienced the Korean War and remains in a military standoff with North Korea, living in one of the world’s most tense regions.
First, the article argues, South Korea should update how it thinks about security. Economic strength and national defense can no longer be treated as separate. Semiconductors, batteries and energy supplies are tied to security because disruptions can halt factories, shake the economy and ultimately endanger the country.
Second is diplomacy. The world increasingly appears split between the United States and its allies and China and nearby partners. In that environment, South Korea may find it difficult to choose only one side, but also hard to maintain equally smooth relations with both.
The proposed answer is a “smart balance” — avoiding dependence on a single partner. That means cooperating with the United States on security, spreading economic ties across multiple countries, and making technology choices based on circumstances. The article describes this as a “distributed strategy,” like not putting all eggs in one basket.
Third is military capability. South Korea already has a strong military, but the article says it will need a smarter one, with technology outweighing troop numbers. It calls for preparation for drones, artificial intelligence and cyber warfare.
At the same time, it says South Korea cannot abandon its alliance with the United States, since its security still depends heavily on cooperation. The direction, it argues, should be not “doing everything alone,” but “getting stronger while working together.”
Fourth is the defense industry. Military technology can spill into civilian use, the article notes, citing satellite technology and the internet as examples that began as military projects. Linking South Korea’s strengths in semiconductors and artificial intelligence to defense could create new industries.
It also draws a distinction between defense spending as a necessary cost and the defense industry as a potential investment. Not all defense budgets translate into economic growth, it says.
Finally, the article stresses public understanding. A military buildup or higher defense spending can be a burden, requiring more taxes and reducing funds for other priorities. But it argues that failing to prepare can bring greater risks, making public agreement on “why it is necessary” essential.
Germany and Japan’s shift, it concludes, underscores that the world is no longer as stable as before. When the balance of power changes, countries begin building up their militaries again — a pattern repeated through history.
South Korea, the article says, faces a choice: wait for conditions to improve without preparation, or prepare in advance. It argues that only a prepared country can overcome crises.
It calls for three elements: a strategy that spreads cooperation across countries, the capability to defend itself, and a direction the public understands and supports. History may not repeat exactly, it says, but similar moments return — and the task now is to prepare for the future.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.