| 내용 |
참여연대 이슈리포트(2016. 08. 01)
사드(THAAD) 배치에 관한 정부의 12가지 거짓 주장을 반박한다
<차례>
요약 ···········································································································································4
반박1. 사드는 미국 미사일방어체제(MD)와 상관없다? ·······························································6
사드는 기본적으로 미국 MD의 일부이며, 아시아 지역방어전략의 핵심 무기체계다 ··················6
한국은 미국 MD 편입 수순을 밟아왔다 ·····················································································6
사드 한국 배치는 한국의 미국 MD 편입을 공식화하는 것이다 ·················································8
반박2. 사드의 레이더는 북한 탐지용이다? 레이더의 정보를 미국‧일본과 공유하지 않는다? ·····9
사드 운용 주체는 주한미군, 레이더 모드 전환과 정보 공유 여부 등은 미군에 달렸다 ············9
반박3. 사드는 북한 핵․미사일 방어용이다? ··············································································11
한국 방어에 효과가 낮다 ·········································································································11
한반도 핵 문제 해결은 더욱 어려워진다 ·················································································13
반박4. 사드 1포대로 한국의 1/2~2/3 방어 가능하다? 수도권 방어는 패트리어트 등으로 가능하
다? ············································································································································14
200Km는 사드 최대 사거리일 뿐 방어 범위가 아니다.
한국의 1/2~2/3 방어는 허황된 주장이다 ···················································································14
사드로 안 되면 패트리어트 증강 배치? MD는 끊임없이 수요를 창출한다 ·······························14
반박5. 사드 배치 결정에 대한 주변국 대응 우려할 필요 없다? ···············································16
중국과 러시아 역시 사드 배치에 상응하는 군사적 조치를 취할 것이다 ··································16
중국의 對한국 직․간접적 경제적 보복이 불가능한 것은 아니다. ··············································16
반박6. 사드의 요격 성공률이 높다? ························································································18
사드의 성능은 아직 검증되지 않았다 ·······················································································18
반박7. 사드 배치는 한반도 방어를 위한 군사주권 사항이다? ··················································19
전혀 ‘주권적’이지 않았던 사드 배치 결정 과정, 주권자인 국민에겐 일방 통보만 ··············19
반박8. 레이더 100미터 밖은 안전하다? ···················································································20
전자파 장기간 노출로 인한 피해에 대한 국제기준은 아직 없어. 사전배려원칙 적용해야 ·······20
레이더 출력값 밝히지 않고 6분 측정으로 ‘안전하다’는 정부 ··············································21
전자파의 사이드 로브 현상 등 고려하면 100m 밖 안전하다는 주장은 설득력이 없다. ···········21
반박9. 성주가 "사드 체계의 효용성과 환경, 건강 및 안전을 보장할 수 있는 최적의 부지"다?25
사드 배치 결정은 환경영향평가법 위반이다 ············································································25
비행 제한 구역 설정 및 전파 간섭 문제에 대한 대책이 필요하다 ··········································25
발전기 사용과 소음 피해 무시할 수 없다 ················································································27
미군 주둔에 따른 시민안전 문제가 새롭게 대두될 것이다 ······················································28
반박10. 사드 배치 결정은 국회 동의 사항이 아니다? ······························································29
사드 배치 결정 과정은 불투명하고 일방적이었다 ····································································29
안전보장에 관한 조약, 중대한 재정적 부담 지우는 조약 등에 해당, 국회 동의절차 밟아야 한
다 ·············································································································································29
반박11. 성주 지역 결정은 안보사항이라 비공개가 불가피했다? ·············································31
국내법 상 주민공청회 개최는 필수적이다 ················································································31
사드 배치 결정전 일본 정부는 주민설명회를 12차례 실시했다 ···············································31
반박12. 방위비분담금 증가 등 직․간접적 비용부담은 없을 것이다? ·········································32
방위비분담금 증액을 통한 한국 측의 사드 운용비 부담 가능성을 배제할 수 없다 ·················32
한국형 미사일방어체제(KAMD)와의 중복 투자로 예산 낭비가 예상된다. ·································32
결론 ········································································································································34
|
