It was stated at the outset that the purpose of this study was not to provide a solution to the problem of maintaining America's commitment to the security of South Korea. It is evident, however, that the direction of the analysis and argument has indicated an implicit defence of the US–ROK alliance which has constituted a major security pillar in East Asia. The US–ROK alliance was justified with reference to North Korea's alliance with the Soviet Union and China. But to derive from this alone an endorsement of America's commitment to South Korea would be to overlook certain other points that have been stressed throughout the argument.

In the first place, considered in the strategic context, it has been contended that since the US commitment to the ROK per se did not define its own scope and relevance as an instrument of defence, its credibility must be assessed more by US military forces deployed in the region and less by the deterrent promise contained in the security treaty. In other words, if credibility has been the principal issue at stake in the American commitment, its substance would depend on the scope and magnitude of the military effort to which the US committed itself. The importance of peacetime defence efforts or security cooperation has remained a prominent feature of the US–ROK alliance. This is because the adequacy or inadequacy of the American commitment can be known for certain only should deterrence fail.