North Korea

[southsider2k5]

Consider that if the Koreans have 20 guns capable of hitting Seoul, if they start shooting from all of them, a reasonable reload rate for standard artillery pieces might be a round fired every 20 seconds or so. Better training could make that happen faster.

 

In the first 60 minutes, that means 3600 large shells could fall on that city.

 

Imagine 3600 Oklahoma-City bombing sized explosions going off in a major city like Chicago or New York in the space of an hour.

 

Those artillery pieces will get hit by airpower eventually, but airpower takes time to get there. Maybe my time is off and it's a round a minute, maybe 1/2 of their shells are duds, but also maybe the large concentration of mobile guns the North has in the area are able to blast their way across the minefield and into range within the first couple hours.

 

There is no way to limit the damage if they open fire other than vaporizing the country.

 

Big, big IF's.

[Balta1701]

Yeah I wasn't assuming nuclear. I was assuming thousands of tomahawk missiles exploding wherever the batteries are located, with the hope you knock out 75% of them in the first hour or whatever and then make another strike after that.

 

Again, no idea if that's feasible or not.

Of course, the problem with the U.S. launching a non-nuclear first strike is that the North is a nuclear country.

 

The North has enough plutonium left to make probably 5-10 more bombs, give or take the size. Whether they're all completed or not who knows, but that's their trump card. Hitting one bomb is very difficult, and for all we know they could just do a suicide style mission; go ahead and shoot the plane carrying it down, but Seoul vaporizes anyway.

[Balta1701]

Big, big IF's.

Outside of the nuclear weapons, those guns are the most important thing in their entire arsenal. Those guns are more valuable than the million people they have in their army.

 

I for one would not risk that number of lives on a belief that all 17 of those guns will fail. Even 1 of them firing for a period of an hour will kill thousands and cause enormous amounts of panic.

[StrangeSox]

Thinking about how effective the Iraqi military of the 90's was, with tons of more capital to invest in their military, I really get the feeling that NK is a paper tiger.

That's not a gamble I'm willing to make on behalf of Seoul.

[StrangeSox]

I'm trying to find someone who actually knows what they're talking about discussing likely scenarios and outcomes and not coming up with anything worthwhile.

[StrangeSox]

This analysis seems legit:

 

http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...ce-on-the-kore/

 

A US Pre-emption Option?

If North Korea cannot be confident of achieving a successful invasion of South Korea, do Washington and Seoul have a plausible offensive option to invade North Korea and capture Pyongyang? Despite the relative shift in the military balance of power in favour of the allies, such a pre-emptive use of force would appear very risky. Even though US and South Korean forces

enjoy qualitative superiority, and, via a US military build-up, could increase this superiority rapidly, they could not be confident of winning an offensive war against North Korea without sustaining heavy military and collateral casualties. An all-out invasion, along the lines of the March–April 2003 campaign in Iraq, is not an appealing option. Even with the US military’s prowess and ability to execute ‘effects-based operations’ (which aim to disrupt the decision-making ability of an adversary) an invasion of North Korea would likely prove much more costly than the 2003 Iraq War.

 

Firstly, with so many North Korean weapons deployed near Seoul, and many in protected locations, even a well-timed surprise attack could not prevent a heavy artillery bombardment of the South Korean capital. In their current positions, a large percentage of North Korea’s estimated 10,000 or so artillery pieces are deployed within range of Seoul, with the capability to fire several rounds a minute. The initial speed of a fired shell is generally around half a kilometre per second. Therefore, even if an allied counter-battery radar, some 10km away picked up a North Korean missile or artillery shell and established a track on it within seconds, a counter-strike would not be able to silence the North Korean gun or launcher for at least a minute. As a result, one artillery piece could probably fire 2–5 rounds before being neutralised or forced to retreat into its shelter. Theoretically, several thousand artillery rounds could land in Seoul no matter how hard the allies tried to prevent or stop the attack.

[Soxbadger]

Outside of spy agencies, no one likely has any clue what is going on in NK.

 

You also are assuming that the people of NK will actually fight for NK. For all we know they just immediately surrender in hopes of a better life.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think our intelligence agencies have a whole lot of information on NK, either. That study covers both that aspect and the hypothetical fading away of the NK army as well, finding it much less likely than what we saw in Iraq.

[Balta1701]

I don't think our intelligence agencies have a whole lot of information on NK, either. That study covers both that aspect and the hypothetical fading away of the NK army as well, finding it much less likely than what we saw in Iraq.

Yeah, last time we launched a war based on what some chunks of the intelligence community said, it didn't go very well.

[Balta1701]

Outside of spy agencies, no one likely has any clue what is going on in NK.

 

You also are assuming that the people of NK will actually fight for NK. For all we know they just immediately surrender in hopes of a better life.

I have no idea if they would. They certainly have been seriously indoctrinated since they were born, so that counts against that, and they have leaders who would probably kill them if they tried to run also.

 

A full scale ground assault would eventually shatter them, but with nukes and Seoul in the picture there's no way it ends well.

 

Hate to say it...but that enormous minefield we built is somewhat reassuring right now.

[StrangeSox]

A full-scale ground assault through mountainous regions would be a lot harder than rolling across the desert, too.

 

How did people live like this under decades of MAD for major US, Russian and other NATO/Warsaw cities?

[southsider2k5]

Outside of the nuclear weapons, those guns are the most important thing in their entire arsenal. Those guns are more valuable than the million people they have in their army.

 

I for one would not risk that number of lives on a belief that all 17 of those guns will fail. Even 1 of them firing for a period of an hour will kill thousands and cause enormous amounts of panic.

 

And of course we won't. We will appease them with bribes, since that has worked so well for the past 60 years or so.

[southsider2k5]

Outside of spy agencies, no one likely has any clue what is going on in NK.

 

You also are assuming that the people of NK will actually fight for NK. For all we know they just immediately surrender in hopes of a better life.

 

Again, much like Iraqis did, under seemingly much better local circumstances.

[StrangeSox]

And of course we won't. We will appease them with bribes, since that has worked so well for the past 60 years or so.

Seoul appears to still exist, and it's doing well to boot. I'm sure they're prefer that to American military bluster and another preemptive war.

[StrangeSox]

Again, much like Iraqis did, under seemingly much better local circumstances.

 

The structures and political realities in Iraq and NK are not at all similar.

 

But any time you're talking about military action and "Iraq" comes to mind, I'd hope it would give everyone cause for a long, long pause.

[southsider2k5]

Seoul appears to still exist, and it's doing well to boot. I'm sure they're prefer that to American military bluster and another preemptive war.

 

I'm sure they appreciate being under a nuclear threat. Probably makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[southsider2k5]

The structures and political realities in Iraq and NK are not at all similar.

 

But any time you're talking about military action and "Iraq" comes to mind, I'd hope it would give everyone cause for a long, long pause.

 

Absolutely. Iraq had a lot more hard cash coming in the form of oil money. They also had a lot more outside military and political support.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure they appreciate being under a nuclear threat. Probably makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Compared to having their city bombed to hell and back? I'd assume that'd be preferable. But maybe they should take the lead on this one since its their asses on the line and not yours?

Edited April 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Absolutely. Iraq had a lot more hard cash coming in the form of oil money. They also had a lot more outside military and political support.

I meant more on how it was an unquestionable stupid decision to start that war, how awful war is and what its true costs are, not to mention how many people seem to blindly support the next great American military adventure in foreign countries.

[lostfan]

Weather forecast for Pyongyang: partly cloudy, 32,000 degrees

[lostfan]

We need the Russians to leak our nuclear doctrine, along with the full inventory and what each weapon does, and where they are. Jong Un has been watching too much North Korean propaganda and thinks we all eat North Korean aid rations and drink coffee made of snow.

[southsider2k5]

Compared to having their city bombed to hell and back? I'd assume that'd be preferable. But maybe they should take the lead on this one since its their asses on the line and not yours?

 

Are you promising that isn't going to happen anyway? The history of appeasement isn't exactly a great one.

[southsider2k5]

We need the Russians to leak our nuclear doctrine, along with the full inventory and what each weapon does, and where they are. Jong Un has been watching too much North Korean propaganda and thinks we all eat North Korean aid rations and drink coffee made of snow.

 

I still think he is pulling a two sided swindle here. One he is trying to prove to his people he is a badass (Oooh, he stared down the Americans) and two, get a little more bribery material (food, fuel oil, Dennis Rodman starting line up figures).

[lostfan]

But no, seriously, all of the offensive options with regards to North Korea are f***ing awful, period point blank. As rough as we think Iraq was, this would be much worse in terms of casualties. Not hundreds, or thousands like Iraq, more like the tens of thousands. More concentrated areas, more hostile terrain. Their equipment is old, but it still kills people. Sure we would eventually win that war but it would be exceptionally painful. This isn't some idea to throw around all cavalier-like.

[lostfan]

I still think he is pulling a two sided swindle here. One he is trying to prove to his people he is a badass (Oooh, he stared down the Americans) and two, get a little more bribery material (food, fuel oil, Dennis Rodman starting line up figures).

He's got much more to worry about than a coup if he attempts even an unsuccessful nuclear strike against a remote US territory.