North Korea

[Alexis]

North Korea has had 60 years to fortify it artillery facing Seoul. It will fire uninterrupted for 48 hours easily unless nuclear weapons are used. You can safely assume that the North Korean Army would fight if that is what you mean.

This is a joke. There is no way to fortify artillery that modern weapons systems can't crack in half, particularly the USAF, but failing that the ROK military will shut them down fast enough anyway.

During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Hezbollah fired about 4,000 rockets on Israel in the course of one month.

US-equipped Israeli forces proved unable to stop this artillery fire, in spite of their technological proficiency, in spite of their willingness to attack Lebanese civilian infrastructure without regard for civilian deaths.

Israel could have stopped the artillery fire only through land invasion of South Lebanon. They would undoubtedly have succeeded, but at the price of heavy losses in terms of Israeli soldiers (rather than in terms of Lebanese civilians), losses that they were not willing to contemplate and chose to evade.

If North Korean forces have similar military quality and tactics to Lebanon's Hezbollah, their much larger numbers and armament would enable them to ruin Seoul, possibly up to forcing its evacuation, before South Korean and US military can assault the bunkers & tunnels hosting Nork artillery, not in a matter of a few days but most probably weeks if not longer, and at the cost of very heavy losses in their ranks.

This independently of the probable rampage South Korean and US air forces could inflict on North Korean civilian infrastructure. "Shock and Awe" strategy of collapsing civilian infrastructure in the rear so as to terrorize the front military forces into submission is a proven failure, as demonstrated during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.

Its only semi-success was during the 1999 NATO-Serbia war about Kosovo, but this only when Serbian president Milosevic chose to stop the war in order to avoid much heavier bombing of civilian population he was threatened with. In short: the condition for this semi-success was an enemy leader with minimum concerns about civilian population, therefore vulnerable to terrorist blackmail.

Hezbollah did not have such a vulnerability, and Kim Jong Eung wouldn't have it either.

[Doc]

North Korea has had 60 years to fortify it artillery facing Seoul. It will fire uninterrupted for 48 hours easily unless nuclear weapons are used. You can safely assume that the North Korean Army would fight if that is what you mean.

This is a joke. There is no way to fortify artillery that modern weapons systems can't crack in half, particularly the USAF, but failing that the ROK military will shut them down fast enough anyway.

During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Hezbollah fired about 4,000 rockets on Israel in the course of one month.

US-equipped Israeli forces proved unable to stop this artillery fire, in spite of their technological proficiency, in spite of their willingness to attack Lebanese civilian infrastructure without regard for civilian deaths.

Israel could have stopped the artillery fire only through land invasion of South Lebanon. They would undoubtedly have succeeded, but at the price of heavy losses in terms of Israeli soldiers (rather than in terms of Lebanese civilians), losses that they were not willing to contemplate and chose to evade.

If North Korean forces have similar military quality and tactics to Lebanon's Hezbollah, their much larger numbers and armament would enable them to ruin Seoul, possibly up to forcing its evacuation, before South Korean and US military can assault the bunkers & tunnels hosting Nork artillery, not in a matter of a few days but most probably weeks if not longer, and at the cost of very heavy losses in their ranks.

This independently of the probable rampage South Korean and US air forces could inflict on North Korean civilian infrastructure. "Shock and Awe" strategy of collapsing civilian infrastructure in the rear so as to terrorize the front military forces into submission is a proven failure, as demonstrated during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.

Its only semi-success was during the 1999 NATO-Serbia war about Kosovo, but this only when Serbian president Milosevic chose to stop the war in order to avoid much heavier bombing of civilian population he was threatened with. In short: the condition for this semi-success was an enemy leader with minimum concerns about civilian population, therefore vulnerable to terrorist blackmail.

Hezbollah did not have such a vulnerability, and Kim Jong Eung wouldn't have it either.

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

While North Korea may be moving to ratchet up the crisis, not even Washington's hawks are pushing for a military response — at least not yet. Its conventional artillery capability would allow North Korea to flatten Seoul in the first half-hour of any confrontation. The human cost of going to war may too prohibitive in this instance.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 76,00.html

[Ibrahim]

North Korea has had 60 years to fortify it artillery facing Seoul. It will fire uninterrupted for 48 hours easily unless nuclear weapons are used. You can safely assume that the North Korean Army would fight if that is what you mean.

This is a joke. There is no way to fortify artillery that modern weapons systems can't crack in half, particularly the USAF, but failing that the ROK military will shut them down fast enough anyway.

During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Hezbollah fired about 4,000 rockets on Israel in the course of one month.

US-equipped Israeli forces proved unable to stop this artillery fire, in spite of their technological proficiency, in spite of their willingness to attack Lebanese civilian infrastructure without regard for civilian deaths.

Hezbollah rockets are small, portable, and are concealed when not fired. North Korean artillery is Soviet-era heavy guns built into fortified emplacements which the South Koreans have had 60 years to look at and prepare counterbattery fire against. There is no realistic comparison here.

If North Korean forces have similar military quality and tactics to Lebanon's Hezbollah, their much larger numbers and armament would enable them to ruin Seoul, possibly up to forcing its evacuation, before South Korean and US military can assault the bunkers & tunnels hosting Nork artillery, not in a matter of a few days but most probably weeks if not longer, and at the cost of very heavy losses in their ranks.

An unrealistic time estimate. ROK/US air superiority would be immediate, North Korean fixed artillery destroyed almost immediately, and air power then turned on DPRK infantry and armor. That's effective DPRK artillery fire mind you. I'm sure some towed or SP artillery would escape to be mopped up later.


What you are correct about is that Seoul could be horrendously damaged in the process, though the consequence would be the end of the DPRK as a political entity.

This independently of the probable rampage South Korean and US air forces could inflict on North Korean civilian infrastructure.

There isn't much infrastructure, thus ROK/US air assets would mostly focus on DPRK troops as a result. Civilian casualties would be enormous in Pyongyang. Certainly a new Korean war would be a humanitarian catastrophe, but the departure point for all of this is that the DPRK would attack the largest civilian population on the peninsula (Seoul).

Its only semi-success was during the 1999 NATO-Serbia war about Kosovo

I don't care for this comparison any more than the Hezbollah one, but most importantly the NATO mandate was more restrictive than ROK ROEs would be should the DPRK precipitate a conflict.

[Ibrahim]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

[Doc]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

I said in 48 hours there could be 500,000 dead. Time said that the north could flatten the city in thirty minutes which was in response to your claim that the US military could take out the artillery before the 48 hours were up.

In the very least there would be a huge number of dead in Seoul.

[Doc]

IS Tom Clancy writing Hagel's press releases now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ap ... orth-korea
US deploys missile defence system to counter 'real danger' from North Korea

Hagel says Pyongyang poses 'real and clear danger' to US allies as Pentagon sends battery to Guam to strengthen defences


Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Justin McCurry on Baengnyeong Island, South Korea
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 16.08 EDT

North Koreans attend a rally against the US
North Koreans attend a rally against the US and South Korea in Nampo, North Korea, on Wednesday. Photograph: Kcna/Reuters

The Pentagon ordered an advanced missile defence system to the western Pacific on Wednesday, as US defence secretary Chuck Hagel declared that North Korea posed "a real and clear danger" to South Korea, Japan and America itself.

The deployment of the battery to the US territory of Guam is the biggest demonstration yet that Washington regards the confrontation with North Korea as more worrying than similar crises of the past few years. It also suggested they are preparing for long standoff.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) is intended to provide protection for US military bases in the region against short- and medium-range North Korean missiles. North Korea has over the past few weeks warned that it could strike Guam, Hawaii and the US west coast.

The $800m battery was not originally due for deployment until 2015, but will now be in place in weeks. There had been debate within the Pentagon about deploying it first to the Middle East to protect Israel, but the threat from North Korea is now viewed as more serious.

The Pentagon, in a statement, said the deployment was "a precautionary move to strengthen our regional defence posture against the North Korean regional ballistic missile threat".

Hagel, speaking at the National Defense University in Washington, stressed North Korea's potential military threat. "They have a nuclear capacity now. They have a missile delivery capacity now. And so, as they have ratched up their bellicose, dangerous rhetoric, and some of the actions they have taken over the last few weeks present a real and clear danger."

His response contrasted with more muted comments by other members of the Obama administration over the last two days as they sought to reduce tensions.

China had earlier on Wednesday also voiced strong fears about rising tensions on the Korean peninsula, with Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei telling reporters in Beijing that the country's deputy foreign minister, Zhang Yesui, had expressed serious concern over the crisis in a meeting with ambassadors from the US and South Korea.

"In the present situation, China believes all sides must remain calm and exercise restraint and not take actions which are mutually provocative and must certainly not take actions which will worsen the situation," he said.

North Korea made an announcement on Tuesday that it would resume operations to produce weapons-grade plutonium by barring South Korean workers from entering a jointly-run industrial complex.

The Kaesong industrial complex, six miles north of the heavily fortified border that has separated the two countries for six decades, is viewed as the last remaining symbol of inter-Korean co-operation.

The North has disrupted operations there before, but yesterday's move caused particular concern as South Korea and the US attempt to respond to a catalogue of provocations by the Pyongyang regime.

In recent weeks, North Korea has threatened a nuclear attack against the US and its overseas bases – a hollow threat, experts say, given the regime's relatively primitive nuclear and missile technology – and declared a "state of war" with South Korea.

China is North Korea's only remaining ally and its biggest aid donor. Its description of the situation in such bleak terms is being interpreted as a sign of growing frustration with the unpredictable behaviour of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.

Hagel, speaking before the missile deployment was announced, said the danger posed was to South Korea and Japan, and "also the threats that the North Koreans have levelled directly at the US regarding our base in Guam, and [which have] threatened Hawaii and threatened the west coast. We take those threats seriously."

He described the US response so far as measured, conducting joint military exercises with the South Koreans – even though this involved flying US B-52 and B-2 bombers over the Korean peninsula – and working with the China to defuse the crisis.

But Hagel reiterated the risk of misreading the danger. "It only takes being wrong once, and I don't want to be the secretary of defence that was wrong once." He expressed hope that North Korea would ratchet down its dangerous rhetoric.

Using the phrase that echoes a "clear and present danger" has a special resonance in the US that in the past had been a precursor to war, though the signals from the White House so far suggest no one realistically thinks that is imminent.

The THAAD system is land-based and includes a truck-mounted launcher, interceptor missiles, a tracking radar and an integrated fire-control system.

The Pentagon statement said: "The United States continues to urge the North Korean leadership to cease provocative threats and choose the path of peace by complying with its international obligations. The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and stands ready to defend our territory, our allies, and our national interests."

The disruption to the Kaesong complex, which draws on investment from more than 100 South Korean firms and employs workers from both countries, was seen by some experts as a sign of a swift deterioration in an already tense situation between North and South Korea.

The unification ministry in Seoul said about 480 South Korean managers who had planned to travel to Kaesong had been prevented from crossing into the North. "South Korea's government deeply regrets the entry ban and urges that it be lifted immediately," said ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-seok. "Ensuring the safety of our citizens is our top priority and the South Korean government will take necessary measures based on this principle."

Of the South Korean workers who had stayed in Kaesong the previous night, three had returned by mid-afternoon local time, with about 800 more expected to follow. The unification ministry later said 46 workers would return by early evening, while the remainder would stay in Kaesong, according to the Yonhap news agency.

The country's defence minister, Kim Kwan-jin, said he would do everything possible to ensure the safety of workers who remained inside the zone. Those contingencies reportedly included "military action" as a last resort.

[Ibrahim]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

I said in 48 hours there could be 500,000 dead. Time said that the north could flatten the city in thirty minutes which was in response to your claim that the US military could take out the artillery before the 48 hours were up.

In the very least there would be a huge number of dead in Seoul.

Maybe. "Flatten" and millions dead is bullshit short of a nuke, but certainly lots of damage and dead in Seoul.

So the question then becomes "how does this benefit the DPRK?"

[Zack Morris]

I doubt there could be 500,000 dead in 48 hours. That level of carnage has never been achieved with artillery to my knowledge and would be high even by WWII standards, where saturation bombing was used. I don't think there's very much to worry about here. Any casualty estimate released by the US military or State Dept. should be scaled by a factor of 0.1, if their past alarmist record is anything to do by.

[Doc]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

I said in 48 hours there could be 500,000 dead. Time said that the north could flatten the city in thirty minutes which was in response to your claim that the US military could take out the artillery before the 48 hours were up.

In the very least there would be a huge number of dead in Seoul.

Maybe. "Flatten" and millions dead is bullshit short of a nuke, but certainly lots of damage and dead in Seoul.

So the question then becomes "how does this benefit the DPRK?"

Where did anyone say millions? The number was 500,000

[Doc]

I doubt there could be 500,000 dead in 48 hours. That level of carnage has never been achieved with artillery to my knowledge and would be high even by WWII standards, where saturation bombing was used. I don't think there's very much to worry about here. Any casualty estimate released by the US military or State Dept. should be scaled by a factor of 0.1, if their past alarmist record is anything to do by.

The sustained rate of fire for a howitzer 155mm is about 4 rounds per minute *times* 13,000 guns gives 52,000 rounds per minute. That will kill a lot of people.

[Azrael]

"Sea of Fire" not a realistic scenario

>> If the North Korean Peoples Army (KPA) were to start a doctrinal, conventional artillery barrage focused on South Korean forces, we could expect to see around three thousand casualties in the first few minutes, but the casualty rate would quickly drop as the surprise wears off and counter-battery fires slow down the North Korean rates of fire. If the KPA were to engage Seoul in a primarily counter-value fashion by firing into Seoul instead of primarily aiming at military targets, there would likely be around thirty-thousand casualties in a short amount of time. Statistically speaking, almost eight-hundred of those casualties would be foreigners given Seoul’s international demographic. Chinese make up almost seventy percent of foreigners in Seoul and its northern environs which means KPA might also kill six-hundred Chinese diplomats, multi-national corporation leaders, and ranking cadre children who are students in Seoul. Horrible, but nothing approaching “millions”. <<

>> one out of every four shells would likely be a dud <<

[Ibrahim]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

I said in 48 hours there could be 500,000 dead. Time said that the north could flatten the city in thirty minutes which was in response to your claim that the US military could take out the artillery before the 48 hours were up.

In the very least there would be a huge number of dead in Seoul.

Maybe. "Flatten" and millions dead is bullshit short of a nuke, but certainly lots of damage and dead in Seoul.

So the question then becomes "how does this benefit the DPRK?"

Where did anyone say millions? The number was 500,000

Equally silly. Show me a single example in all of history in which a comparable number of people were killed by conventional weapons in a short span of time.


Plus you're missing the important part. What does this benefit the DPRK? What do you want to do about it? Yes, they could do some amount of damage (mild, catastrophic) to Seoul but how does that help them?

[noddy]

the chinese reaction is certainly going to be very interesting.. do they pre-emptively take over .. do they take sides... all in all a very defining moment for the new future in front of us.

[Doc]

According to this Time article the North has so much Artillery aimed at Seoul it would only take 1/2 an hour to flatten it.-- 13,000 guns

Or they could nuke Seoul. What's the point of this? Last time you said 48 hours, and I think that's BS. If the new argument is that they only need half an hour then I guess they might get that off. They only need minutes for a nuke.

The game is still the same. "Can the DPRK wreck Seoul before being obliterated in a counterattack?" Answer: maybe.

Can the DPRK "win" any conflict. Answer: no.

I said in 48 hours there could be 500,000 dead. Time said that the north could flatten the city in thirty minutes which was in response to your claim that the US military could take out the artillery before the 48 hours were up.

In the very least there would be a huge number of dead in Seoul.

Maybe. "Flatten" and millions dead is bullshit short of a nuke, but certainly lots of damage and dead in Seoul.

So the question then becomes "how does this benefit the DPRK?"

Where did anyone say millions? The number was 500,000

Equally silly. Show me a single example in all of history in which a comparable number of people were killed by conventional weapons in a short span of time.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... of-dresden

On the evening of February 13, 1945, a series of Allied firebombing raids begins against the German city of Dresden, reducing the "Florence of the Elbe" to rubble and flames, and killing as many as 135,000 people. It was the single most destructive bombing of the war—including Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and all the more horrendous because little, if anything, was accomplished strategically, since the Germans were already on the verge of surrender.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... g-of-tokyo

On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.

Plus you're missing the important part. What does this benefit the DPRK? What do you want to do about it? Yes, they could do some amount of damage (mild, catastrophic) to Seoul but how does that help them?

Missing the point? Does the leadership or even the whole country of North Korea strike you as rational?

[Doc]

the chinese reaction is certainly going to be very interesting.. do they pre-emptively take over .. do they take sides... all in all a very defining moment for the new future in front of us.

The Chinese have been backing off since the North Korea tested it last bomb. Though no telling what they will do really.

[Typhoon]

the chinese reaction is certainly going to be very interesting.. do they pre-emptively take over .. do they take sides... all in all a very defining moment for the new future in front of us.

The Chinese have been backing off since the North Korea tested it last bomb. Though no telling what they will do really.

The main reason Mao and his politburo sent troops into N Korea during the Korean War was not communist ideological solidarity, rather it was the fear of having US troops end up stationed at the Chinese border.

That's also the main reason that N Korea continues to exist post-Mao.

Debating how many fatalities there would be in a new war on the Korean peninsula seems odd. It would be far too many , no matter what the number.

I'd be more concerned about escalation if US and Chinese troops end up fighting again.

[Ibrahim]

Where did anyone say millions? The number was 500,000

Equally silly. Show me a single example in all of history in which a comparable number of people were killed by conventional weapons in a short span of time.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... of-dresden

On the evening of February 13, 1945, a series of Allied firebombing raids begins against the German city of Dresden, reducing the "Florence of the Elbe" to rubble and flames, and killing as many as 135,000 people. It was the single most destructive bombing of the war—including Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and all the more horrendous because little, if anything, was accomplished strategically, since the Germans were already on the verge of surrender.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... g-of-tokyo

On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.

So in other words a quarter of the numbers you suggested, in one case during the firebombing of a wooden city. Check.

Plus you're missing the important part. What does this benefit the DPRK? What do you want to do about it? Yes, they could do some amount of damage (mild, catastrophic) to Seoul but how does that help them?

Missing the point? Does the leadership or even the whole country of North Korea strike you as rational?

I'll assume they're not suicidal until I see evidence to the contrary. I've been hearing the "those people are crazy" argument to justify military buildup and preemptive invasion my entire life.

The Chinese have been backing off since the North Korea tested it last bomb. Though no telling what they will do really.

Wait, does anybody here think China will start WW3 by backing the DPRK if they start a conflict?

[noddy]

i think nothing - anythings possible when empires collide and nationalistic hubris rules the thinking.


"interesting" is about the best i could muster.

[monster_gardener]

the chinese reaction is certainly going to be very interesting.. do they pre-emptively take over .. do they take sides... all in all a very defining moment for the new future in front of us.

The Chinese have been backing off since the North Korea tested it last bomb. Though no telling what they will do really.

The main reason Mao and his politburo sent troops into N Korea during the Korean War was not communist ideological solidarity, rather it was the fear of having US troops end up stationed at the Chinese border.

That's also the main reason that N Korea continues to exist post-Mao.

Debating how many fatalities there would be in a new war on the Korean peninsula seems odd. It would be far too many , no matter what the number.

I'd be more concerned about escalation if US and Chinese troops end up fighting again.

Thank You Very Much for your post, Typhoon.

It would be far too many , no matter what the number.

Seconded.

[Alexis]

During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Hezbollah fired about 4,000 rockets on Israel in the course of one month.

US-equipped Israeli forces proved unable to stop this artillery fire, in spite of their technological proficiency, in spite of their willingness to attack Lebanese civilian infrastructure without regard for civilian deaths.

Hezbollah rockets are small, portable, and are concealed when not fired. North Korean artillery is Soviet-era heavy guns built into fortified emplacements which the South Koreans have had 60 years to look at and prepare counterbattery fire against. There is no realistic comparison here.

A few points:

- Hezbollah rocket technology comes from Iran. And Iranian rocket technology comes straight from... yes, North Korea!
What makes you so sure that all of NK artillery is heavy guns? Seems quite reasonable to assume that they also have the kind of small rockets that Hezbollah used, and in numbers commensurate to their military power which is much larger than Hezbollah's

- Regarding heavy gun, IISS estimates that NK has "more than 10,000 heavy-calibre artillery pieces, many of which are self-propelled". That's most probably the bulk of their artillery assets, you are right on that. Now such artillery pieces are obviously... deplaceable, towed and for a large part SP. No guarantee that they would fire from a particular place, except if that place is fortified enough to withstand counter-battery fire (and then, how fast can large enough PGM be fired by bombers at them... there is a question of numbers here)
For those which are not firing from forts, moving the piece just after firing a salvo will be the standard procedure. Artillery will have losses of course. Hoping for most of NK artillery to be destroyed just after having fired a couple times is unrealistically optimistic

- Then there is tunneling. An art which the Chinese have very much developed as a crucial asset in case of war against a major power able to gain air superiority. Moving small to medium rockets from one tunnel exit to another would be of help to NK, and would also be practical for the less heavy guns. Counter-battery and/or PGMs would target the tunnel exit that was just used, of course... but next time, another one would be

- If they wanted to inflict maximum damage on Seoul, NK leaders would have interest in not firing all their assets at once, rather the opposite. Set up limited but violent attacks, repeatedly and impredictably over a period of weeks, so as to disorganize Seoul at minimum cost to themselves, stopping all economic activity, possibly forcing evacuation of the metropolis

ROK/US air superiority would be immediate, North Korean fixed artillery destroyed almost immediately, and air power then turned on DPRK infantry and armor. That's effective DPRK artillery fire mind you. I'm sure some towed or SP artillery would escape to be mopped up later.

In an open field, or better yet a desert, most certainly. Terrain however should not be forgotten. There is a reason why NATO air power didn't destroy almost immediately Serbian forces in Kosovo, and why Israeli air power didn't destroy nor mop up Hezbollah forces.
And North Koreans are no less smart than Serbs or Lebanese. They just are much more powerful.

What you are correct about is that Seoul could be horrendously damaged in the process, though the consequence would be the end of the DPRK as a political entity.

Yes... and then maybe not. Seoul suffering extensive damage, yes indeed. Termination of Kim dynasty regime would be a possibility but is in no way certain.

If NK regime was to go "all out", with maximum rampage of Seoul, CW and BW use and why not while they would be at it the delivery of a nuclear mine through a "tunnel of aggression" or terrorist biological or radiological attacks on the US, of course it would be terminated.

However, the fact that NK regime has a very high potential destructiveness seems to create an opportunity for them to wage a more limited war, expecting to be defeated but to survive thanks to credible threat that if SK/US victory was pushed to its conclusion, NK would detonate several nuclear weapons and/or use biological or radiological weapons in the US and/or disseminate such agents to terrorist groups.

On the surface, waging a war one expects to lose makes no sense at all. Except if some internal benefit is looked after: to gather the population around the regime (which would pretend war was forced on it, of course).

More probably, the fact that such a "limited" war by NK is thinkable is merely used by NK leaders so as to credibilize their threats, hoping once again to extract economic concessions. A lot of noise and nothing else, except if "threat credibility" was thought to require real attacks, with all the risks of the matter going out of control. That's the reason I'm not completely quiet and confident about the stability of NK/SK armistice.

[Doc]

Where did anyone say millions? The number was 500,000

Equally silly. Show me a single example in all of history in which a comparable number of people were killed by conventional weapons in a short span of time.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... of-dresden

On the evening of February 13, 1945, a series of Allied firebombing raids begins against the German city of Dresden, reducing the "Florence of the Elbe" to rubble and flames, and killing as many as 135,000 people. It was the single most destructive bombing of the war—including Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and all the more horrendous because little, if anything, was accomplished strategically, since the Germans were already on the verge of surrender.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... g-of-tokyo

On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history.

So in other words a quarter of the numbers you suggested, in one case during the firebombing of a wooden city. Check.

Sounds like nothing but a semantic argument. This was one air raid from 68 years ago. Things have changed since then. Being able to rain down three million one hundred twenty thousand shells per hour would kill far too many no matter what the final numbers come down too. US policy has been for decades to avoid war on the Korea peninsula for just that reason. Seoul is the most densely populated city on the planet. You can't evacuate it in anything near the time needed. Our Chicken Hawk president is leading us to a massive disaster.

Plus you're missing the important part. What does this benefit the DPRK? What do you want to do about it? Yes, they could do some amount of damage (mild, catastrophic) to Seoul but how does that help them?

Missing the point? Does the leadership or even the whole country of North Korea strike you as rational?

I'll assume they're not suicidal until I see evidence to the contrary. I've been hearing the "those people are crazy" argument to justify military buildup and preemptive invasion my entire life.

You will wait for evidence that will only come after scores are dead? Does that sound like a reasonable plan to you? In this case there is no pre-emptive option that doesn't kill massive amounts of people.

The Chinese have been backing off since the North Korea tested it last bomb. Though no telling what they will do really.

Wait, does anybody here think China will start WW3 by backing the DPRK if they start a conflict?

Probably not a nuclear war but they would invade from the North. CS is quite correct in stating that they invaded last time because they were afraid of American troops on their border.

[YMix]

Years ago, I remember the DPRK was making a lot of noise and Spengman's old forum busy with a similar discussion. So I'm going to post today pretty much what I posted back then.

Based on my experience as a citizen of a country that used to belong to the Warsaw Pact, I declare the DPRK army a piece of lavender, sight unseen. That's not to say that the Korean People's Army cannot use artillery or nukes to ruin South Korea's day or that it won't fight to protect its country in case of attack, but:

- the army is one of the main institutions in the country. As a result it is one of the main avenues to power. As a result it is HIGHLY corrupt and its upper echelons are filled with politicians pretending to be soldiers. Promotions are most likely the result of sucking up to the right people and of being seen by the Man in Charge as a non-threatening individual.

- the soldiers are taught obedience, but not much soldiering. Most likely they are also used as labor teams whenever possible and they don't like that one bit. Coupled with incompetent officers who have never fought a war, I'm guessing the KPA has a big morale and cohesion problem. The men won't follow their officers and the officers won't die with their men.

- if KPA officers are ever sent to specialization or higher training in China, you can pretty much bet that a bunch of them are now working for the Chinese military intelligence. In case of war, they will probably take their orders from Beijing.

- the bottom line is that a regime such as Kim Jong Idon'trememberwhichoneisinchargerightnow wants an obedient army, not a capable one. A capable army is an army of dangerous people, led by dangerous officers. People who can think for themselves and who would rather rise against the regime than eat sh!t food and be used as corvee labor. Since the basis of the DPRK is obedience and repression of independent initiative, my personal guess is that the army is sh!t.

I'll throw in as a bonus a little story from the Romanian Revolution of 1989: after Ceauşescu left the Central Committee's headquarters, on December 22, the protesters broke inside and took charge of the place, so to speak. They found there many state officials and a bunch of generals. The generals simply stood at attention and took orders from everybody. Every-fu*king-body. A man, a factory worker, told a general to bring him a glass of water and the general went to fetch the glass of water without protest. I'm guessing that DPRK generals resemble that one very much.

[Doc]

Years ago, I remember the DPRK was making a lot of noise and Spengman's old forum busy with a similar discussion. So I'm going to post today pretty much what I posted back then.

Based on my experience as a citizen of a country that used to belong to the Warsaw Pact, I declare the DPRK army a piece of lavender, sight unseen. That's not to say that the Korean People's Army cannot use artillery or nukes to ruin South Korea's day or that it won't fight to protect its country in case of attack, but:

- the army is one of the main institutions in the country. As a result it is one of the main avenues to power. As a result it is HIGHLY corrupt and its upper echelons are filled with politicians pretending to be soldiers. Promotions are most likely the result of sucking up to the right people and of being seen by the Man in Charge as a non-threatening individual.

- the soldiers are taught obedience, but not much soldiering. Most likely they are also used as labor teams whenever possible and they don't like that one bit. Coupled with incompetent officers who have never fought a war, I'm guessing the KPA has a big morale and cohesion problem. The men won't follow their officers and the officers won't die with their men.

- if KPA officers are ever sent to specialization or higher training in China, you can pretty much bet that a bunch of them are now working for the Chinese military intelligence. In case of war, they will probably take their orders from Beijing.

- the bottom line is that a regime such as Kim Jong Idon'trememberwhichoneisinchargerightnow wants an obedient army, not a capable one. A capable army is an army of dangerous people, led by dangerous officers. People who can think for themselves and who would rather rise against the regime than eat sh!t food and be used as corvee labor. Since the basis of the DPRK is obedience and repression of independent initiative, my personal guess is that the army is sh!t.

I'll throw in as a bonus a little story from the Romanian Revolution of 1989: after Ceauşescu left the Central Committee's headquarters, on December 22, the protesters broke inside and took charge of the place, so to speak. They found there many state officials and a bunch of generals. The generals simply stood at attention and took orders from everybody. Every-fu*king-body. A man, a factory worker, told a general to bring him a glass of water and the general went to fetch the glass of water without protest. I'm guessing that DPRK generals resemble that one very much.

The North Korean people believe they will win. I read one article that many are getting impatient in waiting to prevail.

BTW The Romanian revolution was incredible to watch on TV.

[YMix]

The North Korean people believe they will win. I read one article that many are getting impatient in waiting to prevail.

Cool story, bro. What would you expect them to tell a journalist? I doubt that the North Koreans want to die for their leaders in a stupid war.

BTW The Romanian revolution was incredible to watch on TV.

It was pretty interesting up close, too. The outcome, on the other hand, is not what we expected.

[Enki]

YMix That story about the generals in Romania is fascinating.