3 ms·
Exactly. Even assuming that they don't have properly working nuclear weapons at this point (a decent assumption, their last test was a fizzle), there is an abs
by burgerbrain 16y ago
Exactly. Even assuming that they don't have properly working nuclear weapons at this point (a decent assumption, their last test was a fizzle), there is an absolutely absurd amount of conventional artillery positioned at the DMZ just a few dozen kilometres away from Seoul. If all out war were to occur the city, with it's 25million or so citizens, could be levelled in hours.
- tomjen3 16y agoWouldn't it simply be a matter of bombing the ever loving shit out of those artillery positions? Given that firering a single shell effectively means that they have given away their position, and that the US posses planes invisible on radar this shouldn't be that damn difficult.
- Jach 16y agoWar is not like it is in the movies.
- burgerbrain 16y agoYou: 1) overestimate the number of such planes the US has at it's immediate disposal 2) overestimate the effectiveness of artillery triangulating systems 3) underestimate the shear size of the DPRK forces 4) overestimate the amount of time each artillery position would have to be active to kill thousands of civilians in a densely populated metropolis. And finally: fail to take into account that if you've had this idea, chances are people who do military planning for a living have probably thought long and hard about it as well.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoIt's not so simple. Consider the basic equation. Mostly unpopulated, desolate, rugged terrain in the North where artillery can hide. Heavily populated metropolitan areas in the South where Northern artillery can hit. You would need to blanket a huge area of the North with devastating bombardment in order to remove all of the artillery positions. Meanwhile, every single shell fired from the North will likely result in civilian deaths in the South. And they can fire a lot of shells in a very short amount of time. The only way to guarantee taking out all of the Northern artillery positions would be carpet bombing with nukes, which would result in lots of deaths in South Korea from fallout (not to mention all the other much more serious problems involved, such as establishing a precedent of preemptive nuclear attack). In reality, the situation is even more complicated than this simplistic analysis. It's not so easy to take out an artillery position in a previously undetermined location, especially if that artillery position can be hidden in a cave/bunker on a moment's notice. More so if there are thousands of artillery positions spread over many square miles. Even if the artillery in the North survives only a few hours or even a few minutes the sheer number of them and the population density of the regions of South Korea within artillery range would lead to catastrophic civilian deaths in the South. The South Koreans have been militarily capable of stomping all over the North for decades, without American help. The fact that they haven't yet, despite numerous provocations from the North, is a testament to the huge losses that they would inevitably face if a hot war broke out again on the Korean peninsula. Edit: Current estimates are that North Korea has the capability to fire around 10,000 rounds a minute into heavily populated regions near Seoul.