4 ms·

It's not a question of who would win, but NK could indiscriminately bombard Seoul, which is very close to the border. This could kill millions of people and des

by foota 6y ago

It's not a question of who would win, but NK could indiscriminately bombard Seoul, which is very close to the border. This could kill millions of people and destroy the economic center of SK.

oblio 6y ago
I just checked and Pyongyang is 150 km from the border and 45 km from the coast. Korea is a small place. This can definitely be done in both directions.
- mulmen 6y ago
  It can only be done in both directions. That's the entire basis of the conflict, and of NK's foreign policy for the last three generations.
  - vertis 6y ago
    This doesn't make sense. Seoul is at risk because it is very close to the border where-as Pyongyang is much further from their mutual border. There are, of course, other considerations, but Seoul would be very difficult to defend from 'simple' weapons like artillery. The US is very proud of it's ability to fire artillery 40 miles (64km), but Pyongyang is much further than that.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      If NK attacks SK then the US will obliterate NK. The US does not need to use artillery to obliterate Pyongyang. Pyongyang cannot be defended against US weapons. Seoul and allies cannot defend against NK weapons.
      - vertis 6y ago
        This completely misses the point of the GP (or is that GGP) though. It's not a debate whether NK could survive, it couldn't, but Seoul is indefensible. Everything I've read suggests the Seoul is a casualty of any conflict. Regardless of the eventual 'winner'.
        mulmen 6y ago
        I haven't said anything to the contrary. I'm not sure what you found confusing.
        vertis 6y ago
        I don't think we're in disagreement, I just think we're focusing on different things. In any case, I think we've beat this one to death. :)
        mulmen 6y ago
        A week later I still have no idea what the confusion is here. We are saying the same thing, I'm not sure what you think is different?
        vertis 6y ago
        Why are you back here? It's dead. It doesn't matter.
        SEJeff 6y ago
        Precisely this. There is no real winner in war (I'm a US Army Veteran of OIF II circa 2003-2004), only one side that might lose less. Taking a life breaks many people, even trained infantry. Look at all of the veteran suicides due to PTSD from war as proof of this. Once someone on either side has been killed in war, both sides permanently lose. There are no take-backs, only damaged soldiers on both sides and casualties.
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      There is some work being done on shooting down artilery and mortar projectiles & Iron Dome deployed in Israel regularly shoots down small unguided missiles.
- avar 6y ago
  It can't be done in both directions. The reference to Seul's proximity to the border is that it's within the range of North Korean artillery. The reverse isn't true.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Why would SK and allies use the same weapons as NK instead of the far more advanced (capable) weapons SK and allies possess? Both Seoul and Pyongyang are within range of their adversaries' weapons.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - avar 6y ago
      Yes of course, the US has had the technical ability to glass North Korea since the 50s or 60s, but that's not the "it" we're talking about here. The point oblio is maintaining upthread is that because SK and her allies have much more advanced weaponry NK doesn't have a chance of standing against them in a conventional conflict. That's true, but misses the point. Before NK had nuclear weapons one of their main deterrents was that they'd had years/decades to fortify conventional artillery at the border pointed at Seul. So even if their military couldn't stand a chance in a conventional war they could plausibly threaten MAD by holding Seul hostage. That's the context in which the border proximity is brought up. Replying to that by saying that Pyongyang is 150 km from the border or whatever is irrelevant. Yes of course the US could win an all-out conventional war with an enemy 50, 150 or 1500 km from its border. That was never in question. The question was whether a relatively weaker enemy could present an outsized threat due to some strategic geographic position. That's been the case with NK precisely because mid-century artillery technology can be dug-in close enough to the border to matter. Whereas if the border happened to be 150 km away those assets could be taken out by missiles once they tried to move in position to shoot on a major target like Seul. Whether the NK artillery actually poses a strategic threat is another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all mapped out be the US/SK and would be taken out in the first 5 minutes of a conflict by targeted missile attacks. But it's not just a strategic question, but whether e.g. NK can make threats that are taken seriously by the SK population for it to pressure its government to make some concessions to NK.
sdunwoody 6y ago
I'm not a military expert, but from what I've read (and watched) my understanding is that the "Seoul sea of fire" scenario is slightly over-egged for the following reasons: - NK has a LOT of artillery, but the majority of this artillery doesn't actually have the range to target Seoul from within NK. - To significantly damage Seoul, NK would have to concentrate most of the necessary artillery into a rather small area. That would make the artillery easy for the south to target, and difficult for the north to mobilise away quickly (say if they needed to retreate for whatever reason). It would also leave this force more vulnerable to something like an encirclement. - Assuming hostilities are unavoidable, there would be little military benefit to NK doing this. It would leave military assets in the south free to retaliate in any way they see fit rather than having to recoup from damage a bombardment would bring. It would also further jeapordise any attempts for a peace settlement, or international aid (which NK would surely need due to its military inferiority when compared with the south). - It is likely that the north would be unable to hold the border for that long, and would be pushed back, so any potential artillery barrage wouldn't last for long. - NK has a very weak airforce compared to the south, so the amount of functional artillery it could field would drop quite quickly due to airstrikes. That said, Seoul being targeted is a terrifying prospect, and it would likely happen in a conflict, but I think you are slightly overstating this scenario. Also, any attack on Seoul would also hurt the economy of SK yes, but a war with the north probably wouldn't last long enough for that to be a factor (although admittedly this is hard to predict with any certainty). And even if the souths economy contracted, say, 50%, it is still larger than the north by an order of magnitude).
- foota 6y ago
  I'm not an expert on this, but it sounds like CapricornNoble down thread is :-) If we assume Seoul is largely destroyed, the economic damage I'm thinking of comes from a few different places, not from the war going on but from the aftermath. Many people could die, causing both a loss of expertise and simple manpower. Housing would be destroyed, such that those that did survive would need emergency housing. The massive destruction of property would burn up trillions of dollars in real estate investment. And lastly, specialized commercial and industrial properties would be destroyed. I don't know to what degree Seoul is an industrial capital, but there's likely some of this at least.

by foota 6y ago

It's not a question of who would win, but NK could indiscriminately bombard Seoul, which is very close to the border. This could kill millions of people and destroy the economic center of SK.

oblio 6y ago

I just checked and Pyongyang is 150 km from the border and 45 km from the coast. Korea is a small place. This can definitely be done in both directions.

mulmen 6y ago
It can only be done in both directions. That's the entire basis of the conflict, and of NK's foreign policy for the last three generations.
- vertis 6y ago
  This doesn't make sense. Seoul is at risk because it is very close to the border where-as Pyongyang is much further from their mutual border. There are, of course, other considerations, but Seoul would be very difficult to defend from 'simple' weapons like artillery. The US is very proud of it's ability to fire artillery 40 miles (64km), but Pyongyang is much further than that.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    If NK attacks SK then the US will obliterate NK. The US does not need to use artillery to obliterate Pyongyang. Pyongyang cannot be defended against US weapons. Seoul and allies cannot defend against NK weapons.
    - vertis 6y ago
      This completely misses the point of the GP (or is that GGP) though. It's not a debate whether NK could survive, it couldn't, but Seoul is indefensible. Everything I've read suggests the Seoul is a casualty of any conflict. Regardless of the eventual 'winner'.
      - mulmen 6y ago
        I haven't said anything to the contrary. I'm not sure what you found confusing.
        vertis 6y ago
        I don't think we're in disagreement, I just think we're focusing on different things. In any case, I think we've beat this one to death. :)
        mulmen 6y ago
        A week later I still have no idea what the confusion is here. We are saying the same thing, I'm not sure what you think is different?
        vertis 6y ago
        Why are you back here? It's dead. It doesn't matter.
      - SEJeff 6y ago
        Precisely this. There is no real winner in war (I'm a US Army Veteran of OIF II circa 2003-2004), only one side that might lose less. Taking a life breaks many people, even trained infantry. Look at all of the veteran suicides due to PTSD from war as proof of this. Once someone on either side has been killed in war, both sides permanently lose. There are no take-backs, only damaged soldiers on both sides and casualties.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    There is some work being done on shooting down artilery and mortar projectiles & Iron Dome deployed in Israel regularly shoots down small unguided missiles.
avar 6y ago
It can't be done in both directions. The reference to Seul's proximity to the border is that it's within the range of North Korean artillery. The reverse isn't true.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Why would SK and allies use the same weapons as NK instead of the far more advanced (capable) weapons SK and allies possess? Both Seoul and Pyongyang are within range of their adversaries' weapons.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - avar 6y ago
    Yes of course, the US has had the technical ability to glass North Korea since the 50s or 60s, but that's not the "it" we're talking about here. The point oblio is maintaining upthread is that because SK and her allies have much more advanced weaponry NK doesn't have a chance of standing against them in a conventional conflict. That's true, but misses the point. Before NK had nuclear weapons one of their main deterrents was that they'd had years/decades to fortify conventional artillery at the border pointed at Seul. So even if their military couldn't stand a chance in a conventional war they could plausibly threaten MAD by holding Seul hostage. That's the context in which the border proximity is brought up. Replying to that by saying that Pyongyang is 150 km from the border or whatever is irrelevant. Yes of course the US could win an all-out conventional war with an enemy 50, 150 or 1500 km from its border. That was never in question. The question was whether a relatively weaker enemy could present an outsized threat due to some strategic geographic position. That's been the case with NK precisely because mid-century artillery technology can be dug-in close enough to the border to matter. Whereas if the border happened to be 150 km away those assets could be taken out by missiles once they tried to move in position to shoot on a major target like Seul. Whether the NK artillery actually poses a strategic threat is another matter. I wouldn't be surprised if it's all mapped out be the US/SK and would be taken out in the first 5 minutes of a conflict by targeted missile attacks. But it's not just a strategic question, but whether e.g. NK can make threats that are taken seriously by the SK population for it to pressure its government to make some concessions to NK.

sdunwoody 6y ago

I'm not a military expert, but from what I've read (and watched) my understanding is that the "Seoul sea of fire" scenario is slightly over-egged for the following reasons: - NK has a LOT of artillery, but the majority of this artillery doesn't actually have the range to target Seoul from within NK. - To significantly damage Seoul, NK would have to concentrate most of the necessary artillery into a rather small area. That would make the artillery easy for the south to target, and difficult for the north to mobilise away quickly (say if they needed to retreate for whatever reason). It would also leave this force more vulnerable to something like an encirclement. - Assuming hostilities are unavoidable, there would be little military benefit to NK doing this. It would leave military assets in the south free to retaliate in any way they see fit rather than having to recoup from damage a bombardment would bring. It would also further jeapordise any attempts for a peace settlement, or international aid (which NK would surely need due to its military inferiority when compared with the south). - It is likely that the north would be unable to hold the border for that long, and would be pushed back, so any potential artillery barrage wouldn't last for long. - NK has a very weak airforce compared to the south, so the amount of functional artillery it could field would drop quite quickly due to airstrikes. That said, Seoul being targeted is a terrifying prospect, and it would likely happen in a conflict, but I think you are slightly overstating this scenario. Also, any attack on Seoul would also hurt the economy of SK yes, but a war with the north probably wouldn't last long enough for that to be a factor (although admittedly this is hard to predict with any certainty). And even if the souths economy contracted, say, 50%, it is still larger than the north by an order of magnitude).

foota 6y ago
I'm not an expert on this, but it sounds like CapricornNoble down thread is :-) If we assume Seoul is largely destroyed, the economic damage I'm thinking of comes from a few different places, not from the war going on but from the aftermath. Many people could die, causing both a loss of expertise and simple manpower. Housing would be destroyed, such that those that did survive would need emergency housing. The massive destruction of property would burn up trillions of dollars in real estate investment. And lastly, specialized commercial and industrial properties would be destroyed. I don't know to what degree Seoul is an industrial capital, but there's likely some of this at least.