3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    >>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. Sadly no. There are so many UGFs (underground facilities) on the JIPTL (Joint Integrated Prioritized Target List) and we don't have anywhere near enough ordnance of the right types staged to hit them all before Seoul is a smoking crater. I've participated in 5 or 6 of the big Korean Theater exercises[1][2], working at a Corps-level HQ. The entire country is a reinforced underground fortress. Remember how we shelled Iwo Jima for several days and still barely scratched the defences on Mt Suribachi? NK is like that, but worse. They've had 60 years to dig in, and instead of a small island a few miles wide, the fortress is the size of Indiana. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Resolve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Resolve [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulchi-Freedom_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulchi-Freedom_Guardian
    - SEJeff 6y ago
      And we don't have enough B2s in Seoul to make a real dent using MOAPs either I take it? Thanks for the links, that is really interesting. Hopefully neither of us see "war with NK" in our lifetimes.
- vagrantJin 6y ago
  I certainly hope you dont mean nuclear weapons. Indiscriminate killing of civilians on their home country by a belligerent nation using a WMD is more than enough reason to start a real global war. Whoever fires it first loses. No matter who it is. This is not 1945. Thats why diplomacy is the way forward. Our species cant go through a global war with countries outdoing each other to kill civilians.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    I'm not advocating for nuking North Korea if that is what you are asking. I think we are in agreement here.
- KineticLensman 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? You are right that they might not use the same weapons, but long-range precision guided artillery is expensive. Because the shells are expensive, not all countries have enough to use them without limit as was the case in WW2 - where in the last few months of the Western Front the allies preferred to expend munitions rather than their own soldiers' lives.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by 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.
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  >>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. Sadly no. There are so many UGFs (underground facilities) on the JIPTL (Joint Integrated Prioritized Target List) and we don't have anywhere near enough ordnance of the right types staged to hit them all before Seoul is a smoking crater. I've participated in 5 or 6 of the big Korean Theater exercises[1][2], working at a Corps-level HQ. The entire country is a reinforced underground fortress. Remember how we shelled Iwo Jima for several days and still barely scratched the defences on Mt Suribachi? NK is like that, but worse. They've had 60 years to dig in, and instead of a small island a few miles wide, the fortress is the size of Indiana. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Resolve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Resolve [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulchi-Freedom_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulchi-Freedom_Guardian
  - SEJeff 6y ago
    And we don't have enough B2s in Seoul to make a real dent using MOAPs either I take it? Thanks for the links, that is really interesting. Hopefully neither of us see "war with NK" in our lifetimes.
vagrantJin 6y ago
I certainly hope you dont mean nuclear weapons. Indiscriminate killing of civilians on their home country by a belligerent nation using a WMD is more than enough reason to start a real global war. Whoever fires it first loses. No matter who it is. This is not 1945. Thats why diplomacy is the way forward. Our species cant go through a global war with countries outdoing each other to kill civilians.
- mulmen 6y ago
  I'm not advocating for nuking North Korea if that is what you are asking. I think we are in agreement here.
KineticLensman 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? You are right that they might not use the same weapons, but long-range precision guided artillery is expensive. Because the shells are expensive, not all countries have enough to use them without limit as was the case in WW2 - where in the last few months of the Western Front the allies preferred to expend munitions rather than their own soldiers' lives.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]