3 ms·

If a war opened with a surprise attack against that artillery position, could the attack be strong enough to save Seoul? Does this change if the attackers are

by csense 14y ago

If a war opened with a surprise attack against that artillery position, could the attack be strong enough to save Seoul? Does this change if the attackers are allowed to use nuclear weapons? (This is a strictly academic question. Nuking North Korea seems like a move that'll likely start a war that will end civilization.)

troutwine 14y ago
As I understand--and please be aware I'm only working off public information here--no. North Korea is well aware they cannot wage a war of aggression nor can they sustain a defensive posture. They've been aware of this for 40+ years and have had time to prepare. Their only effective military option is to make the cost of defeating them so prohibitively high that no nation will dare. To this end they've riddled the mountains near the DMZ with tunnels for logistic resupply and as firing positions. These tunnels admit the movement of men and material out of sight of overhead spy planes and, now, satellites. The DPKR easily has thousands of tunnels at its disposal. It's entirely possible that the US and its allies have mapped the endpoints of these tunnels and _could_ simultaneously bombard them all, but if even 10% were missed Seoul could be absolutely decimated. (There are reports that South Korean and US special forces make incursions into the North to discover and map tunnels, so I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of unknowns is much higher than 10%.) Interestingly, if Seoul and other populated areas were to be moved--that is, its 15 million citizens collectively abandoned the city and rebuilt, say, 100 miles away from the DMZ--this strategic advantage of the DPRK would be voided. Ignoring the staggering cost of this, it's probable that the North would view such action as provocation to war and act accordingly. From the field of possible responses to North Korea it's entirely possible that waiting for it to burn itself out may well be the least costly tactic, measured by unnatural human deaths. That means, of course, that the DPRK's concentration camps and system of repression must be tolerated until such horrors lead to the destruction of the government from internal forces. Personally, I find this morally repugnant and I pity any world leaders that must choose the waiting game.
- dsl 14y ago
  The Imnam Dam on the Bukhan River is North Korea's "I win" button. It's holding back roughly 3 BILLION gallons of water and wired with explosives that can be remotely detonated from Pyongyang. If it were to fail or be destroyed Seoul would look like New Orleans within the hour. The south spent $500 million dollars building the Peace Dam downstream in an attempt to defend against flooding, but it is still a very credible threat. General consensus of American boots on the ground in South Korea is that the North Koreans will be in Seoul (or what is left of it) within 48 hours. Everyone drills for rapid evac. The picture we like to paint is that they are inept starving fools, but they have been planning and drilling non-stop longer than some other countries have even existed.
  - troutwine 14y ago
    I forgot entirely about the Imnam Dam. Thank you!
  - kamaal 14y ago
    Actually the wikipedia article says that the Peace dam can contain flooding from Imnam Dam. But I take your word that its not as simple as containing water by turning a tap.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Absolutely decimated. And the remaining 90% was unscathed.
  - troutwine 14y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. You might mean one of two things: 1. There could be some confusion as to what is left undestroyed by 10%. I intended that figure to refer to the DPRK's tunnels, but especially the artillery capable tunnel mouths, not Seoul itself. 2. You may be employing a single definition of 'decimate', namely 'to take a tenth part of, tithe'. I doubt you mean the historical Roman practice of killing every tenth man, chosen by lot, of a legion. I kindly note that 'to destroy a large percentage of' is a a commonly accepted English usage of 'decimate'. It may be the most common usage, especially as knowledge of latin roots is not widespread.

by csense 14y ago

troutwine 14y ago

As I understand--and please be aware I'm only working off public information here--no. North Korea is well aware they cannot wage a war of aggression nor can they sustain a defensive posture. They've been aware of this for 40+ years and have had time to prepare. Their only effective military option is to make the cost of defeating them so prohibitively high that no nation will dare. To this end they've riddled the mountains near the DMZ with tunnels for logistic resupply and as firing positions. These tunnels admit the movement of men and material out of sight of overhead spy planes and, now, satellites. The DPKR easily has thousands of tunnels at its disposal. It's entirely possible that the US and its allies have mapped the endpoints of these tunnels and _could_ simultaneously bombard them all, but if even 10% were missed Seoul could be absolutely decimated. (There are reports that South Korean and US special forces make incursions into the North to discover and map tunnels, so I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of unknowns is much higher than 10%.) Interestingly, if Seoul and other populated areas were to be moved--that is, its 15 million citizens collectively abandoned the city and rebuilt, say, 100 miles away from the DMZ--this strategic advantage of the DPRK would be voided. Ignoring the staggering cost of this, it's probable that the North would view such action as provocation to war and act accordingly. From the field of possible responses to North Korea it's entirely possible that waiting for it to burn itself out may well be the least costly tactic, measured by unnatural human deaths. That means, of course, that the DPRK's concentration camps and system of repression must be tolerated until such horrors lead to the destruction of the government from internal forces. Personally, I find this morally repugnant and I pity any world leaders that must choose the waiting game.

dsl 14y ago
The Imnam Dam on the Bukhan River is North Korea's "I win" button. It's holding back roughly 3 BILLION gallons of water and wired with explosives that can be remotely detonated from Pyongyang. If it were to fail or be destroyed Seoul would look like New Orleans within the hour. The south spent $500 million dollars building the Peace Dam downstream in an attempt to defend against flooding, but it is still a very credible threat. General consensus of American boots on the ground in South Korea is that the North Koreans will be in Seoul (or what is left of it) within 48 hours. Everyone drills for rapid evac. The picture we like to paint is that they are inept starving fools, but they have been planning and drilling non-stop longer than some other countries have even existed.
- troutwine 14y ago
  I forgot entirely about the Imnam Dam. Thank you!
- kamaal 14y ago
  Actually the wikipedia article says that the Peace dam can contain flooding from Imnam Dam. But I take your word that its not as simple as containing water by turning a tap.
lostlogin 14y ago
Absolutely decimated. And the remaining 90% was unscathed.
- troutwine 14y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. You might mean one of two things: 1. There could be some confusion as to what is left undestroyed by 10%. I intended that figure to refer to the DPRK's tunnels, but especially the artillery capable tunnel mouths, not Seoul itself. 2. You may be employing a single definition of 'decimate', namely 'to take a tenth part of, tithe'. I doubt you mean the historical Roman practice of killing every tenth man, chosen by lot, of a legion. I kindly note that 'to destroy a large percentage of' is a a commonly accepted English usage of 'decimate'. It may be the most common usage, especially as knowledge of latin roots is not widespread.