Might invading North Korea be both a moral duty, and a sure thing?

[clairobscur]

Apart from bombing Seoul, North-Korea has hinted at her capacity to launch a nuclear strike against Japan (by launching a test missile in the general direction of Japan, I can’t remember if it overflew Japan or not, and by stating that they had nuclear weapons supposedly launchable with missiles).
So, North-Korea could hold a second country in hostage.

[clairobscur]

Could the massive number of North-Korean artillery firing together destroy a volcano appearing in the Atlantic and disturbing the Gulf Stream flow?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Sure, but then we’d have to summon Godzilla to fix things.

[Mr.Excellent]

Do we actually know what sort of shape the North Korean artillery is in? Or even have a good idea? I ask because it seems to me that the “war with North Korea would destroy Seoul” scenario assumes that North Korea’s artillery pieces, and the men operating them, are capable and reliable.

What is the basis for this belief? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily wrong (or right) - but we know that North Korea’s capacity to train its soldiers, manufacture weapons, and repair existing weapons are all impaired by an aging infrastructure and staggering amounts of mismanagement. My understanding is that artillery pieces can’t just be placed and abandoned - they must be maintained. And the crews must be trained, which requires the expenditure of (expensive) live ammunition. Has North Korea done these things consistently?

In short - in the event of war, how many of the thousands of artillery pieces targetting Seoul would end up successfully lobbing even a single shell?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

@clairobscur

Could the massive number of North-Korean artillery firing together destroy a volcano appearing in the Atlantic and disturbing the Gulf Stream flow?

But of course, that would be a worst-case scenario.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Magiver

Their leadership is about that crazy too.

The best strategy is to infiltrate the country with SC magazines. Doesn’t matter what it’s a magazine of. Once the NK people understand just how fucked up their country is the mutiny will come from within.`

Imperialism by MTV?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@hansel

I would think so, for several reasons.

First, in any conflict between the Koreas, massive damage/casualties to Seoul ties up a lot of South Korean resources–perhaps a disproportionate amount, given Seoul’s importance. Tactically it’s a sound move.

Second, if you have 80,000 artillery and rocket batteries pre-positioned to bombard Seoul, you know that they’ll be a primary target at the beginning of any conflict. They might survive the first 24 hours, depending on a lot of factors, but you can be guaranteed they won’t survive the first week, so there’s a “use it or lose it” aspect to them. If they’re dug in, they can’t be easily repositioned either–it’s not like you can task them to anything but the destruction of Seoul.

[Aside: anyone have a good idea what proportion of that artillery is mobile artillery vs. dug-in?]

Third, causing massive casualties in Seoul will be a huge blow to the morale of the SKs and the USians, which is another opportunity the NKs wouldn’t want to pass up.

Lastly, after the war, when either North Korea is part of South Korea (or the reverse), a free-standing and unharmed Seoul will be directly compared to conditions in the north. Tarnishing that bright jewel has its advantages, and Seoul’s integration with the world is about the companies and people, not about the infrastructure. There’s no great argument for the NKs for preserving Seoul because there’s little they can actually use there after a conflict, assuming they win (which I’m sure the NKs are planning on).

I agree. Those artillery peices are committed, they can only do one thing. Bomb Seoul. They are all dug in and they can’t be redeployed effectively.

Someone mentioned the artillery was use it or lose it, well taht is exactly wheat they are. There is no point in saving them for a rainy day once we start bombing NK.

[Muffin]

Spend a few years saturation bombing NK with food and satellite internet linked laptops.

[Tom_Scud]

@Mr.Excellent

Do we actually know what sort of shape the North Korean artillery is in? Or even have a good idea? I ask because it seems to me that the “war with North Korea would destroy Seoul” scenario assumes that North Korea’s artillery pieces, and the men operating them, are capable and reliable.

What is the basis for this belief? I’m not saying that it’s necessarily wrong (or right) - but we know that North Korea’s capacity to train its soldiers, manufacture weapons, and repair existing weapons are all impaired by an aging infrastructure and staggering amounts of mismanagement.

The artillery is crucial to NK’s security strategy; it’s got to be the second-highest priority (after internal security) for the country’s leadership. IF the rot has gone high enough up the chain to take out the artillery, you might as well wait until it reaches the top & then cut a deal with whoever organizes the successful coup.

[Oakminster]

@Magiver

Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.

That’s just ridiculously optimistic. You’re wildly overestimating short term U.S. air capabilities. We simply do not have the assets in place to do what you are suggesting. Unlike Iraq, NK has an air force that is likely to put up some degree of resistance. Plus, they have the usual AAA and SAM-batteries. It takes time to move airplanes, crews, maintenance, fuel, ammo, etc. within striking range. Time that NK is going to be using blowing the hell out of Seoul. It takes more time to actually seize control of the airspace, because to do that, you have to eliminate/suppress all of their air defenses–planes, AAA, SAMs, radar, etc. NK will still be unloading on Seoul while that is happening. If I remember right, it took at least a week, maybe longer to establish air superiority over Iraq, and their Air Force didn’t put up a serious resistance.

On the ground, you’ve got a logisitical nightmare. Our troops at the DMZ will fight bravely, I’m sure, but they’re too few in number to be much more than a speedbump if NK moves South on the ground in a big way. Add to that millions of now homeless and hungry SK civilians trying to get out of the way on the same roads we’d be needing to bring in more troops.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Magiver

Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.

I am pretty sure that then NKs can level Seoul before you could get through rush hour traffic, hell knowing Seoul traffic, they could level Seoul before you could get through daytime traffic. If every living soul was trying to leave the city, they cuold take their time and pick their targets (probably bridges and tunnels crossing the Han river stranding people on the north side of the river.

It would be pretty tough to bumrush through the DMZ. The whole place is mined and you would have to run a distance of two and a half miles through a cleared valey toward the most militarized border in the world. There are walls, cleared killing fields, tank traps, oh and did I mention then wall to wall mines?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@septimus

You’re putting words in my mouth. Unlike a barrage of nuclear missiles, artillery is a weapon that takes several hours to play out. What I was “proposing” was a nuclear strike after N.K. began an artillery strike but before most of the damage was done.

I can’t speculate on NK artillery’s rate of fire, etc., nor on the delay of U.S. nuclear bomb delivery, but it seems likely to me, especially since spy satellites would probably detect moves toward attack, that a sufficient response could suppress the artillery while a large majority of rounds are still unfired, even though Presidential OK would wait till the (hypothetical) NK attack began.

I’m pretty sure all the artillery is in place. Seoul has been living with live ammunition ppionted at it for the last 60 years. Its a minor miracle that there haven’t been any accidental shots fired at Seoul in that time.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Martiju

You’re not wrong. The comment on page 1 about the evil propaganda being fed to NK about the US wanting to invade seems somewhat ironic in the context of this thread. It’s like there’s no real comprehension, despite the evidence of the last 10 years, that invasions, wars and conflicts do little to solve problems, but plenty to create them - yet the overriding philosophy still seems to be 'nuke ‘em from orbit’.

When you’ve got the biggest hammer ever known to man, every problem looks like a nail.

[Otara]

From Wiki:

“Between 1984 and 1992, the army added about 1,000 tanks, over 2,500 APC/IFV, and about 6,000 artillery pieces and rocket launchers.”

We’re not talking about equipment from the 1950’s, and tube artillery and its ammunition can be fairly durable, particularly given we’re talking sheltered prepositioned equipment in bunkers trying to hit a city at predetermined ranges rather than a 10m target. Chemical and biological weapons might degrade fairly quickly, on the other hand you dont need many tons of that to be effective.

It could all be a paper tiger like Iraq and a lot of it is probably nearly useless due to age or obsolescence, but Id bet theres more than enough left to make a mess unless you’re talking complete deception or the like which is a possibility but not one you want to gamble on given the nuclear tests etc.

Otara

[Lemur866]

It’s not like the artillery crews need complicated command and control. Their orders would just be to keep firing until they’ve used up all their ammo. Each dug-in artillery tube already has a pre-chosen target, and if the guns are innaccurate pieces of crap, they might miss their actual target but they’re going to hit something in Seoul, even if it’s an empty parking lot.

The North probably has no plans to even attempt to resupply these tubes with more ammo, because they know anything moving in the open will get killed by US/Southern airpower. So these guns will keep firing until they use up their crate of ammo or the crews are dead, or they run away.

But if your average artillery crew gets in a shell every 10 minutes or so, and there are thousands of crews, and at least half of them work and the crews actually obey orders, that still means thousands and thousands of shells hitting Seoul.

And it will be impossible, absolutely impossible, to evacuate Seoul once the shelling starts. The streets will be gridlocked in a matter of minutes. Everyone will have to evactuate on foot.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

They would most likely shelter in place. Except for Beirut, we have very little practical experience with war in a large urban area. (Yeah, I know, Baghdad, but that is a different kettle of fish.)

I wonder what sort of plans the ROKs have for defense and civil defense of the capital. Anyone know?

===eta===
found this

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Magiver

The disparity between NK and SK greatly exceeds that of East and West Germany. I think they would appreciate the effort when everything was said and done.

However, the brainwashing that exists and the complete lack of communication with the outside world means the initial fight would be ugly, mostly for them. Their air force consists of pilots with 7 hrs of flying time so anything that went up would go straight back down. Without air support their ground machinery would be wiped out in a matter of hours and days. It would be very similar to what happened in Kuwait. Iraq had the 3rd largest standing army (now a position held by NK) and it was systematically chewed up.

What Iraq didn’t have was nuclear weapons so it would be a huge gamble to assume the missiles could be shot down.

Iraq had the third-largest standing army and well-trained and experienced pilots and soldiers. It had just fought an eight-year war against the (US-equipped) Iranians, remember.

It wasn’t “systematically chewed up”, by any measure.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Of course the difference is they have had decades to prepare. Although our intelligence is well-developed, we do not know what we do not know. We can presume there will be nasty surprises.

Still, the correlation of forces shows the way to bet.

I presume the plan would be to defang the PDRK of any offensive capacity and then sit back and hope for a coup or civil war.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Lemur866

Each dug-in artillery tube already has a pre-chosen target, and if the guns are innaccurate pieces of crap, they might miss their actual target but they’re going to hit something in Seoul, even if it’s an empty parking lot.

That would be pretty impressive, actually, hitting the one place in Seoul where parking was available.

[Zeriel]

@Lemur866

But if your average artillery crew gets in a shell every 10 minutes or so, and there are thousands of crews, and at least half of them work and the crews actually obey orders, that still means thousands and thousands of shells hitting Seoul.

This is a vast underestimation, by the by–even the 1950s-era 152mm D70 guns they probably are still operating had a sustained rate of fire of one round a minute, and a trained crew can fire 5-6 rounds a minute in the initial barrage (before barrel overheating becomes a problem)

Not to mention at least some of the systems available to the NKs are BM-21 rocket artillery pieces, which only need to get off one salvo (40 122mm rockets per launcher, at 2 rockets per second). The updated homebuilt version carries a single reload package as well, so that’s 80 122mm rockets (with 20kg explosive, or bio/chem warheads as applicable) in just about two minutes. Air power is NOT going to stop 'em all.