Do we not have a missile defense system in SK?

Do we not have a missile defense system in SK?

Missiles don't matter. This is straight up artillery we're talking about. Cheap to produce shells that fly on ballistic trajectories.

 

35 miles is the distance to Seoul. Not all of their artillery hits that far, but at least 20 guns supposedly will, with heavy anti-aircraft cover. It will not take long to level that city, and they could sit there firing thousands of shots. Any missile defense would be overwhelmed. Some good maps/images here, (Ignore the EMP thing).

 

Japan, Guam, Hawaii those are places where missile defenses might be useful if they actually work, but Seoul is at their mercy and everyone knows it. It's 10 million hostages.

North Korea's army says it has the "final approval" for a nuclear attack on the US.

 

WTF, why are they even thinking about this? Odds are that first of all, the missiles they have that can reach Hawaii or Guam would be intercepted, then as per US doctrine they'd be f***ing obliterated in retaliation and China would probably let that happen. Why?

NK pulled out of the joint industrial park.

I saw some blurb somewhere about us putting a missile defense system in Guam?

I saw some blurb somewhere about us putting a missile defense system in Guam?

Yo. Literally no idea how effective this system is or how rapidly it can be deployed.

So, how long does the world tolerate this nonsense? Should SK (and Japan to a lesser extent) sit idly by why generations of these nutbags threaten them with annihilation? If what Balta says is true, and at the flip of a switch Seoul gets obliterated, why aren't we OK'ing a preemptive UN strike? Yes, lost lives now, but potentially millions saved later. And those poor NK people might actually have a future.

Because a preemptive strike will directly lead to Seoul getting obliterated? That's exactly why they have that s*** aimed at Seoul in the first place. How cool would you be with this first-strike policy if it was Chicago (and thus, you) that was facing obliteration if a move was made?

So, how long does the world tolerate this nonsense? Should SK (and Japan to a lesser extent) sit idly by why generations of these nutbags threaten them with annihilation? If what Balta says is true, and at the flip of a switch Seoul gets obliterated, why aren't we OK'ing a preemptive UN strike? Yes, lost lives now, but potentially millions saved later. And those poor NK people might actually have a future.

If you order a nuclear strike of sufficient scale to eliminate the threat from North Korea, there will be no NK people to have a future.

 

And the collateral damage in the South will be significant. I'm not sure if you could target a tactical nuclear weapon precisely enough to knock out the military facilities along the DMZ without killing significant numbers of the U.S. and South Korean soldiers stationed in the DMZ. You could potentially evacuate those people, but there are civilian areas coming very close to the border as well, and evacuating entire cities would be difficult.

 

Of course, that also says nothing about the radiation exposure for the people in the South, as well as in Japan, and possibly even the U.S. west coast along the prevailing winds. I'd find it reasonable to expect a significant loss of life, at least in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from radiation exposure.

Because a preemptive strike will directly lead to Seoul getting obliterated? That's exactly why they have that s*** aimed at Seoul in the first place. How cool would you be with this first-strike policy if it was Chicago (and thus, you) that was facing obliteration if a move was made?

 

True, though if we can knock out the majority of those sites quickly and lessen the damage. I mean, I don't know near enough about it to know if that's a legitimate possibility. But they better be prepared to do SOMETHING to those missile/artillery batteries if someone in NK gives the green light.

I don't know why you're assuming nuclear, but either way, there's little to no chance that you get everything in the first wave.

 

edit: x-post but still works!

 

I'm sure Seoul, Japan and the US all have numerous weapons pointed at known NK military installations and facilities. It's the same MAD strategy from the Cold War, only we're not talking about global annihilation. But there's no way you get everything at once.

Edited April 3, 201313 yr by StrangeSox

So, how long does the world tolerate this nonsense? Should SK (and Japan to a lesser extent) sit idly by why generations of these nutbags threaten them with annihilation? If what Balta says is true, and at the flip of a switch Seoul gets obliterated, why aren't we OK'ing a preemptive UN strike? Yes, lost lives now, but potentially millions saved later. And those poor NK people might actually have a future.

 

Honestly, I have to believe that the rest of the world believes Un is full of s***. Otherwise they would have done a little more to respond by now.

Yeah I wasn't assuming nuclear. I was assuming thousands of tomahawk missiles exploding wherever the batteries are located, with the hope you knock out 75% of them in the first hour or whatever and then make another strike after that.

 

Again, no idea if that's feasible or not.

Honestly, I have to believe that the rest of the world believes Un is full of s***. Otherwise they would have done a little more to respond by now.

 

Yeah. I just find it odd that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do negotiate and pay off state-sponsored terrorist leaders.

Yeah I wasn't assuming nuclear. I was assuming thousands of tomahawk missiles exploding wherever the batteries are located, with the hope you knock out 75% of them in the first hour or whatever and then make another strike after that.

 

Again, no idea if that's feasible or not.

 

As soon as the first strike is detected, the missiles are going to be launched. You need to wipe out a hell of a lot more than 75% within maybe a minute if you want Seoul to be left standing.

Yeah. I just find it odd that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but we do negotiate and pay off state-sponsored terrorist leaders.

Real politik

 

(also we have a good history of both negotiating with and funding/sponsoring terrorists!)

 

We negotiate with terrorists.

 

It just depends on leverage. If a terrorist had a nuke hidden in NY, you better believe that the US is going to try and negotiate that situation.

 

As soon as the first strike is detected, the missiles are going to be launched. You need to wipe out a hell of a lot more than 75% within maybe a minute if you want Seoul to be left standing.

 

Balta's link says they have 17 guns within striking distance of Seoul. It would certainly take more than a minute. It would take 2 hours (Arguably) and in that two hours how many missiles would the US be able to drop from all sorts of different angles in the sky? 1000's to reach 17 targets.

Yeah im not sure how much damage NK can really do. You have to expect that every other country has NK sites lined up to start.

Yeah im not sure how much damage NK can really do. You have to expect that every other country has NK sites lined up to start.

 

Right, I'm sure SK and Japan have missile batteries ready to go as well.

 

I mean, it's obviously a closed country so no one really knows for sure, and there's a risk some batteries would be able to continue firing. But I don't think it's a case of total destruction within 5 minutes.

Yeah im not sure how much damage NK can really do. You have to expect that every other country has NK sites lined up to start.

 

Thinking about how effective the Iraqi military of the 90's was, with tons of more capital to invest in their military, I really get the feeling that NK is a paper tiger.

I wonder how many of their weapons actually work.

 

Its great to have artillery, its another thing to have artillery that is actually in working condition.

Thinking about how effective the Iraqi military of the 90's was, with tons of more capital to invest in their military, I really get the feeling that NK is a paper tiger.

Their military was remarkably effective until it was hit by a 30+ day U.S. led bombing campaign followed by a half million man ground assault.

 

In a day, there would be nothing left of South Korea even if 1/2 of their shells failed.

I wonder how many of their weapons actually work.

 

Its great to have artillery, its another thing to have artillery that is actually in working condition.

 

Exactly. With as isolated and broke as they are, I am not sure they could have maintained what they have. They can't buy oil. How are they going to run a military attack?

Right, I'm sure SK and Japan have missile batteries ready to go as well.

 

I mean, it's obviously a closed country so no one really knows for sure, and there's a risk some batteries would be able to continue firing. But I don't think it's a case of total destruction within 5 minutes.

Consider that if the Koreans have 20 guns capable of hitting Seoul, if they start shooting from all of them, a reasonable reload rate for standard artillery pieces might be a round fired every 20 seconds or so. Better training could make that happen faster.

 

In the first 60 minutes, that means 3600 large shells could fall on that city.

 

Imagine 3600 Oklahoma-City bombing sized explosions going off in a major city like Chicago or New York in the space of an hour.

 

Those artillery pieces will get hit by airpower eventually, but airpower takes time to get there. Maybe my time is off and it's a round a minute, maybe 1/2 of their shells are duds, but also maybe the large concentration of mobile guns the North has in the area are able to blast their way across the minefield and into range within the first couple hours.

 

There is no way to limit the damage if they open fire other than vaporizing the country.