|
817 posted:Well let's calculate just how deadly a North Korean artillery retaliation against Seoul could be by using the East Ghouta gas attack as the baseline. Thanks for bringing up NKs chemical weapons. I don't think this gets talked about enough. Also they have a lot of short range missiles (think scuds/frog missiles) that can hit anywhere in Seoul, and im sure they have the warheads to deliver chem weapons. So we have to add that to the equation. But wouldn't the population density of Seoul vs Ghouta also be a factor? There's a big difference between a chemical weapons attack in a densely populated metropolitan city vs a bombed out hellhole like Ghouta.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
If SK wants unification and vast real estate of NK, a few casualty is inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That link that fishmech posted actually discusses a lot of the practical issues regarding manning, ranges, logistics, etc. The periodic acts of aggression are not meant to demonstrate defensive capabilities - at least not to the outside world. That's dumb. As you say, these often could even be considered acts of war by the parties NK attacks - not a great idea if you actually think the other side has any willingness to attack. They are also obviously not the actions of a country attempting to invade - they're reasonably small scale and tend to happen only during times when tensions are low - likely to ensure they don't result in meaningful retaliation. They are meant to do exactly what they do. Preserve the status quo while demonstrating the power of the state for internal politics and the ability to kill South Koreans to cement implied threats during later negotiations
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Also they have a lot of short range missiles (think scuds/frog missiles) that can hit anywhere in Seoul, and im sure they have the warheads to deliver chem weapons. So we have to add that to the equation. Its specifically believed that the majority of their missile arsenal is loaded with Chemical warheads, with some loaded with Biological. Very few are believed to be using conventional explosives. Basically NK doesn't give a poo poo about the various arms treaties and conventions limiting warfare; when you don't follow the same rules as everyone else you can really go loving evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah some of the artillery is probably in poor maintenance or removed since they really aren't important anymore since they have fusion bombs that could level the entirety of Seoul (much less Tokyo or LA).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:If SK wants unification and vast real estate of NK lol they really don't, probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I've been wondering, what would north korea's response be to a pre-emptive mass evacuation of seoul? would they see it as shooting the hostage and escalate to shelling evacuees or what? not that it wouldnt be hard or suck to evacuate most of the people in a huge city and surrounding areas, but I just wonder if it couldn't be done without provoking a full military response from the north. If they let it happen, then there's just the disastrous economic and refugee problems and not also 10m~ guaranteed dead civilians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
How the gently caress do you evacuate 10mil people? I find it hard to believe a significant portion of the population would do it without being forced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO Wait why wouldn't Seoul also be nuked? Most of the area around the DMZ on the North Korean side is pretty lowly populated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO you are profoundly stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Stinky Wizzleteats posted:I've been wondering, what would north korea's response be to a pre-emptive mass evacuation of seoul? would they see it as shooting the hostage and escalate to shelling evacuees or what? not that it wouldnt be hard or suck to evacuate most of the people in a huge city and surrounding areas, but I just wonder if it couldn't be done without provoking a full military response from the north. If they let it happen, then there's just the disastrous economic and refugee problems and not also 10m~ guaranteed dead civilians. That's what I've been wondering too. NK watchers say that a US military strike would take weeks of buildup, including a mass evacuation of Seoul and a much larger military buildup. But NK has said that that they will strike if they see any signs that the US is planning to attack, and these would be clear signs. In which case, I'm not betting against the possibility that Trump says "gently caress the evacuations and gently caress being fully prepared" and launches some sort of attack before proper preparation is made.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
The thing South Korea would probably be doing in that proposed scenario, would be ordering people into the various actual shelters around and in Seoul rather than just sending everyone out to go south. US plans for evacuating in the face of hurricanes or other major storms with significant advance notice, tend to consider a freeway to have about 1000 to 1500 vehicles evacuatable per hour, per lane, when you're doing all-one-way operation away from the danger and it's a time of peak demand where everyone's crushing onto the road (so things are moving pretty slow). Surface roads they plan for sometimes much less per lane per hour. So even with a fairly optimal situation with like 5 people packed into each car, a 10 lane freeway out of town is only going to cover you for like 75,000 people hauled out of town each hour. There's much more than just one 10 lane freeway out of Seoul, but you can see the kind of issues of scale at work in a sudden evacuation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO botany posted:you are profoundly stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
gently caress, this latest thing is the worst possible response. What do they want, for them to get a neutron bomb next? Go talk to them already and strike some kind of aid deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The thing South Korea would probably be doing in that proposed scenario, would be ordering people into the various actual shelters around and in Seoul rather than just sending everyone out to go south. People packed onto highways when an actual attack comes will likely be in far more danger than they would have been just in their homes too. Any kind of mass evacuation is a gamble that the North Korean leadership isn't actually willing to kill a large number of civilians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
botany posted:you are profoundly stupid ad hominem attack, because you know there are no logical arguments that can beat my superior argument. nice!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
brockan posted:That's what I've been wondering too. NK watchers say that a US military strike would take weeks of buildup, including a mass evacuation of Seoul and a much larger military buildup. But NK has said that that they will strike if they see any signs that the US is planning to attack, and these would be clear signs. thats my fear and it seems increasingly likely that thats what will happen. trump will say gently caress it and burn them all. it doesnt help that he basicaly views foreign policy like mafia protection racket and just wants the money and doesnt give a gently caress what happens later. he is more mad at south korea then North korea. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Another costly land war in east asia is just what the doctor ordered
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Another costly land war in east asia is just what the doctor ordered Dr. Kissinger knows what he's doing, after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Any strong opinions (or serious analyses) on bribing the regime into reunification? Is there any feasible angle here? maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO The time for a decapitation strike, if there ever was one, is in the past. Today's outlandish quick-fix is bribing the entire regime with $100b, blanket immunity and their own island.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Sadly the question is not can we solve this peacefully, it's whether we'll have Seoul shelled AND America nuked or just Seoul shelled. Time to rip the band aid off IMHO kinda this. the US either admits defeat and lets NK in the nuclear power club and they get to do whatever without fear of military repercussions and the US loses credibility/face/whatever or we gently caress them up and seoul and tokyo and a couple thousand Americans die along with a majority of north Korea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:kinda this. the US either admits defeat and lets NK in the nuclear power club and they get to do whatever without fear of military repercussions and the US loses credibility/face/whatever or we gently caress them up and seoul and tokyo and a couple thousand Americans die along with a majority of north Korea. I'm sure SK would love to be allies after whites trash the korean peninsula again with their hubristic imperialism
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:I'm sure SK would love to be allies after whites trash the korean peninsula again with their hubristic imperialism true but trump doesnt give a gently caress. he was more mad at them today then he was Un and pals. South korea is hosed with trump no matter what happens. personaly, id prefer china just pushes an palace coupe or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:gently caress, this latest thing is the worst possible response. What do they want, for them to get a neutron bomb next? Go talk to them already and strike some kind of aid deal. Seems like a great way to teach the lesson "if you build nukes and scare Americans with them, you will get what you want." They have had nukes for a while now and having a bigger nuke doesn't fundamentally change the strategic calculus at play here. North Korea flaunts them in an attempt to scare people into giving them what they want, a strategy that is apparently incredibly effective on goons, but one that is a giant bluff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
North Korea isn't going to use their warheads, they just have up'ed the consequences of action to such an extent that even the slightest chance of conflict is unacceptable. Also, there is no reason for the regime to leave its position of power otherwise. The real test is Americans as a whole coming to terms with the fact that North Korea isn't going to go away or even worse, maybe be extremely hostile but largely rational.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Today's outlandish quick-fix is bribing the entire regime with $100b, blanket immunity and their own island. I wonder if this has ever really been seriously considered in Washington. I can't imagine the elite would prefer to try to enjoy their wealth in a giant NK-sized prison rather than being able to jet-set around the world.* *Of course, with the Internet, these people would be identified very quickly and soon find out all the money in the world wouldn't keep them anonymous. I'm sure someone would take matters into their own hands eventually. Problem solved!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:I wonder if this has ever really been seriously considered in Washington. I can't imagine the elite would prefer to try to enjoy their wealth in a giant NK-sized prison rather than being able to jet-set around the world.* Witness protection for ex dictators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
dinoputz posted:I wonder if this has ever really been seriously considered in Washington. I can't imagine the elite would prefer to try to enjoy their wealth in a giant NK-sized prison rather than being able to jet-set around the world.* Why would any authoritarian leader trust the US to keep to its word?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
brockan posted:That's what I've been wondering too. NK watchers say that a US military strike would take weeks of buildup, including a mass evacuation of Seoul and a much larger military buildup. But NK has said that that they will strike if they see any signs that the US is planning to attack, and these would be clear signs. Awesome. It's perfectly legal to evacuate Seoul and NK acting aggressive because of such a benign action would be perfect justification- due to the severe threat of nukes unfortunately we'd have to carpet the country w nukes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
You can't win an ABM race with a real world power because they can just build more missiles, more cheaply than you can build interceptors. But is that true with North Korea? Surely the economic disparity means we can build more interceptors than they can build ICBMs. We just need to put a system like Brilliant Pebbles in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:You can't win an ABM race with a real world power because they can just build more missiles, more cheaply than you can build interceptors. But is that true with North Korea? Surely the economic disparity means we can build more interceptors than they can build ICBMs. We just need to put a system like Brilliant Pebbles in orbit. There's no reliable way to intercept ICBMs
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
brockan posted:That's what I've been wondering too. NK watchers say that a US military strike would take weeks of buildup, including a mass evacuation of Seoul and a much larger military buildup. But NK has said that that they will strike if they see any signs that the US is planning to attack, and these would be clear signs. Call in one of the Ohio Class Cruise Missile Boats to port for repairs. Violate treaty by converting the cruise missiles to nuclear warheads. Send it out to the Sea of Japan, launch a 154 warhead, nap of the earth, first strike with no warning. Unlike an attack with ICBMs, this has no chance of being misinterperted by Russian/Chinese warning systems as a strike on them. Not advocating this, since I millions would die including me. But it would be one way to pull off surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
TheRat posted:There's no reliable way to intercept ICBMs That's why you have to build a lot more interceptors than the enemy has missiles, which makes an arms race with a major economic power unwinnable. North Korea is not a major eocnomic power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's why you have to build a lot more interceptors than the enemy has missiles, which makes an arms race with a major economic power unwinnable. North Korea is not a major eocnomic power. No, "there's no reliable way to intercept ICBMs" means that it's cost-prohibitive to try and establish a reliable system, even for a major economic power, with current technologies. And then add how loading so much ABM in the Korean peninsula will be seen as a threatening gesture by China and Russia to make that a no-go. Either way, it fulfills NK strategic objectives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:kinda this. the US either admits defeat and lets NK in the nuclear power club and they get to do whatever without fear of military repercussions and the US loses credibility/face/whatever or we gently caress them up and seoul and tokyo and a couple thousand Americans die along with a majority of north Korea. we can level them then make them pay for the rebuilding, boosting the economy. win-win!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Call in one of the Ohio Class Cruise Missile Boats to port for repairs. Violate treaty by converting the cruise missiles to nuclear warheads. Send it out to the Sea of Japan, launch a 154 warhead, nap of the earth, first strike with no warning. Unlike an attack with ICBMs, this has no chance of being misinterperted by Russian/Chinese warning systems as a strike on them. Showing Russia we can't be trusted with nuclear treaties is a poor exchange. A nuclear war on the Korean peninsula would be horrible, but Russia and the US could end the human race. Lets just all hope that things settle into some kind of peaceful steady state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Showing Russia we can't be trusted with nuclear treaties is a poor exchange. A nuclear war on the Korean peninsula would be horrible, but Russia and the US could end the human race. Wouldn't we have time to call them to let them know about it? There were a ton of moments where we almost had a nuclear war with Russia due to misunderstandings; I'd think we would be ready just in case
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Showing Russia we can't be trusted with nuclear treaties is a poor exchange. A nuclear war on the Korean peninsula would be horrible, but Russia and the US could end the human race. uh, a treaty can't violate the second amendment. ARM THE MISSILES!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Showing Russia we can't be trusted with nuclear treaties is a poor exchange. A nuclear war on the Korean peninsula would be horrible, but Russia and the US could end the human race. Haven't the Russians recently violated the intermediate ballistic missile treaty in Europe? Also, didn't that boat already sail when W. Bush violated the ABM treaty?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 03:50
|
|