"This Is How North Korea's Artillery Would Wage War" Topic

"Pyongyang on May 9, 2019 launched a second "projectile," South Korean officials said.

The May tests of at least one apparently nuclear-capable short-range missile startled foreign observers and threatened to elevate tensions between the United States and its allies South Korea and Japan on one side and, on the other side, North Korea and its main patron China…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Assuming they get to fire.

One nuke will ruin their whole day, and eliminate the threat they pose.

Nukes that close to South Korea might not be an option!

Is somekne seriously suggesting America would nuke North Korea?

Nukes, even the biggest, are ineffective and inefficient against artillery widely dispersed and hiding in tunnels until they emerge to fire. By massing hundreds of long-range guns and rockets, nerve-agent armed, within range of Seoul but spread out and first-strike survivable, North Korea prevented any credible threat of pre-emptive strike for decades. No administration was ever willing to trade tens or hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilian lives to halt North Korea's development of nuclear arms, and that's why we ultimately failed in that regard despite reassurances over the years from Presidents of both parties that this would never happen.

Both sides know that war would mean the destruction of both sides.

Concerning nukes, it has always been the policy of the US that we retain the option of first use.

I guess it depends.

Do you want Seoul to be obliterated by Nork artillery, or is it better to wipe it out in one, well-timed blow, and deal with the possible effects of a near-miss (on Seoul), but a direct hit on the artillery?

Air bursts leave little to no fallout, supposedly, but will take out their artillery and troops.

Timing is everything.

Air bursting nukes don't work too well against caves.

Almost all of the Nork's 30,000 tubes are dug in deep into bedrock and ranged in on Seoul. Just restricted to conventional warheads (because nuclear artillery shells are a pain in the butt to make), the Norks can deliver kilotons/minute to Seoul.

Agree with Lion….

Amicalement
Armand

I'll admit, I'm not overly familiar with the area. I know Seoul is really close to the DMZ, but I don't know what the rest of the terrain is like. With that in mind, I'll ask a stupid question:

Could SK start using tax incentives (or onerous business regulations or restrictive licensing rules) to get people to start moving out of Seoul, thus reducing the risk of a NK first strike?

I presume they'd need to pull those guns out of their caves to fire, due to over-pressure issues, and the need not to blow out the eardrums or kill those firing and servicing the weapons.

Concerning nukes, it has always been the policy of the US that we retain the option of first use.

It would be crazy not to have that option. It would probably be crazy to use it.

Agree.

I think the history of that policy decision stems from the realization that the Soviet Union had a much bigger army and could not be stopped without the use of tactical nukes if they decided to attack Western Europe. Of course this leads to MAD (mutually assured destruction), no one wins, therefore a stalemate and no one makes a move. Just my 2 cents.

That's a first, USAFpilot! Let's hope we can find other areas with consensus because, believe it or not, I'm not a fan of disagreement.

I was recently accused, in a PM, that I'm anti-American which is very, very far from the truth.

But back to the topic: N. Korea, as usual, are trying to push America's buttons. Over reaction is just as bad as appeasement.
Let them play with their guns and make sure the S.Koreans are fully supported in word & in deed.

North Korea is safe playing MAD with South Korea. But, if they start to threaten their other neighbors, then they threaten nations which may not be as protective of South Koreans as are the South Koreans. At some point, someone may decide that the economics of taking out the threat of North Korea justifies the risk to South Korea.

Could SK start using tax incentives (or onerous business regulations or restrictive licensing rules) to get people to start moving out of Seoul, thus reducing the risk of a NK first strike?

I don't think so. Seoul is where the roads all meet, and is on the Han river.

They'd have to move all the industries somewhere just to start, and you're talking about 25million residents in the entire metropolitan area…