|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
le-paul
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Location: dans la chambre
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
i dont think koreans can go to the DMZ, spice.
and it takes more than a month for 'the nuclear stuff' to clear. Radiation lasts for billions of years, thats how people measure how old rocks are. Didnt you learn that in hagyeo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Spice
Joined: 01 Jun 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| le-paul wrote: |
i dont think koreans can go to the DMZ, spice.
and it takes more than a month for 'the nuclear stuff' to clear. Radiation lasts for billions of years, thats how people measure how old rocks are. Didnt you learn that in hagyeo? |
That sounds like something Dwight Schrute would say...
Spice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Aside from a suicidal nuclear attack, North Korea has no way to cause millions of casualties. Heck given the pathetic yields of their nuclear weapons, they might not even cause a million casualties with those. |
They have massed artillery targeting Seoul. I've never understood why gung-ho English teachers like Spice can't seem to connect the dots - war with NK means a bomb dropping on *your* head.
Given that 25% of the population live in the greater Seoul area, that's potentially millions of casualties right there. And it's not safe or reasonable to *assume* the North Korean army would simply collapse either. Once you start a war, you don't know how it's going to end or how many people are going to end up dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Aside from a suicidal nuclear attack, North Korea has no way to cause millions of casualties. Heck given the pathetic yields of their nuclear weapons, they might not even cause a million casualties with those. |
They have massed artillery targeting Seoul. I've never understood why gung-ho English teachers like Spice can't seem to connect the dots - war with NK means a bomb dropping on *your* head.
Given that 25% of the population live in the greater Seoul area, that's potentially millions of casualties right there. And it's not safe or reasonable to *assume* the North Korean army would simply collapse either. Once you start a war, you don't know how it's going to end or how many people are going to end up dead. |
True, but you can project. Given the massive gap in technological and operational capability, the North would have a real tough go of it. People always say "We never know", but the reverse is true as well "They don't know either and trust me, their unknown is far scarier to them, than our unknown is to us.
If one looks at the actual number of artillery systems that have the range to hit Seoul proper, the sustained rate of fire (not the theoretical maximum), the general effectiveness of artillery, and the fact that staying and firing in one place with artillery is a generally bad idea when facing the United States with its air superiority, then you realize that no, they can't cause millions of casualties.
Artillery is always overhyped by the media when it comes to its destructive potential. The Russians engaged in a sustained bombardment of Grozny and didn't cause millions of casualties. Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets, of a make very similar to what the antiquated DPRK forces will deploy, at Israeli cities, they killed 44 people.
Remember, South Korea too has a considerable amount of weaponry deployed along the DMZ. The North Korean guns aren't just going to sit there and blaze away without a response.
To use a bombardment of Seoul as an offensive strategy is nonsensical as it could not be brought to bear against a military target. Basically, if they shelled Seoul as part of total war, they would waste their artillery and ordinance blowing up chicken hofs and Face Shops and not targeting the ROK and US military. Not exactly a smart long-term strategy.
Lastly one has to understand that a bombardment of Seoul would lead to a full-scale conflict. With that in mind, there would be some warning before anything happened. North Korea would have to mobilize and shift units and this would be detected by the US. This would give time for a civilian evacuation and time to send people into shelters.
The artillery around Seoul is essentially a deterrent. It's more about causing economic damage than casualties.
People seem to forget, the North is (or should be) more afraid of us than we are of them. If KJE got a choice as to what military situation and what nation's capabilities and backing he could have, he'd choose South Korea instantly. It's a no-brainer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. They are afraid of us. That's why they keep declaring war every 6 months but then don't follow through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Aside from a suicidal nuclear attack, North Korea has no way to cause millions of casualties. Heck given the pathetic yields of their nuclear weapons, they might not even cause a million casualties with those. |
They have massed artillery targeting Seoul. I've never understood why gung-ho English teachers like Spice can't seem to connect the dots - war with NK means a bomb dropping on *your* head.
Given that 25% of the population live in the greater Seoul area, that's potentially millions of casualties right there. And it's not safe or reasonable to *assume* the North Korean army would simply collapse either. Once you start a war, you don't know how it's going to end or how many people are going to end up dead. |
True, but you can project. Given the massive gap in technological and operational capability, the North would have a real tough go of it. People always say "We never know", but the reverse is true as well "They don't know either and trust me, their unknown is far scarier to them, than our unknown is to us. |
Didn't one of the Kim dynasty say they could afford to lose half the population or something and have enough to rebuild? I think they know they'd have a tough go of it. And who's tougher, North or South Koreans?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| If one looks at the actual number of artillery systems that have the range to hit Seoul proper, the sustained rate of fire (not the theoretical maximum), the general effectiveness of artillery, and the fact that staying and firing in one place with artillery is a generally bad idea when facing the United States with its air superiority, then you realize that no, they can't cause millions of casualties. |
The Norks are known for building installations underground for the very reason that U.S. airpower is a given, and they know what the response would be as well as we do, or better. Their artillery has to be dug in so as to reduce the effectiveness of air strikes. And for that artillery to fulfill its purpose, they only have to fire one barrage.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Artillery is always overhyped by the media when it comes to its destructive potential. The Russians engaged in a sustained bombardment of Grozny and didn't cause millions of casualties. Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets, of a make very similar to what the antiquated DPRK forces will deploy, at Israeli cities, they killed 44 people. |
Hopefully, you're right.
| Steelrails wrote: |
To use a bombardment of Seoul as an offensive strategy is nonsensical as it could not be brought to bear against a military target. Basically, if they shelled Seoul as part of total war, they would waste their artillery and ordinance blowing up chicken hofs and Face Shops and not targeting the ROK and US military. Not exactly a smart long-term strategy. |
It's not meant primarily as an offensive strategy. It's meant as a deterrent to invasion. If they can take out or significantly damage Seoul, that would have economic repercussions worldwide.
| Steelrails wrote: |
Lastly one has to understand that a bombardment of Seoul would lead to a full-scale conflict. With that in mind, there would be some warning before anything happened. North Korea would have to mobilize and shift units and this would be detected by the US. This would give time for a civilian evacuation and time to send people into shelters.
The artillery around Seoul is essentially a deterrent. It's more about causing economic damage than casualties. |
Right. Which is why they almost certainly won't use it unless threatened with invasion. We still wouldn't exactly be safe, though, if we were living in Seoul when war broke out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Didn't one of the Kim dynasty say they could afford to lose half the population or something and have enough to rebuild? |
What they say and what can actually happen are two completely different things entirely. Seldom has there been (if ever) a victorious nation in war that lost half its population. Look at WWII, the Germans, Japanese, and Russians lost no more than 12% of their population. The fact is that usually a belligerent collapses before the point where they can lose half their population.
The only war I can think of that went over 50% of population was the Paraguayan conflict and that had village razing.
| Quote: |
| And who's tougher, North or South Koreans? |
Never count on "toughness" when evaluating an adversary, one way or the other. Those that people underestimate often turn out to be far tougher than imagined and those that people rate as overly fearsome often lose their ferocious reputation when pitted against an equally capable adversary.
| Quote: |
| The Norks are known for building installations underground for the very reason that U.S. airpower is a given, and they know what the response would be as well as we do, or better. Their artillery has to be dug in so as to reduce the effectiveness of air strikes. \ |
But building it underground decreases its mobility, while providing protection against counter-battery fire, also increases vulnerability.
| Quote: |
| And for that artillery to fulfill its purpose, they only have to fire one barrage. |
In one sense yes, and one sense no. As a general deterrent in acting for stability, that's very true. However in an escalating situation where there is an acceptance of war amongst the South Koreans, that one barrage will not fulfill its purpose.
People seem to have this vision of all the North Korean artillery pieces simultaneously emerging at a certain designated time and just lobbing shells at their maximum rate of fire, without any response, for hours unmolested, with millions of people caught in a sea of fire. That's just not how it works.
| Quote: |
| Hopefully, you're right. |
Look up the history of bombardments. If you can find an instance where land based artillery managed to kill millions of people in 20 minutes, I'd love to hear about it.
| Quote: |
| It's not meant primarily as an offensive strategy. It's meant as a deterrent to invasion. If they can take out or significantly damage Seoul, that would have economic repercussions worldwide. |
Absolutely, that's why I wrote so and you are correct, though they cannot take out Seoul, however the term "significantly damage" may or may not apply. Significant in these that the economic impact would be significant, less so in terms of casualties and military operations.
The problem is that North Korea has a bit of a conundrum regarding its Seoul artillery problem.
Artillery being one of the few "advantages" (which is debatable) the DPRK possess in a military sense, the problem comes that the very act of bombarding Seoul dispenses of that advantage as it would invite the expenditure and destruction of most of its long-range systems.
| Quote: |
| We still wouldn't exactly be safe, though, if we were living in Seoul when war broke out. |
True enough, it wouldn't be a cakewalk, but it wouldn't be Dresden either. You'd certainly get some high-profile high-casualty incidents like a certain apartment building receiving a perfect hit and it collapsing with hundreds of people inside. The thing is that after the first 30 minutes or so, the odds of those types of things tend to decrease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
