North Korea bombarded a South Korean island near their disputed western border Tuesday

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/23/skorea-nkorea-fires-artillery-island/

North Korea Fires On Island in South, 2 Dead

Published November 23, 2010
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (959) Text Size

AP

Nov. 23: Smoke billows from Yeonpyeong island near the border with North Korea.

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea bombarded a South Korean island near their disputed western border Tuesday, setting buildings ablaze and killing at least two marines and injuring 16 others after warning the South to halt military drills in the area, South Korean officials said.

South Korea said it returned fire and scrambled fighter jets in response, and said the "inhumane" attack on civilian areas violated the 1953 armistice halting the Korean War. The two sides technically remain at war because a peace treaty was never negotiated.

The United Nations Security Council could hold an emergency meeting in the next day or two over the attack, saying "It's in the works for either today or tomorrow. We are for it and planning is ongoing," Reuters reports.

The United States, which has tens of thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, condemned the attack and called on North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in Washington. He said the United States is "firmly committed" to South Korea's defense, and to the "maintenance of regional peace and stability."

The North's artillery struck the small South Korean-held island of Yeonpyeong, which houses military installations and a small civilian population and which has been the focus of two previous deadly battles between the Koreas.

Nov. 23: Homes burn on South Korea's Yeonpyeong island after North Korea fired dozens of rounds of artillery.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
Actor Will Ferrell Loses $18M Case to JPMorgan You Found Someone's Debit Card. Do You Pick it Up? Authorities Search for Clues in Violent Deaths of Florida Family Newsweek Depiction of Obama as Lord Shiva Upsets Some Indian-Americans Socialism: Rearing its Ugly Head Again Two South Korean marines were killed, three were seriously wounded and 10 slightly wounded, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said. Island residents were escaping to about 20 shelters in the island while sporadic shelling continued, the military official said.

North Korea's supreme military command threatened to continue military strikes against South Korea if it violated their disputed sea border "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

The firing came amid South Korean military drills in the area. North Korea's military had sent a message to South Korea's armed forces early Tuesday to demand that the drills stop, but the South continued them, another military official said.

During the drills, South Korean marines on the island shot artillery toward southern waters, away from North Korea, the official said.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing military rules.

South Korean military official Lee Hong-ki said the North's premeditated bombardments struck civilian areas and were "inhumane atrocities." There are about 30 small islands around the Yeonpyeong, and tension runs high in the area because of its proximity to North Korea. Yeonpyeong is known for its crab fishing.

After the North's barrages, South Korea responded by firing K-9 155mm self-propelled howitzers, military officials said, but declined to say whether North Korean territory was hit.

YTN TV said several houses on Yeonpyeong were on fire and that shells were still falling on the island, which is about 75 miles (120 kilometers) west of the coast. The station broadcast pictures of thick columns of black smoke rising from the island, which has a population of 1,200 to 1,300. Screams and chaotic shouts could be heard on the video.

Lee Chun-ok, a 54-year-old island resident, said she was watching TV when she heard sounds of artillery and a wall and door in her home suddenly collapsed.

"I though I would die," Lee said from the port city of Incheon, west of Seoul, where she evacuated. "I was really, really terrified, and I'm still terrified."

Relations between the divided Koreas sank to their lowest point in years after the deadly sinking in March of a South Korean warship near the tense Korean sea border, which killed 46 sailors. Seoul blamed a North Korean torpedo, while Pyongyang has denied any responsibility.

President Lee Myung-bak ordered officials to "sternly respond" to North Korea's action but also called on officials to make sure that the "situation would not escalate," according to a presidential official. He asked not to be identified, citing the issue's sensitivity.

Lee was holding a security meeting in a presidential situation room, the official said.

China, which is the North's economic and political benefactor while maintaining robust commercial ties with the South, called for calm.

"We express our concern over the situation. The situation is to be verified," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said at a regularly scheduled media briefing in Beijing. He called on both Koreas without naming them "to do more to contribute to peace and stability on the peninsula."

In a message to North Korea's armed forces, South Korea's military urged the North to stop provocations and warned of strong measures unless the North stopped, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official said.

The countries' western maritime boundary has long been a flash point between the two Koreas. The North does not recognize the border that was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the close of the 1950-53 Korean War.

North and South Korea have fought three bloody skirmishes near the maritime border in recent years, most recently in November 2009. That battle left one North Korean officer dead and three others wounded, according to South Korean officials.

Two deadly clashes have previously erupted around Yeonpyeong. In a gunbattle in June 2002, one South Korean warship sank, killing six sailors. The North said it also suffered casualties, but didn't confirm how many. In a 1999 clash, South Korea said several sailors were wounded, and that up to 30 North Koreans died.

In a sign of North Korea's anger over the South Korean drills, North Korea's state news agency said in a dispatch Monday that South Korea was readying war games with the United States for aggressive purposes against North Korea. The dispatch quoted what it said were sympathetic Swiss groups that called the drills "a criminal act of aggression for provoking another Korean war."

The existence of North Korea's new uranium enrichment facility came to light over the weekend after Pyongyang showed it to a visiting American nuclear scientist, claiming that the highly sophisticated operation had 2,000 completed centrifuges. Top U.S. military officials warn that it could speed the North's ability to make and deliver viable nuclear weapons.

The military tensions between the two Koreas also comes amid a visit to the region by U.S. special envoy on North Korea, Stephen Bosworth. He held talks with South Korean officials Monday and was also scheduled to meet officials in China.

**warpcrafter**

North Korea has no devices accurate enough to measure a thousandth of a millimeter!!! Kim Jong Il is a terrible golfer, and smells like poopy!!!

**Flashman**

Read a good book about civilian life in North Korea recently (in summary, it isn't much fun) and if there was ever a country where the population would be grateful for a US invasion, it's this one. I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

It won't of course happen because a) China and probably Russia wouldn't stand for it and b) South Korea probably wouldn't be too happy about it either because the second the border is lifted, there would be mass migration from the North that the South couldn't cope with.

The South Korean government will accept defectors from the North and there is even a program to help them adjust to the huge change in lifestyle. They can cope with the current drip feed of defectors at present, but have serious concerns about the flood of refugees that they would receive if ever the PDRK regime collapse.

**Brother Heinrich**

just about to get back from Pakistan, better keep my bags packed I guess!

**Frazzled**

Brother Heinrich wrote:just about to get back from Pakistan, better keep my bags packed I guess!

No. Let South Korea defend itself. We have no interest there, and have lost enough good people because of that pissant region of the world.

**The Dreadnote**

Besides, everyone knows that North Korea is Best Korea.

**Frazzled**

The Dreadnote wrote:Besides, everyone knows that North Korea is Best Korea.

Say it right. say it proud.
NORTH KOREA IS BEST KOREA!

**Tyyr**

Flashman wrote:It won't of course happen because a) China and probably Russia wouldn't stand for it and b) South Korea probably wouldn't be too happy about it either because the second the border is lifted, there would be mass migration from the North that the South couldn't cope with.

I'm fairly certain the Chinese are as sick of NK's crap as everyone else is. They probably wouldn't help an invasion of NK, but I doubt they'd be sending troops over the border. Russia has no real interests there so they might fire off some nasty words but again, I doubt you see them doing much to affect anything really.

The South Korean government will accept defectors from the North and there is even a program to help them adjust to the huge change in lifestyle. They can cope with the current drip feed of defectors at present, but have serious concerns about the flood of refugees that they would receive if ever the PDRK regime collapse.

Which is the real reason SK doesn't want reunification. It'd collapse their economy.

**NoToTheMan**

accept the gravity of this situation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11818005

the BBC will always be better than faux news
less slanted
more to the point

**Brother Heinrich**

Frazzled wrote:
Brother Heinrich wrote:just about to get back from Pakistan, better keep my bags packed I guess!

No. Let South Korea defend itself. We have no interest there, and have lost enough good people because of that pissant region of the world.

I quite agree, I'm looking forward to getting out of the Corps this coming summer and going back to school and enjoying the hobby without worrying about having to constantly put life on hold because I get deployed to some 3rd world gak-hole. The last thing I want is to be stop-lossed and told to go freeze my ass off in Korea. However life does happen, and if it does come to that then so be it, the Emperor protects.

**Medium of Death**

The two sides technically remain at war because a peace treaty was never negotiated.

Now heres your problem...

The North's artillery struck the small South Korean-held island of Yeonpyeong, which houses military installations and a small civilian population and which has been the focus of two previous deadly battles between the Koreas.

The firing came amid South Korean military drills in the area. North Korea's military had sent a message to South Korea's armed forces early Tuesday to demand that the drills stop, but the South continued them, another military official said.

During the drills, South Korean marines on the island shot artillery toward southern waters, away from North Korea, the official said.

South Korean military official Lee Hong-ki said the North's premeditated bombardments struck civilian areas and were "inhumane atrocities." There are about 30 small islands around the Yeonpyeong, and tension runs high in the area because of its proximity to North Korea. Yeonpyeong is known for its crab fishing.

North Korea's supreme military command threatened to continue military strikes against South Korea if it violated their disputed sea border "even 0.001 millimeter," according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

So basically we have South Korea goading the North by conducting these drills next to hotly contested waters. I think it's entirely irresponsible to put all the blame on the North, if South Korea is going to conduct drills close to the boarder of an unstable country it should expect a gak storm. If they are now so concerned for the people in that area they should have either (A) Relocated them or (B) Found a better area to conduct such drills.

Obviously it's not ideal to have North Korea as your neighbour, but you think they would take steps to avoid provoking the crazy. Or is that just me?

We should just let them get on with it, I think the world has got better things to do than make sure the Koreans are getting along and playing nice.

**agnosto**

You don't have to start worrying yet, the North has been killing S. Korean soldiers for years and getting away with it. There'll be some sabre rattling and then everything will settle down until the next time.

I lived in Seoul for over 4 years and it never ceased to amaze me that every time there was a clash, there'd be an uproar for a few days and then people would shrug and go on loving their northern neighbors.

**Ketara**

Flashman wrote:I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

Won't happen. They have nukes. No country is crazy enough to invade a nuclear capable country, not even America. There's a plethora of literature on how no side would probably ever use nukes, and would stick to conventional weaponry, but at the end of the day, if you're two miles from their capital, what it comes down to is that no-one really knows. The US is too savvy to risk losing a 100, 000 men to a nuclear blast over some backwater in Asia.

**notprop**

If the US could just pull their fingers out and sort our our missile shield then I would suggest that the US should be storming over no mans land as we speak.

We will stand guard over Ireland in case Kim makes a sneaky move for the Lucky Charms (they can't afford shellalieghs to arm their army any more).

**chaos0xomega**

Ketara wrote:
Flashman wrote:I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

Won't happen. They have nukes. No country is crazy enough to invade a nuclear capable country, not even America. There's a plethora of literature on how no side would probably ever use nukes, and would stick to conventional weaponry, but at the end of the day, if you're two miles from their capital, what it comes down to is that no-one really knows. The US is too savvy to risk losing a 100, 000 men to a nuclear blast over some backwater in Asia.

I highly doubt the U.S. would risk losing 100,000 men to a single nuclear bomb... because that would never happen. Even if N.Korea did use nuclear weapons, this isn't the Napoleonic War. If there are 100,000 troops gathered together at a single point, then something, somewhere, went horribly wrong. Hell, we don't even have military bases w/ that many troops stationed there...

Anyway, I think its time we finished this war. Its been 57 years, and the North clearly doesn't feel like playing nice w/ its neighbors. Conducting military drills is hardly provocation (unless I suppose you're one of the paranoid nutjobs running N. Korea). The territory that the drills were conducted in is the property of South Korea, they have a right to do whatever they please within their own territory. Saying otherwise is like saying that the US can't construct military bases within 10 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders (which we do in fact have). It's utterly ridiculous.

**Frazzled**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Flashman wrote:I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

Won't happen. They have nukes. No country is crazy enough to invade a nuclear capable country, not even America. There's a plethora of literature on how no side would probably ever use nukes, and would stick to conventional weaponry, but at the end of the day, if you're two miles from their capital, what it comes down to is that no-one really knows. The US is too savvy to risk losing a 100, 000 men to a nuclear blast over some backwater in Asia.

I highly doubt the U.S. would risk losing 100,000 men to a single nuclear bomb... because that would never happen. Even if N.Korea did use nuclear weapons, this isn't the Napoleonic War. If there are 100,000 troops gathered together at a single point, then something, somewhere, went horribly wrong. Hell, we don't even have military bases w/ that many troops stationed there...

Anyway, I think its time we finished this war. Its been 57 years, and the North clearly doesn't feel like playing nice w/ its neighbors. Conducting military drills is hardly provocation (unless I suppose you're one of the paranoid nutjobs running N. Korea). The territory that the drills were conducted in is the property of South Korea, they have a right to do whatever they please within their own territory. Saying otherwise is like saying that the US can't construct military bases within 10 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders (which we do in fact have). It's utterly ridiculous.

You go first.

**SilverMK2**

chaos0xomega wrote:Conducting military drills is hardly provocation (unless I suppose you're one of the paranoid nutjobs running N. Korea).

*Points to America and Russia almost going to war over "Military drills" during the cold war*

Though to be fair, "paranoid nutjobs" pretty much sums up the political situation in both nations at the time...

**Medium of Death**

chaos0xomega wrote:Conducting military drills is hardly provocation (unless I suppose you're one of the paranoid nutjobs running N. Korea). The territory that the drills were conducted in is the property of South Korea, they have a right to do whatever they please within their own territory. Saying otherwise is like saying that the US can't construct military bases within 10 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders (which we do in fact have). It's utterly ridiculous.

Last time I checked Canada or Mexico don't have nuclear weapons and actively threaten the U.S. with military strikes.

**Ketara**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Flashman wrote:I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

Won't happen. They have nukes. No country is crazy enough to invade a nuclear capable country, not even America. There's a plethora of literature on how no side would probably ever use nukes, and would stick to conventional weaponry, but at the end of the day, if you're two miles from their capital, what it comes down to is that no-one really knows. The US is too savvy to risk losing a 100, 000 men to a nuclear blast over some backwater in Asia.

I highly doubt the U.S. would risk losing 100,000 men to a single nuclear bomb... because that would never happen. Even if N.Korea did use nuclear weapons, this isn't the Napoleonic War. If there are 100,000 troops gathered together at a single point, then something, somewhere, went horribly wrong. Hell, we don't even have military bases w/ that many troops stationed there...

One nuclear blast? To put things in perspective for you, if the N. Koreans have nukes, what are the odds they have just one? If they decide they're rather initiate a nuclear exchange then lose, they'll wipe out half the country, and the US would be left with the choice of wiping out was left of their own men in the retaliatory salvo, or spending a day or two trying to get everyone out before nuking the hell out of the place. And if there are nukes from the US landing just on the side of the N. Korean border, you can guarantee they won't be too happy about getting the old nuclear fallout spreading their way. That's the problem of nuclear escalation encapsulated.

So I say to you again, why would the US ever take the risk (even if it's 0.1%) of such a thing occurring? Of losing an entire army to a nuclear war in N. Korea, and severely hacking off one of the other superpowers of the world, just because some pissant jumped up N. Korean general decided to lob a few artillery shells at a provocative S. Korean demonstration next to the border? I give your politicians more credit than that.

**sebster**

Medium of Death wrote:So basically we have South Korea goading the North by conducting these drills next to hotly contested waters.

Both sides regularly conduct training drills in these waters. Even if the North Korean story is true and a few shells landed in North Korean waters, a retaliatory artillery barrage is completely disproportionate to the attack.

Obviously it's not ideal to have North Korea as your neighbour, but you think they would take steps to avoid provoking the crazy. Or is that just me?

It's more or less concluded that the warship Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo, and that killed about 50 sailors. South Korea did not retaliate. I don't think we can really criticise South Korea for being keen to provoke the North.

**Ahtman**

For North Korea, drinking a glass of Lemonade within 50 miles of the 38th parallel is enough cause for having little fits.

**AlmightyWalrus**

If North Korea really wants to f up the world, all they have to do is place one nuke in Tokyo and one in Beijing. Sure, they won't live to watch the chaos, but the world's stock markets would go insane.

**chaos0xomega**

Ketara wrote:
One nuclear blast? To put things in perspective for you, if the N. Koreans have nukes, what are the odds they have just one? If they decide they're rather initiate a nuclear exchange then lose, they'll wipe out half the country, and the US would be left with the choice of wiping out was left of their own men in the retaliatory salvo, or spending a day or two trying to get everyone out before nuking the hell out of the place. And if there are nukes from the US landing just on the side of the N. Korean border, you can guarantee they won't be too happy about getting the old nuclear fallout spreading their way. That's the problem of nuclear escalation encapsulated.

So I say to you again, why would the US ever take the risk (even if it's 0.1%) of such a thing occurring? Of losing an entire army to a nuclear war in N. Korea, and severely hacking off one of the other superpowers of the world, just because some pissant jumped up N. Korean general decided to lob a few artillery shells at a provocative S. Korean demonstration next to the border? I give your politicians more credit than that.

They are believed to have 5 to 8 warheads tops, and these are rather small warheads mind you, the size of the ones we dropped on japan, not the multi-megaton ones the Russkies and US were playing with in the Cold War. And there probably won't be any "landing" on the Korean peninsula. An amphibious operation into the north is not very high in the plan of action for a return to hostilities in the Korean peninsula. If there is a landing, its not 100,000 troops, its at best 10,000, most likely less than half of that. The U.S. is not at risk of losing 'an entire army to a nuclear war' in N. Korea. Nor will they 'wipe out half the country.' It would take hundreds of bombs the size of the ones they are playing with to even attempt that.

I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle. Again, this isn't the Napoleonic War. We're not dealing with a 'point battle' strategy any longer. Armies are dispersed and distributed across the operational theater. Sure, we will lose a lot of good men if such a weapon was used, but not enough to cripple the military, or to stop a push into N. Korea. 10-20k tops, if multiple warheads were used on areas with large troop concentrations.

*Points to America and Russia almost going to war over "Military drills" during the cold war*

Its a little bit more understandable when you have the entirety of the Atlantic fleet sailing at full steam in attack formation across the North Atlantic. Contrast this to a couple thousand troops and an artillery battalion... thats really not all that threatening.

**Frazzled**

chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

**Melissia**

Quick, someone call EA, they'll make their next Medal of Duty / Call of Honor set in this conflict!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggH-ObiUWEE&feature=related

A bit more impressive looking here.

**chaos0xomega**

Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

**Frazzled**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

Sunk the ships though. Thats all you need to do.
Unimpressive if you're not in the fleet. Damn impressive if you are.
Thats casualties higher than all the landings ever done by the US, combined. if you think thats acceptable, thank God you're not the President.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

Sunk the ships though. Thats all you need to do.
Unimpressive if you're not in the fleet. Damn impressive if you are.
Thats casualties higher than all the landings ever done by the US, combined. if you think thats acceptable, thank God you're not the President.

And that's not counting any economic effects of a major US city being nuked.

Also, regarding all the "only around Hiroshima" or similar comments, take a moment and contemplate how much was left of Hiroshima after the blast. Then imagine the same bomb in downtown LA. Obviously not as many casualties or totally wiped buildings due to better construction, but still enough to cripple the city for years. You don't have to wipe out the entire city to cause significant damage.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Ketara wrote:
Flashman wrote:I'm guessing it would be no less of a walkover than Iraq too.

Won't happen. They have nukes. No country is crazy enough to invade a nuclear capable country, not even America. There's a plethora of literature on how no side would probably ever use nukes, and would stick to conventional weaponry, but at the end of the day, if you're two miles from their capital, what it comes down to is that no-one really knows. The US is too savvy to risk losing a 100, 000 men to a nuclear blast over some backwater in Asia.

Much truth

"They say that the best weapon is one where you never have to fire it."
Ironman

**chaos0xomega**

Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I think you drastically overestimate the capability of a nuclear weapon, as well as how many troops tend to be concentrated at a single point during a battle.

mmm...yea

Inchon 2010:

N. Korea has tested two nuclear weapons, one in '06, one in '09. Both of them were overland tests. The first had an output of about 1 kiloton, the second on is disputed but the most 'liberal' estimates I have seen put it at 20 kilotons. The estimates that came from scientific analysis place it at about 5 kilotons. The footage you have shown are from Operation Crossroads in 1946 (my guess is Test Baker). The warhead used was 23 kilotons. Most of what you see in the image is super-heated steam. It was much more visually impressive than it was destructive. What you see there is roughly 6000 ft high and 2000ft across. Really not all that big, certainly not enough to destroy an entire army.

Sunk the ships though. Thats all you need to do.
Unimpressive if you're not in the fleet. Damn impressive if you are.
Thats casualties higher than all the landings ever done by the US, combined. if you think thats acceptable, thank God you're not the President.

It sunk 9 ships out of some 20+, many of which were already heavily damaged from Test Able which was an airburst 500 ft. about the fleet (and which only sunk 5 ships mind you). Not just that, but I would LOVE to know how the North would deliver such a weapon. If they used it, it would be a pre-positioned weapon (just like the tests) in an area which US forces were moving through. They probably would NOT drop it from a plane, either because the bombs they have are too large for a majority of the planes in their inventory to carry, and I have my doubts as to whether the planes that *MIGHT* be able to carry it are even operational at this point (and as far as I know, there are NO such planes in the N.K inventory, even their 'bombers' have a payload capacity equivalent to modern day fighters.. in fact, its less than many modern day fighters, even the F-16, which is a puny little thing can carry 2-3 times more in weight) or because... well, really, there is no chance of such an attempt succeeding. The CIWS/fleet defense systems in place on american naval vessels would make a joke out of anything that tried coming close, and the armies Air Defense Artillery guys would have a field day being able to actually do what they are trained to do for once. And don't even get me started on their half-assed attempts at developing a 'missile'. And then theres the fact that NK pilots get like what, 10 hours of flight time a year if they are lucky? Yeah, not very well trained = I'm not worried.

And that's not counting any economic effects of a major US city being nuked.

Also, regarding all the "only around Hiroshima" or similar comments, take a moment and contemplate how much was left of Hiroshima after the blast. Then imagine the same bomb in downtown LA. Obviously not as many casualties or totally wiped buildings due to better construction, but still enough to cripple the city for years. You don't have to wipe out the entire city to cause significant damage.

...and how does N.Korea plan to deliver a weapon to LA, let alone downtown Honolulu? And really, Hiroshima is not much to worry about. It had a 1 mile radius of destruction, most of the damage done was a result of fire damage following the explosion, and the radiation effects were long term (I.E. negligible in regards to the immediate effects of the bomb) Although people as much as 2 miles from ground zero were incapacitated by radiation burns. Hiroshima is also flat. For a more accurate assessment of a nuclear weapon used by North Korea, it would be letter to look at Nagasaki, which was in mountainous terrain, much like the korean peninsula (because there is ZERO chance of a korean nuke hitting the continental united states).

Fat Man (the bomb at Nagasaki) was 21kt, and had a SMALLER area of effect than Little Boy (Hiroshima), because the explosion was 'channeled'/contained by the terrain surrounding the city. If you really want to talk about devestating bombardments, the dresden firebombings destroyed a greater area than both bombs combined, likewise hamburg and tokyo, and based on some estimates, the resultant casualties in each of these instances was about as high as the nuclear bombings.

In any case, NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH TO DESTROY AN ENTIRE ARMY.