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.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...

No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.

I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.

The post above with the map.

You didn't read it very well then. Seoul is not in the bright yellow. Its in the middle of that scale, not the tail end of the saturation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
,,,thousands of rounds getting fired into the city every minute...

No, 1 round per sq. kilometer per hour.

I suppose you have a source for this? because that is just a pitifully low number it can't possibly be true. Unless you're including all of South Korea and not just Seoul.

The post above with the map.

You didn't read it very well then. Seoul is not in the bright yellow. Its in the middle of that scale, not the tail end of the saturation.

Yeah, the roughly 500,000 per square kilometer. That's a lot. And I'm willing to bet my 3 remaining GW armies, that NK would go for the hail mary of targetting every gun that they could on Seoul to ensure maximum saturation. They know they can't win. The biggest card they have in their favor is making it so deadly, that we won't force the issue.

They may not be able to win. But can make it so expensive to win it not worth fighting the war.

 JimOnMars wrote:
The post above with the map.

Seoul is orange on that map, not yellow. So given the map's scale, the number of rounds falling on Seoul will be greater than 1 per squ km, and less than 981,804 per squ km

Admittedly it's unlikely to be a linear scale so it's prob a lot closer to 1 than 981,804, but it's a lot however you cut it. The figure I've seen repeated a lot is 2,000 pieces able to reach Seoul.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, the roughly 500,000 per square kilometer. That's a lot. And I'm willing to bet my 3 remaining GW armies, that NK would go for the hail mary of targetting every gun that they could on Seoul to ensure maximum saturation. They know they can't win. The biggest card they have in their favor is making it so deadly, that we won't force the issue.

Sort of. That is definitely the threat that NK is holding. But just like you don't build a nuke in order to use it, the NK's didn't built the capacity to wipe Seoul in order to do it. The point is to have the threat, in order to maintain a balance of power and extort concessions out of the US, Japan and SK.

If gak goes down the NK leadership might decide to murder millions of people as they go out. They also might collapse and quickly became a collection of pathetic turncoats each trying to do whatever they can to save their own skins. It's an unknown.

Actually artillery strikes into Seoul will create one massive bottle neck for 2ID and every SK military unit north of it. You have two major road artery going up to Uijeongbu that is the southern most 2ID base there with a artillery battalion there and 1 lift battalion of Hawks, 1 BN of Apache's and 1 BN of Hooks. Camp Stanley has two ECP's and maybe a third going out the ville behind it avoiding Suicidal Hill. One major artery all the way up to Casey in Dongdechon. With numerous US units feeding onto that highway. All roads north to south of Seoul are rigged to blow tank stops at all terrain choke points so its literally a slugfest to Seoul down each valley. Best time to invade is Dec-Jan since the rice paddies are frozen hard enough to bear armor.

Here's a more accurate description of Seoul's artillery vulnerability.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown

NK only has 400-500 M-1989s (the only artillery they have that can reach Seoul.) They are not all directly opposite Seoul either...the ones that aren't cant hit it.

The US and SK know where many of them are and will be very high priorities. Any time NK uses one we'll find out where it is and neutralize it within minutes. Not cheaply, but without much real trouble.

That's tube artillery. They also have rocket batteries like the ones used by the Soviets during WWII against the Germans plus somewhat "modern" versions of the system

 Jihadin wrote:
That's tube artillery. They also have rocket batteries like the ones used by the Soviets during WWII against the Germans plus somewhat "modern" versions of the system

And of course...nukes.

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually artillery strikes into Seoul will create one massive bottle neck for 2ID and every SK military unit north of it. You have two major road artery going up to Uijeongbu that is the southern most 2ID base there with a artillery battalion there and 1 lift battalion of Hawks, 1 BN of Apache's and 1 BN of Hooks. Camp Stanley has two ECP's and maybe a third going out the ville behind it avoiding Suicidal Hill. One major artery all the way up to Casey in Dongdechon. With numerous US units feeding onto that highway. All roads north to south of Seoul are rigged to blow tank stops at all terrain choke points so its literally a slugfest to Seoul down each valley. Best time to invade is Dec-Jan since the rice paddies are frozen hard enough to bear armor.

Aye. They had decades to plan the defence lines. Lay these large concrete round blockades and dropping highway sign baricades, lay mines, grid reference guns and build the bunkers and the like. Though NK also had the sar time to plan a attack.

They probbly prepared someway to try and bypass.. Granted US had some to counter.
It would be bloody and planned well.

Both sides had time and minds for decades to prepare.

You only need to read a history of the Korean War to understand that Korea is difficult terrain to fight through on both sides of the border. Of course, air power is a lot more developed now than in the early 1950s.

What to do with North Korea? Mostly stop answering to their provocations with more provocations. Which can mean keeping someone away from Twitter.

It's the escalation that brings to this end. I believe the North Korean president really thinks the USA are about to invade his lands and want to show his head on a pike or something. He's getting pretty much paranoid with all the events of the last months.

Having that kind of weapon was always a way to say "if you attack me, then you will pay dearly with your blood". That's why he's trying to show he can strike at such a range, and why they're going frantic on this end. At least, IMHO.

People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

If the bomb functions they can put it in a BMP or just move through in one of those mineshafts they have burrowed through to the SK side.

 Frazzled wrote:
If the bomb functions they can put it in a BMP or just move through in one of those mineshafts they have burrowed through to the SK side.

It might not yet be a bomb. Getting a nuclear device to explode is different than building something that can be easily transported. Assuming it can fit down the tunnels, which may not exist. We will be watching the border very closely and blowing up anything that moves. Remember SK has artillery, too.

Agree though that we have at most a year. After that, they can nuke the western US all they want.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.

Send in the Primaris marines. Inceptor squads at the missile sites and Intecessor squads to mop up the military bases.

Nothing has worked so far. They have their nukes and the only thing to prevent them from obtaining the capability to deliver them to the lower 48 is to bomb the Hell out of them. That said, with dramatic losses in Seoul and across the Sea of Japan in Tokyo and other major Japanese cities inevitable with a raid, the only other course of action is to ignore them and ramp up the sanctions (with Chinese support).

Await a collapse down the road and then outbid terrorists for nuclear weapons seems to be the only option without major bloodshed.

There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably.

Do you really want to throw the dice on this?

 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?

Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need to read a history of the Korean War to understand that Korea is difficult terrain to fight through on both sides of the border. Of course, air power is a lot more developed now than in the early 1950s.

And, fortunately, unlike the last war the technology gap has been massively expanded. The enemy planes we would be facing wouldn't be an even match anymore like it was back then. They might have some modern Russian or Chinese SAM equipment, but largely they'll be using 30-50 year old planes and AA equipment. So we most likely wouldn't lose many, if any, of our own planes.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?

Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.

Why? We have 8,000 nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Massive Retaliation applies here (capitalized strategy vs. MADD). The list of nuclear powers is not short at this point. Attack Hawaii (and well you likely won't get through the screens) and every square inch of North Korea is now radioactive and a half life hell scape...kind of like New Mexico.

Also THAAD achieved a hit in its recent tests this week.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?

Then we go from NK being able to hold Seoul hostage, to NK being able to hold Hawaii hostage.

Why? We have 8,000 nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Massive Retaliation applies here (capitalized strategy vs. MADD). The list of nuclear powers is not short at this point. Attack Hawaii (and well you likely won't get through the screens) and every square inch of North Korea is now radioactive and a half life hell scape...kind of like New Mexico.

Also THAAD achieved a hit in its recent tests this week.

Plus spamfire the MkIV patriots', and any other ICMB or other AA missile you got.
If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.

Weaponizing a nuclear weapon is a hell of an ordeal. Given that these guys can barely launch a missile successfully, most think tanks feel that it's very unlikely they've yet managed to weaponize their nuclear capability.

 jhe90 wrote:

If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.

Assuming it doesn't do that by itself.

Even if a North Korean ICBM has the range to a particular target, it doesn't mean they'll actually hit it. Especially something as small as Hawaii. You're probably looking at >85% it just totally misses.

Give them another 10 years and that's probably not the case, but for right now it's not a huge problem.

 djones520 wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
People keep glossing over the THEY HAVE NUKES thing.

Not yet deliverable...probably. Next year. We need to go now or not at all.

Not deliverable to the US. They've tested plenty of short range missiles that could conceivably carry a nuclear payload, and Japan and South Korea are both pretty definitely in range of those.

Weaponizing a nuclear weapon is a hell of an ordeal. Given that these guys can barely launch a missile successfully, most think tanks feel that it's very unlikely they've yet managed to weaponize their nuclear capability.

Again, they could drive it over in a truck and hit Seoul.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

If you saturate it with defense missiles it should blast it off course into a big ass empty sea or outright destroyed.

Assuming it doesn't do that by itself.

Even if a North Korean ICBM has the range to a particular target, it doesn't mean they'll actually hit it. Especially something as small as Hawaii. You're probably looking at >85% it just totally misses.

Give them another 10 years and that's probably not the case, but for right now it's not a huge problem.

Aye. There kind of muskets not sniper rifles.
But even a musket can hit one in every so many shots.

Still be a case of bring it down with whatever number of missiles are in the defense silos.

 jhe90 wrote:

Aye. There kind of muskets not sniper rifles.
But even a musket can hit one in every so many shots.

Still be a case of bring it down with whatever number of missiles are in the defense silos.

It depends on whose shooting the musket. And the musket. But anyway.

I think a lot of you are grossly underestimating NK. In 2015 they took delivery of a VERY big pile of presents from Putin, including large but undisclosed number of fairly new Mig-29s. They have an unknown number of both Russian and locally manufactured versions of Spriggan, which can kill an Abrams. In addition to a few thousand MBTs bought overseas, they have a local MBT that we know little about, other than it combines a 125mm main gun with AT missiles and AA missiles on one turret. Most likely it combines armor features found in later model Chinese and Russian MBTs. We think.

The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The real issue is that the west knows very little about what it might be facing in NK, though if you think that their military technology is backward, you're probably wrong.

While I agree with the sentiment, lets not go too far in the other direction. During the last exchange of artillery fire North Korea engaged in, they fired 170 shells. Only 80 hit the island they were aiming at, and of those, 20 of those didn't detonate.

 Frazzled wrote:
There are always more than two options. What happens if just ignore them?

Good question Frazzled.

Absolutes are the way of the Dark Side. Ignore them, perhaps they ramp it up to try a provocation... until they get tired of provoking the powers around them. If we take the bait, then they can justify their militarization as self defense. Perhaps more clearly the two options are either bomb them or not bomb them rather than bomb or ignore...