BREAKING NEWS: North Korea claims nuclear test!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I wouldnt disagree. I would suggest though that for SKor the key to minimizing damage will be neutralizing the artillery aimed at Seoul in the opening hours and days of the war, and that the support of US air power especially would be very helpful in doing that.

Hours. Days would not be good enough--wipe 'em out in the first 6-18 hours of the war, and it'd make things much easier. Any longer...

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im assuming that if Kimmie attacks in response to sanctions, sanctions that in turn were a response to his nuke test, some Nkor generals might turn on him, or at least be more prepared to surrender as the war progressed. Less so, perhaps than if he attacked without the provocation of sanctions, but much more so than if we attacked.

He has spent the last few years solidifying his control over the military, and any General who took over would lack the cult of personality created by the Kim family. Possible but not probable.

[RGBVideo]

the very thesis of your argument, which is that in any armed conflict, that there's "no real risk" for SKorea.

No real risk of losing Söul. Classic strawman-attack.

Are you trolling?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VJ
No real risk of losing Söul.

Erm, you're the one who brought that up:

Originally posted by VJ
Classic strawman-attack.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



I wouldnt disagree. I would suggest though that for SKor the key to minimizing damage will be neutralizing the artillery aimed at Seoul in the opening hours and days of the war, and that the support of US air power especially would be very helpful in doing that.

MOst of the air power can or would come from bases elsewhere in the Pacific region, or from Carriers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Hours. Days would not be good enough--wipe 'em out in the first 6-18 hours of the war, and it'd make things much easier. Any longer...

Its totally unrealisitc to think masses of artillery in rugged terrain could be wipped out in just a few hours by anything less than WMD's. At the same time, I doubt NK would have the stores of munitions close to the border sufficient to carry out a barrage for days on end.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by VJ

No real risk of losing Söul. Classic strawman-attack.

Are you trolling?

Uh... if you've looked at all the points I've been making, absolutely none of them have been contingent on who holds Seoul at the end of the day. The risks I've been speaking of are of the damage to SKorea as a whole--and severly damaging Seoul likely will just as much effect on SKorea's economy as losing it outright.

I don't know why you thought I was only speaking of who held the city.

The strawman attack was not mine, VJ.

Also, if you're going to try to be pedantic like that, might I ask why you're using the diaresis when spelling Seoul? The proper spellings are either the McCune-Reischauer spelling that I've been using, or the MoE romanization of Sŏul with a breve over the O.

[RGBVideo]

Erm, you're the one who brought that up:

In case you did not understand: The very thesis of my argument was and is that in a war, RoK has no risk of losing Söul. Out of blue, he says that he knows plenty of facts which contradict my statement that there is no real risk for RoK in any armed conflict, period. I point out that this is a pointless argument (called strawman, look it up on google if you haven't heard about it) and ask him if he's trolling.

The risks I've been speaking of are of the damage to SKorea as a whole--and severly damaging Seoul likely will just as much effect on SKorea's economy as losing it outright.

We've been speaking about different things, then. No doubt there will be damage, every war creates damage. This is so obvious that trying to claim anything other would be idiocy, which makes the strawman so damn obvious that it led me to suspect that you were trolling. So it was just a misunderestanding.

The proper spellings are either the McCune-Reischauer spelling that I've been using, or the MoE romanization of Sŏul with a breve over the O.

ok

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by VJ
We've been speaking about different things, then. No doubt there will be damage, every war creates damage. This is so obvious that trying to claim anything other would be idiocy, which makes the strawman so damn obvious that it led me to suspect that you were trolling. So it was just a misunderestanding.

Very clearly it was a misunderstanding. I still stand by my statements that if this is a risk v. reward thing, it is not in SKorea's best interest to engage in military action whatsoever. The risk (damage to Seoul, economy, etc.) far outweighs the rewards (defending the southern end of the peninsula, having to pay to rebuild the southern end of the peninsula, having to pay to build the northern end of the peninsula, having to deal with displaced from both the south and the north...).

If you'll note, that's what I've been arguing. Who keeps Seoul hasn't been a concern of mine--what happens to it, has.

I don't know why you brought up the capture of the city as a key point in your argument, because it wasn't what I was speaking of.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Hours. Days would not be good enough--wipe 'em out in the first 6-18 hours of the war, and it'd make things much easier. Any longer...

The main danger for Seouls civilians will be the masive amount of shells with poison gas NK possesses (seems like they possess and produce so much poison gas that Bushs rhetorics prior to GW3 concerning the threat that Iraq poses to the world seem to be ridiculous if you think how much of a danger NK posed to the world even way before GW3).

I think, if NK starts its attacks against SK with massive amounts of shells of poisonous gas aimed at Seoul, the civilian death toll will probably reach more than 100.000 (especially as probably only few civilians will carry gas masks ready to deploy).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Its totally unrealisitc to think masses of artillery in rugged terrain could be wipped out in just a few hours by anything less than WMD's.

Are those necessarily out of the picture?

Then, of course, we have the fallout to worry about. Literally.

[RGBVideo]

it is not in SKorea's best interest to engage in military action whatsoever

Appeasement is not a long-term solution. If we just ignore them and cut off the ever-increasing bribes of peace (or humanitarian aid, depending from your viewpoint), they could start playing around with their nukes in the future. DPRK is currently testing BMs and nukes. It's official propaganda line is the usual "death to America"-stuff. It would be smart to destroy the future nuke capabilities of the regime or the regime itself now when it's easy, now when they still won't have a combination of a working nuke and a working missile delivery system.

[RGBVideo]

Are those necessarily out of the picture?

Then, of course, we have the fallout to worry about. Literally.

neutron bombs

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by VJ

Appeasement is not a long-term solution. If we just ignore them and cut off the ever-increasing bribes of peace (or humanitarian aid, depending from your viewpoint), they could start playing around with their nukes in the future. DPRK is currently testing BMs and nukes. It's official propaganda line is the usual "death to America"-stuff. It would be smart to destroy the future nuke capabilities of the regime or the regime itself now when it's easy, now when they still won't have a combination of a working nuke and a working missile delivery system.

Yes, could be the same as with environment.
It might be costly to deal with the threat now,
but it might be much more costly to deal with it later.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Are those necessarily out of the picture?

Then, of course, we have the fallout to worry about. Literally.

a first use by the US of nukes better be off the table. The military effect would be limited unless multiple warheads were used, and the political fallout would be just as bad as the environmental one.

Air power and counter-battery fire should be enough to mitigate the barrage in a few hours, and of course at some point the Nkorean forces would have to swith to using their artillery in support of their forces as oposed for strategic bombardment, assuming they also don;t run out of ammo, or the ability to bring ammo forward with their lines of supply under attack.