[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[Timsup2nothin]

Several = more than one
Three = more than one
Several = three
Quod erat demonstrandum

The actual definition of several is "more than two" according to the first dictionary I found, but technically your proof is valid. However, in popular usage 'several' is only used when the actual number is larger than a convenient count. I don't have several dogs, because at a glance it is easy to see that I have three. There aren't several cans in a six pack, because at a glance there are in fact six. So, while I acknowledge your proof's accuracy I still contend that the usage is...peculiar.

Sure, I don't really disagree. I think war-time Berlin is the closest example, it is still a factor of 4 of which is big but at least gives us an impression.

You hit as good an example I could come up with, though I considered researching London during the blitz. I'm mostly just grappling with 17,000 people per square kilometer. That's something like 13 square meters per person, which is absurd until you factor in the obvious towers stacking them on top of each other. But when you say underground shelter I don't immediately think of multiple levels where we can stack them, so it becomes really hard for me to fathom.

 

[JohannaK]

Not war-time London? Not war-time Barcelona? Not war-time (any city at war in the last 80 years)?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not war-time London? Not war-time Barcelona? Not war-time (any city at war in the last 80 years)?

London and Barcelona might be just as good, but I doubt they would be significantly different from contemporary Berlin as far as population density goes. Post world war two mass bombing of cities has been (mostly) passe.

 

[Lexicus]

Post world war two mass bombing of cities has been (mostly) passe.

One major exception, perhaps ironically, being North Korea itself during the Korean War.

 

[Hrothbern]

You hit as good an example I could come up with, though I considered researching London during the blitz. I'm mostly just grappling with 17,000 people per square kilometer. That's something like 13 square meters per person, which is absurd until you factor in the obvious towers stacking them on top of each other. But when you say underground shelter I don't immediately think of multiple levels where we can stack them, so it becomes really hard for me to fathom.

London has ofc a lot of subway tunnels.
But the London bombing was also seized by the propaganda slogan: "London Can Take It"
Would be nice to have some hard info on that bombing, the percentage of houses flattened and how well underground shelters were really sufficient.

In Berlin 80% of the houses were flattened

 

[dutchfire]

I like Berlin as an example since it had had serious preparations for bombardments (shelters built and so on), as the South Koreans have also supposedly done.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm thinking that shelters, as a concept, have never been tested on a scale comparable to Seoul. Twenty-five million is a lot of people to stuff into underground shelters. Population density is obviously a factor, but Seoul is on uncharted ground there as well.

Let's say you can shove 500 people into a 500 square meter shelter. Obviously easy if they are just going to stand around during a brief shelling, probably impossible if they are going to have to sleep and eat there, especially if you consider food stores, but a handy number to work with. In the city limits of Seoul you would need 34 such shelters per square kilometer based on the population density of 17,000/km2. That means about 8% of the area of the city would have to have a shelter under it.

This was my first take on the problem.

And do we even know if South Korea has the kind of shelter in place that this strategy would require?

 

[Samson]

This was my first take on the problem.

And do we even know if South Korea has the kind of shelter in place that this strategy would require?

A quick google tells me that they exist, but are a bit under-appreciated / maintained / known about:

There are between 17000 and 19000 shelters across the country and around 3300 of them are located in Seoul. Those in Seoul are enough to accommodate around 10 million residents. Based on this combined area, the shelters would provide inhabitants an average of 2.31 square meters of space.

The term “shelter” is itself a generality and can lead to a parking garage, train platform or storage area as long as it’s underground and at least 1,000 square feet.
...
That system will be tested Aug. 23 as part of a nationwide preparation drill. But many of Seoul’s emergency shelters lie beneath private buildings whose residents often see such procedures as annoying and tedious.

“Since the training is not compulsory for private buildings and the residents get annoyed when we start the alarm, we usually try to cut it short,” said Park Jong-sun, a member of management staff for the building occupied in part by HuffPost Korea. “If there’s a fine for not doing it thoroughly, we’d run it, but there has been no government regulation.”

 

[Cutlass]

No tube artillery has a range of 37 miles. So only rockets, which are much fewer and slower to reload.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Only rockets? Bah, then there is not problem at all. Several thousands of rockets (and some thousand shells) are not much of an issue. It is not as a couple of passenger planes after all.

OTOH i dont see the relevance of this debate anymore with NK nukes around.

 

[Lexicus]

OTOH i dont see the relevance of this debate anymore with NK nukes around.

Nukes aren't so easy to deliver.

 

[JohannaK]

Certainly, if only they had the missile technology!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Those in Seoul are enough to accommodate around 10 million residents.

The population of the metro area is 25 million. So unless there are half again more in the suburbs than there are in the city proper they have a problem.

No tube artillery has a range of 37 miles. So only rockets, which are much fewer and slower to reload.

Notice that the 37 miles from the border range actually extends well into the southern suburbs of Seoul. The Koksan has a range of thirty miles plus so it can hit Seoul proper and everything but the southern suburbs, and the DPRK has hundreds of them. They carry twelve rounds apiece on board and can likely get those off in about two minutes. It's generally reasonable to figure that if the DPRK goes all out for mass casualties Seoul will take about 6000 170mm rounds in the first two minutes. After that it depends on the ability to resupply the guns and the survivability of the guns once countering fire gets going, which is expected to be limited, but that initial shelling would be expected to cause casualties in the million plus range.

On the brighter side, the going all out for mass casualties isn't really expected. Doing that removes all that artillery from other strategic use. Thousands of 170mm shells would certainly slow down attacking RoK forces, or soften up resistance in front of DPRK forces, but if they are spent on shelling Seoul they're spent. The mass casualty project is definitely a suicide/take you with us play, because without their artillery they can't match RoK forces on the ground and if they open by shelling Seoul they are basically declaring 'no quarter.'

 

[El_Machinae]

the continuation rate of officers in the Department of Defense and its four branches over the years of service (YOS) of current year group cohorts. There is a distinct retirement bubble at the 20th year.

the likelihood of separation for each year of service, which approaches zero until year 20 when it spikes dramatically.

the value of each additional year of work during an officer’s career, which escalates up to $1 million during year 20 and collapses during year 21. Every service member contemplating retirement is well aware of the money at stake represented in this third figure.

100% c&p from
https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/military-retirement-too-sweet-a-deal/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, yeah. The difference in benefits from "retiring" after doing your twenty versus "separating," which is what you do if you don't stay twenty is...not even like night and day...more like night and popcorn. If you don't stay twenty you basically get no benefits at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

I liked the article, since it discussed the perverse incentive in so many pension schemes. It's a jumping off point for discussion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I liked the article, since it discussed the perverse incentive in so many pension schemes. It's a jumping off point for discussion.

No argument here. I'm just saying that anyone familiar with the system could have done a freehand sketch on blank paper and probably come fairly close to producing those graphs. The graphs themselves contain no surprises at all.

The military's problem isn't the spike at 20 though, it's the spike at four. That 12% that gets out at four probably includes nine out of ten of the most desirable 10% of candidates. Most of the cream skims out after the first hitch.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't we prefer those young people to get into the real economy?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wouldn't we prefer those young people to get into the real economy?

Maybe, if you assume that the military serves no purpose and that being in the top ten percent most desirable to the military makes them a good fit in this "real economy." If you assume that what makes them desirable to the military are traits that may in fact make them less desirable to society rather than more then, no, we wouldn't rather.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think the military serves no purpose. That last sentence of your answer was not something I had considered, though.