Time to build the bomb shelter? WW3 discussion thread

[Saldor010]

Why does everyone assume that NK taking Seoul would end the world? Is it really a huge deal of Seoul is occupied for a day or two (then liberated by NATO/US forces)? Not to mention, that if NK took their entire army and aimed it at Seoul (which is what everyone seems to be suggesting here), how would they prevent SK from marching into NK while they're busy trying to secure Seoul? It's a huge tactical blunder IMO, but the use of nukes, tactical or not, is an even bigger one.

High density also invites to the use of tactical nukes if things go wrong, which was my point.

What exactly would have to go wrong in order for someone to start a nuclear war?

 

[Kyriakos]

If the enemy stack of tanks approaches your city, you might as well use nukes and hope the others don't follow suit. It's what i'd do in civ2. I don't care for engineers having to clean stuff later, and forests appearing where there was tundra of whatever- that is the way it works, right?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Why does everyone assume that NK taking Seoul would end the world? Is it really a huge deal of Seoul is occupied for a day or two (then liberated by NATO/US forces)? Not to mention, that if NK took their entire army and aimed it at Seoul (which is what everyone seems to be suggesting here), how would they prevent SK from marching into NK while they're busy trying to secure Seoul? It's a huge tactical blunder IMO, but the use of nukes, tactical or not, is an even bigger one.



What exactly would have to go wrong in order for someone to start a nuclear war?

Maybe they know there is not chance to win the war in the long term and think that by taking Seoul will have something to negotiate. That is what i would try if i was attacked by a superior enemy who is going to defeat me sooner or later, but who knows what is inside Kim's head. He is almost as insane as Trump.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again it is a matter of time. This time you wouldnt have the time to do all that nice things.


Errr... It was more like several weeks IIRC... And even then there were plenty of iraqi tanks around which were not reduced to scrap.

And a "tactical nuke" (cant imagine why you use "" here) can destroy a whole division in seconds. Dont see your point here.

The reason I use "" there is because for all practical purposes there is no such thing as a "tactical nuke." There are lower yield nuclear weapons that are nominally "available for tactical or strategic applications" but there has never been, and almost certainly never will be, any tactical application for them...including the one under discussion here.

Delivering a "destroy a division in seconds" weapon that also destroys everything around that division when it is no more difficult to neutralize and immobilize that division in place and then spend a couple hours cutting them to pieces with on target deliveries of conventional ordinance would just be stupid.

Within the first few hours of the aerial bombardment Iraqi forces in Kuwait had zero mobility. They could dig in and wait to be destroyed, or they could surrender, but they were immediately ineffective as an attacking force. There was no need to nuke them and destroy Kuwait in the process, and there would be no need to nuke the North Koreans and destroy South Korea in the process.

The only realistic application for a nominally "tactical" nuclear weapon is naval warfare. Given the number of shore defense diesel electric submarines that North Korea can deploy there may be some merit in using nuclear weapons there. Their boats would certainly be on "fire and die" status, but there could be consequences from that many boats each getting off a single shot. Firing a series of hull cracker ASROCs along their coast to "clear the air" is something the US Navy would probably consider. But there is really no way to consider those as "tactical" weapons...and no way to get away with contaminating a huge swath of the Pacific Ocean without international consequences.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If that were the case, India and Pakistan would have been quite a lot more browbeaten, which didn't happen.

The fact that it didn't happen with India and Pakistan is a big part of why it is recognized as such a high priority now. No one in the "nuclear club" is happy about having made that mistake. They aren't going to make it again. The only person on the planet that thinks having two nuclear armed countries on the Korean peninsula glaring at each other would be a good solution is Dingbat Donny, and no one really cares what he thinks.

 

[Akka]

I agree on that, most NK artillery would be dedicated to support the attack but some big shells would hit Seoul too with all probability. They have plenty of it after all. I would pack and get out the city asap anyway.

And if things start going wrong, high density of enemy forces invites to the use of tactical nukes more than anything else, which was my point.

Your points was that using tactical nukes is a credible possibility, which is not. Using nukes brings a colossal amount of baggage, and it'd be utterly stupid to use them when conventional bombing can get nearly the same results with relative ease.
It took the risk of losing an actual war on the ground against a non-nuclear armed country to even think about using them last time, that's not going to happen this one.

Why does everyone assume that NK taking Seoul would end the world? Is it really a huge deal of Seoul is occupied for a day or two (then liberated by NATO/US forces)?

It's above all a moot point. You don't overwhelm a defended multi-millions inhabitants city in a few hours, especially not when the opponent is stronger than you.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that the NK army would move to occupy Seoul; just ruin it with missiles from artillery and shots from more mobile forces.They can use their 4K tanks elsewhere. Point is that a huge number of people in Seoul will die, and their city won't be livable for a long time- well, if nukes are used, it won't be livable period.

 

[red_elk]

They should reunite the country, like Germany. Give security guarantees to NK leadership, withdraw US military and scrap nuclear weapons.
Dreams, I know. But from what I see, big boys don't even want to work in that direction.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think that the NK army would move to occupy Seoul; just ruin it with missiles from artillery and shots from more mobile forces.They can use their 4K tanks elsewhere. Point is that a huge number of people in Seoul will die, and their city won't be livable for a long time- well, if nukes are used, it won't be livable period.

Thing is that a country that is incapable of defending its own civilian population centers doesn't really want to take a conflict into the "ruin civilian population centers" level. To "ruin" Seoul invites retaliation, and either South Korea or the US would be fully capable of using air power to level every city in North Korea.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They should reunite the country, like Germany. Give security guarantees to NK leadership, withdraw US military and scrap nuclear weapons.
Dreams, I know. But from what I see, big boys don't even want to work in that direction.

Yeah, that is nothing like Germany. The US military didn't withdraw from Germany. East Germany didn't have any significant military programs of their own, much less nuclear weapons to scrap.

And China isn't on the verge of collapse like the Soviet Union was. They have no incentive to give their satellite over to reunification even if North Korea's leadership were willing.

 

[red_elk]

China and Russia would be perfectly fine with neutral, nuclear-free, united and stable Korea. USA and Japan shouldn't mind removing the risk of "rogue-state" having nuclear weapons targetet at them either. Provided US would have sensible foreign policy.
Korean people, I daresay want their country to be united too. It's very difficult task, but as one smart Asian said, the journey of thousand li starts with the first single step.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

China and Russia would be perfectly fine with neutral, nuclear-free, united and stable Korea.

Varying definitions of the word in bold are probably the sticking point here.

 

[Akka]

They should reunite the country, like Germany. Give security guarantees to NK leadership, withdraw US military and scrap nuclear weapons.
Dreams, I know. But from what I see, big boys don't even want to work in that direction.

Yeah, because NK is such a reasonable regime to deal with and it would totally accept to merge peacefully and lose its entire power and apparatus, if only the US and China agreed.

China and Russia would be perfectly fine with neutral, nuclear-free, united and stable Korea. USA and Japan shouldn't mind removing the risk of "rogue-state" having nuclear weapons targetet at them either. Provided US would have sensible foreign policy.

Ah yeah, nice China and Russia are fine with whatever people want, only the evil US are in the way
Especially amusing when you see how the China-sustained NK and the USA-sustained SK each look like.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The reason I use "" there is because for all practical purposes there is no such thing as a "tactical nuke." There are lower yield nuclear weapons that are nominally "available for tactical or strategic applications" but there has never been, and almost certainly never will be, any tactical application for them...including the one under discussion here.

Delivering a "destroy a division in seconds" weapon that also destroys everything around that division when it is no more difficult to neutralize and immobilize that division in place and then spend a couple hours cutting them to pieces with on target deliveries of conventional ordinance would just be stupid.

Within the first few hours of the aerial bombardment Iraqi forces in Kuwait had zero mobility. They could dig in and wait to be destroyed, or they could surrender, but they were immediately ineffective as an attacking force. There was no need to nuke them and destroy Kuwait in the process, and there would be no need to nuke the North Koreans and destroy South Korea in the process.

Kuwait was already invaded there was not any urgency to stop any army there. And how exactly did iraqi army became innefective as an attacking force in the first hours with only a few strikes? Would that also happen in North Korea? Or did that happened at all?

About destructive power of tactical nukes, take the B61 bomb for instance, which can be launched by a tiny fighter-bomber have an adjustable yield beetwen 0'3 and 300 kilotons, meaning that destruction radious can be adjusted to destroy only the few square kilometers where the enemy is in a given moment in the course of the battle. Not need to destroy whole South Korea. That is the idea and the reason for calling them tactical, but you can call them like you please of course.

Along western Germany being invaded by PacVar forces there is possibly not a more idoneous scenery than Korea for a possible use of tactical nukes. In fact there were tactical nukes deployed there since the Korean war but were retired some years ago, against the will of SK government who want to see them deployed again. Obviously that doesnt mean they could not be quickly redeployed and used or launched directly from long range bombers like the B-2.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Kuwait was already invaded there was not any urgency to stop any army there. And how exactly did iraqi army became innefective as an attacking force in the first hours with only a few strikes? Would that also happen in North Korea? Or did that happened at all?

Because an army that can't move is no longer an "attacking force." With constant uncontested overflights along the roads the Iraqi army was reduced to going over terrain, where they were destroyed from the air anyway, or hunkering in place.

You are correct that "Kuwait was already invaded." That happened because Kuwait had no significant military to resist with (South Korea does) and US forces had to be deployed before they could respond (there are two air wings permanently stationed in South Korea that would be responding within minutes of any incursion by North Korea, which is a significant difference).

Shortly after crossing the border any North Korean units that were not directly engaged with South Korean forces would be getting cut to pieces from the air. Any artillery that was firing into South Korea would be inviting return fire that would silence them. That would be the end of any progress for their invasion, and it would just be a question of time before they were in full retreat. You can't fight a ground war in the face of complete air superiority. It's not a realistic possibility, and everyone on the ground would know it.

Which brings us back around to there would be absolutely no need for a nuclear weapon here, tactical or otherwise.

 

[red_elk]

Yeah, because NK is such a reasonable regime to deal with and it would totally accept to merge peacefully and lose its entire power and apparatus, if only the US and China agreed.

It will be reasonable, as soon as it will get reasonable offer and stopped being threatened instead.

Ah yeah, nice China and Russia are fine with whatever people want, only the evil US are in the way
Especially amusing when you see how the China-sustained NK and the USA-sustained SK each look like.

That's not what I said.
Russia is quite on good terms with both Koreas, BTW.

 

[Commodore]

Thanks for the explanation mein general.

Yep, just continue to mock the people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to such matters. That's a fast road to not being taken seriously.

However i would like to add that you continue thinking in therms of that comfy glorious gulf war where you had a ton of time to bomb all those tanks in the desert waiting for your bombs as sitting duks. It is a very different case here. North Korea has the higher world concentration of heavy artillery already placed around Seoul. In case of war the first think would be NK trying a breakthrough and it could place a barrage much more dense and powerful that any bunch of long range missiles just over ROK defensive lines in matter of minutes, just before launching some thousands of tanks and lots of infantry through the field of craters. It is a very different and unpredictable fast paced scenery the one we have here where you may have not time to enjoy your technological superiority.

The only way that strategy has any chance of being successful though is if North Korea somehow launches a surprise attack, which is highly unlikely given the constant state of readiness both South Korean and US forces are in at all times. In any war where we are launching the first strike, that artillery isn't going to get the chance to fire before it is silenced. This is especially true when you consider that our GEOINT assets and UAV surveillance probably already have most of North Korea's artillery positions mapped out.

I mean, you seem to be talking as if you believe South Korean and US forces have not planned at all for this conflict and will just sit back and let North Korea execute their plans.

And if things start going wrong, high density of enemy forces invites to the use of tactical nukes more than anything else, which was my point.

Not really. There is nothing about North Korea's military that would make us panic enough to make the use of tactical nukes seem like a good idea, even if they did manage to occupy Seoul. The main reason being if North Korea did manage that breakthrough, the US would start calling up all of its allies to join in the fight and it would very quickly turn into North Korea vs. the world. There is more than enough conventional force to bring against North Korea that the use of tactical nukes would not become necessary unless the Chinese decided to enter the fight on North Korea's side. And given China's recent actions and statements, I don't really see that happening.

By the way, you still haven't really backed up your argument. You just restated your point in a more verbose manner to make it look like you are backing up your argument.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Which US allies would be likely to be part of a war there? UK? Australia? Canada? (pushing it) France? (which is going through elections). Did i forget Poland? Japan wouldn't really be usable against a Korean side, for obvious reasons. And UK deploying stuff over there would be very unpopular, let alone that the UK isn't really capable for such power projection and this isn't the era of the old Korean war either, to attract the whole nato into it.

Obviously, if it comes to that, the US can level stuff in N. Korea on its own, but again you are underestimating cowardice. Korea- like Serbia- is not flatland with exposed desert. An invasion would result to serious numbers of US dead, unless they go the usual way of bombing like a very brave side would do, for months

 

[Commodore]

An invasion would result to serious numbers of US dead,

No, it really wouldn't. Afghanistan wasn't open desert either and we hardly suffered any casualties in the initial invasion. If there is one thing the US military are experts at, it's invading nations quickly and with minimal casualties. It's the counter-insurgency war after the invasion that we struggle with.

unless they go the usual way of bombing like a very brave side would do, for months

The implication being that it's cowardice to do so? If so then I must ask: since when is it cowardice to fight smart? In war, if you are fighting your enemy on even terms, then you are doing it wrong. You use your strengths and exploit your enemy's weakness. So if we are facing an enemy that can't counter our air power, then we'd be stupid to not pound them with constant air strikes until there's no significant resistance left.

Which US allies would be likely to be part of a war there?

The usual suspects. The US could certainly count on support from the UK because they always come along with us on our military adventures. Japan is a strong possibility as well. They backed us in Iraq and they are very paranoid about the threat from North Korean missiles so they'd probably relish the opportunity to deal with that once and for all. If the UK goes, Australia would be almost certain to follow, although they would probably just send a token force. Canada wouldn't go because they simply aren't interested in wars. The only reason they sent forces to Afghanistan was to fulfill their NATO obligation. Whether or not France would come along depends on whether or not this takes place during or after their elections.

And UK deploying stuff over there would be very unpopular,

Meh, deploying forces to Iraq was unpopular in the UK as well, but that didn't really stop them now did it?

 

[Akka]

It will be reasonable, as soon as it will get reasonable offer and stopped being threatened instead.

Not sure if you're in the usual propagandist mode or if you're that genuinely blind to what NK is.