Time to build the bomb shelter? WW3 discussion thread

[Thorgalaeg]

Ah, but you did make an assumption. You assumed that ten years made them well-trained. Time in service is no indicator of how well-trained a soldier is.

That was just one minor detail in your entire interaction in this thread though. Your main point that North Korea could achieve a breakthrough to Seoul in a matter of hours was solely based on assumptions and when you were confronted by more than one poster with evidence as to why those assumptions were wrong, you just kept repeating yourself over and over again. And when you were finally pressed to elaborate on your main point, you just repeated your main point again and started making snide little comments.

If you argue the same thing again i will argue the same thing again. Resume of the thread:

Timsup2nothin: Look what happened in Iraq.
Me: Korea is not Iraq.

Akka: you didn't say how NK could break ROK lines.
Me: i said it, artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.

You: North Koreans are a bunch of backward cavemen and i know it all because i am James Commodore Bond.
Me: WTH?

 

[Commodore]

If you argue the same thing again i will argue the same thing again. Resume of the thread:

Timsup2nothin: Look what happened in Iraq.
Me: Korea is not Iraq.

Akka: you didn't say how NK could break ROK lines.
Me: i said it, artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.

You: North Koreans are a bunch of backward cavemen and i know it all because i am James Commodore Bond.
Me: WTH?

So you've now abandoned reality?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

And btw i didn't assumed ten years make good trained soldier. You assumed i did. Do you see the pattern?

In any case 10 years is longer than most professional careers in the military. Now you can make your assumptions.

 

[red_elk]

Poorly trained or not, there is also the factor of those koreans fighting in/for their homeland.

Memories about mass executions of suspected communist supporters during first Korean War can be a good motivator too.

 

[Yeekim]

If you argue the same thing again i will argue the same thing again. Resume of the thread:

Timsup2nothin: Look what happened in Iraq.
Me: Korea is not Iraq.

Akka: you didn't say how NK could break ROK lines.
Me: i said it, artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.

You: North Koreans are a bunch of backward cavemen and i know it all because i am James Commodore Bond.
Me: WTH?

Sorry, Thorgalaeg, you haven't exactly made a convincing case imho.

EDIT: NK artillery could undoubtedly cause massive damage and great civilian casualties to Seoul. But I find it hard to believe they'd be too effective against border fortifications that SK has had decades to build.
And while NK artillery hits "soft" targets in Seoul, they are vulnerable to counter-fire and aerial strikes.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If they are fortified enough to resist the artillery barrage then there is not initial breakthrough and everybody is happy. Pretty simple.

 

[Akka]

There is no issue some more rivers of blood can't solve :/

(general comment, not directed to any poster)

See my signature

 

[Akka]

Timsup2nothin: Look what happened in Iraq.
Me: Korea is not Iraq.

Akka: you didn't say how NK could break ROK lines.
Me: i said it, artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.

My own perception was a bit different. Let me share :

Timsup2nothin: Look what happened in Iraq.
Thorgalaeg: Korea is not Iraq.
Timsup2nothin: Yeah, but the differences are making it actually even worse for NK.
Thorgalaeg: Korea is not Iraq.
Timsup2nothin: Sure, but it makes it harder for a NK invasion.
Thorgalaeg: Korea is not Iraq.
Timsup2nothin: ...

Akka: you didn't say how NK could break ROK lines.
Thorgalaeg: i said it, artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.
Akka: Artillery would need a very long time to be able to damage enough the SK army to allow a breakthrough, and would be countered well before that.
Thorgalaeg: Artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.
Akka : You already said it, and we just told you why it wouldn't work.
Thorgalaeg: Artillery, artillery, artillery, artilleryyyy.
Akka: ...

Here, that sounds much more like the thread I'm reading.

 

[Lexicus]

Their long range artillery would wreck hundreds of thousands of casualties in Seoul before it could be destroyed. Even if the war is won afterwards, that's a cost that few want to pay.

I doubt it would cause all that many casualties, actually, because the South Koreans would evacuate the civilian population if they had any sense at all. Still can reduce a lot of it to rubble though which isn't exactly a good outcome.

 

[Kozmos]

Have logistics been mentioned? North Korea certainly can't fight a protracted war on enemy soil. Even so the evacuation would be a messy affair, if they had the time to do it even. South Korean police will be busy keeping the peace against North Korean SF raids, in fact they are trained to counter them and receive a fair bit of militarization themselves.

 

[Lexicus]

Would an evacuation be possible? The logistics seem very difficult.

Sure the logistics are difficult, but you have to figure a lot of people are going to refugee out if Seoul becomes a combat zone. You'd think the government would have some plans to make this process less...chaotic.
I did some poking and found plenty of references to American plans to evacuate US nationals in the event of war. Not much about S Korean plans to evacuate people from areas that could come under N Korean bombardment though.

 

[red_elk]

It's 10 million people in Seoul only. Half of entire Syria population.

 

[rah]

I don't think breaking through and taking Seoul was ever considered the objective.
The objective is the ability to drop so much artillery quickly and for all practical purposes destroy it.
Blackmail to keep the south/allies from invading. The threat is their only effective weapon. Once used, there is nothing that can effectively stop their destruction. I don't see how nukes change that equation in the short term. In the long term they will just be used as another threat.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe S.Korea can ask Israel to build a dome against missiles there
And - as a precation - some hyproponics.

 

[Yeekim]

Evacuating Seoul seems unrealistic, but I believe the city has taken building shelters rather seriously.

 

[rah]

How long does it take an artillery round to traverse the distance?
Shelters will only be so effective on a surprise attack.

NK just wants to be left alone so the top 10% can live in luxury while the rest of population pays the price.
All the rest is simple posturing.

 

[Broken_Erika]

North Korean Plan:
Step 1:Massive Artillery Barrage
Step 2:???
Step 3:Victory!

 

[aelf]

North Korean Plan:
Step 1:Massive Artillery Barrage
Step 2:???
Step 3:Victory!

But that is a workable strategy in Starcraft, and the S Koreans know that.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Here's one of the differences between North Korea and South Korea
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/north_south_korea

 

[Akka]

The question of whether DPRK could break through the DMZ is missing the point entirely.

Their long range artillery would wreck hundreds of thousands of casualties in Seoul before it could be destroyed. Even if the war is won afterwards, that's a cost that few want to pay.

This point has already been treated :

Bombing Seoul would be pointless for an offensive - it would serve only as a warning for the SK/US military, and allow for a massive missile/air barrage to counter-bomb the artillery. Civilian casualties would be terrible, but it would be military suicide. It's more a retaliation threat than an offensive one - STARTING a war with that would be completely stupid and counter-productive for NK.

Threatening Seoul is just that - a threat, a deterrence. It's a proof that NK is weak and trying to prevent being crushed, it's NOT a weapon to be used offensively.